Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the second 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 single storey extension to the rear and 1.5 storey extension to the gable at 107 Hilton Road Aberdeen, 190594/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 9 April 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 5 June 2019 (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the agent along with an accompanying statement.

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 and explained that planning permission was sought for the erection of an extension to the side and rear, which comprised two separate elements, at 107 Hilton Road Aberdeen.  A 1.5 storey gable extension and a single storey extension to the rear.  The gable extension would be 2.2m in width and would extend along the full length of the gable to within 169mm of the frontage with a pitched roof sitting 228mm below the existing ridge.  The gable extension would be constructed with granite ashlar blocks to the front and rear elevations and roughcast to the gable wall.  To the rear the extension would be single storey, 4.47m in width and with a projection of 2.25m from the original dwelling and would extend across the new extension and part of the original rear elevation.  The roof would also be flat and 2.6m in height. 

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

·         The gable extension would be architecturally incongruous in the context of both the original dwelling and the surrounding area;

·         The proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area;

·         There would be an architectural imbalance between the application property and the adjoining hipped roofed property and contended that this imbalance would disrupt the uniform character of the hipped roofed properties on Hilton Road and create a disruptive architectural feature within a street that otherwise retains its original form and character;

·         Identifieed direct conflict with Aberdeen City Council’s ‘Householder Development Guide’ Supplementary Guidance;

·         The lack of consideration for its context was seen as being to the detriment of residential character and visual amenity, and therefore the application is considered to be contrary to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan’s Policies D1: Quality Placemaking by Design and H1: Residential Areas;

·         Noted the potential for approval to risk a precedent for similar proposals being granted and highlights the cumulative effect if such proposals were repeated in the surrounding area; and

·         Concluded that the proposal did not accord with the Development Plan, and identified no material planning considerations that would warrant a grant of planning permission contrary to the local plan policies and guidance.

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

·         Contended that the proposal was supported by the vision of the Strategic Development Plan;

·         Argued that it complied with the Local Development Plan, which included policies H1, H3, D1 and relevant Supplementary Guidance;

·         Was supported by other material considerations, including Scottish Planning Policy, a previous permission granted in 2005, and Permitted Development rights applicable to dwellinghouses; and

·         Argues that there was a variety of dwelling types and forms (flats, terraced houses, etc), so there was no particular uniformity to be interrupted by this extension.

In relation to consultee responses, Mr Evans advised that none were received and no letters of representation were received either.   

Mr Evans then advised that the applicant had expressed the view that no further procedure should take place, and that the application should be determined without further procedure.    

The Chairperson and Councillors Mason and Wheeler 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) 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

The Chairperson and Councillors Mason and Wheeler advised in turn and 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 gable extension would appear architecturally incongruous with the original dwelling and the surrounding area, and would have an adverse impact on the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area as it would result in architectural imbalance between the application property and the adjoining hipped roofed property, which would disrupt the uniform character of the hipped roofed properties on Hilton Road and create a disruptive architectural feature within a street that otherwise retains its original form and character. This is in direct conflict with the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide'. It would appear out of context and have a negative design contribution on its setting, to the detriment of residential character and visual amenity and the application is therefore contrary to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan Policies D1: Architecture and Placemaking and H1: Residential Areas, of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and the relevant Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide. Furthermore, it could set a precedent for similar proposals being granted under current policies and guidance which, cumulatively, would have a significant adverse impact on the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area. In this instance, there are no material planning considerations that would warrant a grant of planning permission, contrary to the local plan policies and guidance.