Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the third 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 1.5 storey extension to the front of the property at 108A North Deeside Road, Planning Reference 190441/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 Roy Brown, Planning Trainee; (2) the application dated 15 March 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 4 June 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 along with an accompanying statement with further information relating to the application; and (6) consultee responses from the Community Council and the Roads Development Management Team and also two letters of representation from neighbouring properties.

 

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 outlined the application site advising that the property was located in the residential suburb of Peterculter, to the west of Aberdeen. It sat on the northern side of North Deeside Road, opposite its junction with Station Road East and immediately adjacent to Eastleigh Nursing Home. Number 108A sat back from other properties on North Deeside Road, at the very north-western corner of the plot that was shared with 108. The 1.5 storey detached granite dwelling was of a traditional style but had been extended via the addition of two flat-roofed garages to the southern gable. A roof terrace area had been formed above one of those garages, accessible via a door from a first floor bedroom.

 

Mr Evans indicated that the application site was located within a designated ‘residential area’ in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

 

In terms of Planning history for the property, Mr Evans revealed that an application had been submitted in June 2018 and subsequently withdrawn prior to determination. Planning permission had been refused in January 2019 for the same extension, with the difference being that this application had shown the two existing garages to the south of the dwelling being removed, such that the cumulative floorspace would be less than considered in the previous application.

 

Mr Evans explained that planning permission was now sought for a large 1.5 storey extension, projecting from the front/east elevation of the house. This pitched roof extension would project more than 8 metres 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 a form of cladding applied to the east elevation, which the drawings did not specify.

 

Mr Evans made reference to the Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal, making reference to the following factors included within the decision notice:-

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

·         Conflict with Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance, policies D1 and H1;

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

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

In relation to the appellant’s case set out in the Notice of Review and separate review statement, the submission drew attention to the following:-

·         Client required additional space for family;

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

·         Argued that the removal of the two existing garages meant that the proposal now addressed the concerns previously expressed by the Local Review Body;

·         Highlighted that officers raised no concern about the width of the extension until the decision was made;

·         Contended that the Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance allowed for an extension to double the original footprint;

Mr Evans explained that the above guidance stated that extensions should not double the footprint, which did not follow that anything less was acceptable, based on context.

 

·         Claimed that the proposal accorded with the guidance given by officers in November and December 2018;

Mr Evans pointed out that members were not assessing the proposal against correspondence with the case officer, but against the Development Plan.

 

·         Suggested that the planning authority did not give due regard to the proposed removal of two existing garages as a means of reducing the cumulative footprint of the dwelling as proposed; and

·         Highlighted that a complaint was made regarding the handling of the application which reiterated dissatisfaction with timescales for reply and requests to extend determination period.

 

In terms of consultee responses, Mr Evans advised that Culter Community Council had objected to the application for the following reasons:-

·         it proposed exactly the same extension as was refused planning permission under Ref: 181783/DPP;

·         Whilst removing the garages would change the arithmetic in terms of built footprint, the other reasons for the previous refusal had not been addressed;

·         The neighbours’ concerns regarding loss of privacy had not been allayed as the application had not been altered and the primary glazing for the main living area was floor-to-ceiling across the east façade; and

·         The proposal would be over-development of the site and an inappropriate precedent for the immediate area. They indicated that should the Planning Authority be minded to grant planning permission, they should request a condition forbidding security lighting spilling into the neighbouring property.

The Council’s Roads Development Management Team had no objection or roads concerns.

 

Two letters of objection were received at the time of the from residents at 104 and 106 North Deeside Road (NDR). The matters raised included:-

·         Overlooking from Ground Floor windows in the east elevation of the extension into 106 NDR;

·         Highlighted recent development at 102 NDR, which had affected privacy to 104 – this was considered to cause further loss of privacy to 104;

·         Proposal represented over-development and would set an inappropriate precedent; and

·         Highlighted problems with security lighting and CCTV cameras at 108 NDR and suggested that similar equipment could be installed on the extended 108A NDR.

Mr Evans intimated that the applicant had indicated on the Notice of Review that he did consider that further procedure by way of a site visit was necessary as part of the review.

 

The Chairperson and Councillors Macdonald and Reynolds all indicated in turn that they each had enough information before them and therefore agreed 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 Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 and Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide.

 

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 garages and the cladding and rendering materials being used.

 

Following discussion, Members agreed by a majority of two to one to reverse the appointed officer’s earlier decision. Planning permission was therefore granted conditionally.

 

The Chairperson and Councillor Reynolds were in favour of approving the application. Councillor Macdonald agreed with the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application as outlined in the Decision Notice.

 

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 LRB considered that the proposed extension would remain subservient to the existing house and did not agree with the appointed officer’s conclusions regarding non-compliance with policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan. Members considered that the proposal would not result in any undue loss of privacy or impact on amenity and noted that the property is not highly visible from North Deeside Road.

 

CONDITIONS

 

(1)  No development pursuant to this grant of planning permission shall be undertaken unless further details of the materials to be used in the roof and walls of the extension (including submission of physical samples) have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter, all works shall be carried out using the materials so agreed.

 

Reason: In order to ensure that materials are appropriate to their context, in accordance with policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

 

(2)  That, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority, no external lighting shall be affixed to the walls of the extension hereby approved.

 

Reason: to protect safeguard residential amenity in neighbouring properties.

 

(3)  That, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority, no development pursuant to the construction of the approved extension shall take place unless the 2no existing garages to the south of the dwelling have first been demolished.

 

Reason: In order to ensure removal of the existing garages and thereby ensure compliance with the Council’s Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance as regards cumulative footprint.

-           COUNCILLORS MARIE BOULTON AND JENNIFER STEWART, Chairpersons