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 single storey extension to the rear with terrace above and external access stairs at 20 Kirk Crescent South, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 190691/DPP.

Councillor Stewart 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 Ross McMahon, Planner; (2) the application dated 24 April 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 11 October 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 one-and-a-half storey detached dwelling with a western facing principal elevation.  The property had an integrated single garage covered within the 1989 grant of planning permission and there was a large rear garden to the east of the property.

He indicated that the site was bounded to the north by 5 Kirk Drive, a two-storey dwelling with its principal elevation to the north and its garden area to the west rather that the rear of the dwelling.  In terms of characterisation, no one style or form of dwelling was prevalent in the area and there had been extensions to dwellings in the area, and principally these were to the rear and typically single-storey.  Mr Evans also explained that the site was located in a Residential Area in the Local Development Plan 2017.

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 proposed development by reason of its composition, form, mass, scale and height would harm the character of the original dwelling and would dominate the form of the host dwelling and would constitute over development;

·         The proposed roof top terrace would adversely affect the living conditions of neighbouring residents with regard to privacy and overlooking adjacent private amenity space which were contrary to policies D1 and H1; and

·         There were no material planning considerations of sufficient weight that would warrant approval of the application. 

·          

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

(1)  The property had not been extended or altered for 30 years;

(2)  The proposal allowed for the formation of a modern living/kitchen/dining area, as well as allowing for a bedroom to be located on the ground floor, offering greater accessibility in the future;

(3)  Highlighted the presence of high fencing and hedging/landscaping which almost completely screens the rear of the property;

(4)  Contended that the proposal does comply with the general principles set out in the Householder Development Guide, Supplementary Guidance;

(5)  Suggested that the weight placed by the appointed officer on the criteria relating to the doubling of the original dwelling’s footprint was undue given the scale of the extension proposed and the size of the site; and

(6)  Highlighted the lack of objection from any neighbours on the basis of scale.

In relation to consultation, Mr Evans indicated that Culter Community Council submitted two separate submissions.  The first of these noted that privacy had been highlighted as a key factor by a neighbouring resident and noted that the neighbour had stated no objection to an extension in principle. The Community Council advised they would leave to planning officers to assess the privacy impact.  However in June, the Community Council noted that they had met with the applicant at his property and been reassured of his intention to address any such impacts, indicating that the neighbour’s view concerns could be overstated.

 Mr Evans advised that one letter of representation had been received from 5 Kirk Drive and the main concerns were in regard to the roof terrace for reasons of invasion of privacy and loss of amenity. 

Mr Evans indicated that the applicant had indicated on the Notice of Review that further procedure was required, recommending that a site visit be undertaken before determination of the application.

Councillors MacKenzie and Wheeler advised in turn that they would like a site visit to be held before determination of the application.  The Chairperson advised that she had enough information to determine the item without a site visit. 

At this point, the LRB considered whether they had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review.  By way of majority, the Local Review Body agreed to hold a site visit for the application and the date would be agreed in due course.