How can we help you...

Agenda item

Erection of single storey extension and garage to side and rear - 1 Argyll Crescent Aberdeen - 181557


The Local Review Body then considered the third request for a review to erect a single storey extension and garage to the side and rear of 1 Argyll Crescent Aberdeen, 181557/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 Sheila Robertson, Planning Technician; (2) the application dated 28 August 2018; (3) the decision notice dated 16 November 2018 (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) consultee comments from the Roads Development Management team and also two letters of representations; and (6) 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.


Mr Evans then described the site advising that the application site is an end-terrace property of a traditional style, offering accommodation across two storeys. The property is category B listed and sits at the western end of a curving crescent that addresses the junction of Westburn Road and Westburn Drive.  A single vehicular access and shared driveway serves all properties in the crescent. Each property has its own rear garden (narrowing to the far end), and there is also a shared green beyond. The property’s roof is asymmetrically pitched, so it presents to the front as a single storey with dormer windows, but the rear elevation shows a full two masonry storeys, with a higher wall head and shallower pitch to the rear roofslope. To the west of number 1 is a private lane which runs to the north, serving garages to the rear of properties on Westburn Drive. An access has been formed in the western boundary wall, which allows car parking within the rear garden.  The site is located in the Rosemount and Westburn Conservation Area.


In terms of the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal, Mr Evans made reference to the following factors in the decision notice:-

      not designed with due consideration for context – refers to volume, detail, excessive scale and projection;

      negative impact on the appearance of the building;

      detracts from character and integrity of the listed building and setting of the terrace;

      disrupts the rhythm and pattern of the development to the rear of the terrace;

      there is an adverse impact on character of wider Conservation Area; and

      conflicts with H1 (residential areas) and D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design).


In relation to the appellant’s case, Mr Evans highlighted the following from the Review statement:-

·         goes through email exchanges with officers since initial pre-application discussions.;

·         draw attention to the planning authority’s characterisation of the rear wing as an ‘extension’, and highlight plans of the property from 1889 which indicate that it is an original part of the building, and therefore should not be considered included in any assessment of cumulative extension to the property;

·         notes that number 1 was built as a standalone building, with the remining 12 buildings in the crescent added 2 years later;

·         criticises the negative tone of pre-application advice and ultimately ACC’s refusal to enter into further dialogue;

·         states that the volume, scale and projection of the proposal have been influenced by the planning authority’s advice that a new opening in the boundary wall would not be supported;

·         highlights that efforts to purchase a garage in the area have been restricted by the insufficient length of those garages to accommodate a large modern vehicle;

·         putting sun room/utility extension in without separate garage would leave the residents with no private parking space;

·         notes differences between this property and the remainder of the terrace;

·         contends limited wider impact due to the location adjacent to lane;

·         highlights that the decoration and adornment of the building is to its front elevation – the rear is more utilitarian; and

·         contends that the quality of this extension is much more appropriate to its context than many approved in the past.

In terms of consultee responses, Mr Evans advised that the Roads Development Management Team objected to the application on the grounds that the garage does not achieve the 5.7m aspect internally, as stipulated in the council’s Transport and Accessibility SG.  Mr Evans also stated that one letter of objection was received and one that was in support


Mr Evans indicated that the applicant had expressed the view that further procedures were required before determination.


At this point, the LRB considered whether they had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review.  The Chairperson stated that she wished a site visit be held prior to determining the review.  The Local Review Body then agreed that the review under consideration should be adjourned in order for a site visit to be conducted in due course.