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, replacement dormer and formation of door to the rear, formation of two openings in side boundary wall to form gated entrances and driveway to the rear at 59 Desswood Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 190884/DPP.

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, Mr Mark Masson 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 Mr Masson, 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 Trainee; (2) the application dated 31 May 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 23 August 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) letters 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 then described the site advising that it was a traditional 1½ storey granite semi-detached property on the southern side of Desswood Place, facing onto that street and located at its junction with a rear lane which served properties on Blenheim Place and Fountainhall Road.

He indicated that the property spans 1½ storeys advising the upstairs accommodation was in the roof space, with significant alteration and extension evident to the rear. There was a more recent rendered extension added on to a traditional granite and slate offshoot, which may have been an original feature of the property. There were two dormers located on the front elevation and one on the rear, with a further dormer on the existing rear extension facing the site onto the lane.

He advised that the site was situated within the Albyn Place & Rubislaw Conservation Area.

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:-

·         Two storey extension would be architecturally incongruous in relation to the original dwelling;

·         Noted that the side/rear elevation was highly visible, such that the extension would be detrimental to the character of the wider conservation area;

·         Potential to set an unwelcome precedent for development of similar scale and design, to the further detriment of the conservation area;

·         Conflict with Scottish Planning Policy, Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement, and policies D1, D4, H1 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (ALDP), as well as Householder Supplementary Guidance and Historic Environment Scotland ‘Managing Change’ guidance on Extensions;

·         Proposed raised decking would adversely affect privacy of the garden and living room at neighbouring 57 Desswood Place and conflict with policies H1 and D1 of the ALDP; and

·         No material considerations that outweigh this and justify approval.

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

(1)  Provided extensive commentary on various exchanges both at Pre-Application stage and during the life of the application;

(2)  Contended that the proposal sat lower than the existing building and therefore is of an appropriate scale, compatible with the original house and the surrounding area; 

(3)  Considered that this was a subservient addition to the existing dwelling, and due to its location to the rear was not prominent within the area; 

(4)  Noted that the agents had offered to drop the decked area to a lower level or remove completely, or alternatively provide screening for the deck, highlighting the neighbour’s lack of objection;

(5)  Contended that the first floor element of the proposal was no larger than the existing upper floor; and

(6)  Concluded that the proposal accorded with all aspects of the relevant policies.

In relation to (1) above, Mr Evans advised that this was of no relevance to the LRB’s consideration of the proposal and they should consider the application afresh on its own merits.

In relation to (4) above, Mr Evans explained that this did not reflect the current proposal being reviewed, and the Planning Authority considered this on the basis of its impact on residents now and in the future, not just the present occupants.

In relation to consultation, Mr Evans indicated that the Roads Team had no objection to the proposal and that there was no response from the local Community Council. Mr Evans advised that one letter of representation had been received.

Mr Evans indicated that the applicant had indicated on the Notice of Review that further procedure was required, recommending that one or more hearings be undertaken, however confusingly, the review statement then referred to a site visit also being required.

The Chairperson and Councillors Allan and MacKenzie advised in turn that they each had enough information before them and 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 in great detail referring to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017, namely policies H1 (Residential Areas: Householder Development); D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design); D4 (Historic Environment); and Householder Supplementary Guidance (General Principles and Dormers).

He also made reference to Historic Environment Scotland guidance on Extensions from ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment Series” and Scottish Planning Policy relating to conservation areas.

Mr Evans 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 proximity of the dormer window to the edge of the property and the height of the extension.

The Chairperson and Councillors Allan and MacKenzie 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 two storey rear extension would be architecturally incongruous by virtue of its design, massing, scale and form with the historic gable roofed form of the original dwelling, the prominent publicly visible rear elevation of the pair of semi-detached properties, and the surrounding area. The proposed extension would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Albyn Place and Rubislaw Conservation Area. The grant of planning permission could set an unwelcome precedent for extensions in the conservation area of a design and scale that would be incongruous to the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposed extension would therefore conflict with Scottish Planning Policy; Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement; Policies D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design, D4 – Historic Environment and H1 – Residential Areas of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, the Supplementary Guidance: ‘The Householder Development Guide’; and Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Extensions. The proposed raised decking would have a significant adverse impact on the level of privacy, and thus residential amenity afforded to the rear living room and the rear garden of 57 Desswood Place, in conflict with H1 – Residential Areas and Policies D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan; and the Supplementary Guidance: ‘The Householder Development Guide’. There are no material planning considerations that warrant the grant of planning permission in this instance.