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 extension, single storey extension/decking with external steps and an extension of the dormer to the rear, alterations to the boundary wall and fence replacement at 11 Gordon Road Aberdeen, planning reference 190575.

Councillor Boulton as Chair, gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken, advising 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 Mr Nicholas Lawrence, Senior Planner (2) the application dated 3 April 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 24 May 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) a letter of representation.

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 explained that the site in question was a residential plot, located on the eastern side of Gordon Road, approximately 50m south of its junction with Craigton Road.

Mr Evans then described the site and advised that the dwelling and its adjoining semi-detached neighbour, were of a hipped-roof style, and each featured a hipped-roof dormer window on the front elevation to Gordon Road, along with flat roofed dormers to the rear. A driveway ran down the side of the application property, giving access to a garage located beyond the rear wall of the house. There was also an existing flat-roofed porch to the rear. The properties were constructed in a combination of grey and pink granite, with slated roofs.  The adjoining neighbour has a flat-roofed single storey extension to the side.

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

The extension would harm the currently matching appearance of this pair of semi-detached houses, and would also harm the character and appearance of the wider area, contrary to policies D1 and H1 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, its associated ‘Householder Development Guide’ Supplementary Guidance, and the national guidance contained in Scottish Planning Policy and Planning Advice Note 67 on Housing Quality.

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

(1)  Highlighted that the Appointed Officer’s report raised no objections to the single-storey rear extension or the area of decking;

(2)  Contended that the planning authority’s verbal advice differed from that subsequently given in writing;

(3)  Provided analysis of the surrounding context, based upon the Appointed Officer’s stated reasons for refusal, and concluded that the officer’s observations of the local area were flawed; and

(4)  Contended that extensions at 26 Craigton Road and 7 Craigton Avenue were strikingly similar, but were discounted by the Appointed Officer’s report.

In relation to consultation, Mr Evans indicated that there were no comments from statutory consultees. 

Mr Evans advised that one letter of representation had been received from Aberdeen Civic Society and they objected on the basis that it would disrupt the traditional nature of the street elevation, and encourages Aberdeen City Council to control this type of development in order to retain the character of such streets. They also noted that proposals of this type were becoming more prevalent.

Mr Evans indicated that the applicant had indicated on the Notice of Review that no further procedure was required, and that the application could be determined without further procedure. 

The Chairperson and Councillors Mason and Wheeler advised in turn that they would all had enough information to proceed without further procedure and were content to make a decision today 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) and D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design).  Mr Evans also highlighted the Householder Development Guide, Supplementary Guidance and noted the general principles of:-

o   Proposals should be architecturally compatible in design and scale with the original house and surrounding area;

o   Extensions should not dominate or overwhelm the original house;

o   Extensions should remain visually subservient;

o   No extension should result in a situation where amenity of neighbouring properties would be adversely affected in terms of privacy, daylight and general amenity;

o   Earlier developments approved before the guidance was introduced would not be accepted as justification in support of proposals that otherwise fail to comply with these criteria;

o   The footprint of a dwelling (as extended) should not exceed twice that of the original house; and

o   No more than 50% of the front or rear curtilage may be covered by development

Mr Evans also provided details on hipped roofs and explained that modifying only one half of a hipped roof was likely to result in the roof having an unbalanced appearance and noted that extending a hipped roof on one half of a pair of semis to terminate at a raised gable would not be accepted unless the other half had already been altered in this way, or the proposal would not, as a result of the existing streetscape and character of the buildings, result in any adverse impact on the character or visual amenity of the area. 

The Chairperson and Councillors Mason and Wheeler advised in turn and agreed by majority 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 conditionally.  Councillor Mason voted to uphold the appointed officers decision to refuse the application and the Chairperson and Councillor Wheeler voted to 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 noted that the principle of extending a dwelling in a residentially zoned area is accepted by policy H1 of the Local Development Plan. Members noted that there is some variety in roof styles and earlier means of extension in the surrounding area, including examples which are very similar to this proposal. Members expressed support for this proposal’s retention of a partial roof hip, and considered that the alteration to the roof profile and its relationship to the adjoining property would not be sufficient to adversely affect the character of the wider area. On this basis the LRB concluded that the proposal would accord with the relevant provisions of the development plan, namely policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and H1 (Residential Areas), as well as the Council’s ‘Householder Development Guide’ Supplementary Guidance.

CONDITIONS

(1)  No development pursuant to this grant of planning permission shall be commenced unless full details of the materials and finishes of the roof and walls of the extension have been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the planning authority. Thereafter, development shall be carried out in full accordance with the details so agreed – in the interests of visual amenity.

(2)  The approved extension shall not be brought into use unless off-street car parking has been provided in accordance with drawing GR004 – in the interests of ensuring adequate provision of car parking within the site, in accordance with policy T2 (Managing the Transport Impact of Development) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and the associated ‘Transport and Accessibility’ Supplementary Guidance.