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 two storey extension to the side gable at 5 Devenick Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 191183/DPP.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would be addressed by Mr Matthew Easton and advised Members that although Mr Easton 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 Jane Forbes, Planner; (2) the application dated 29 July 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 17 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 along with an accompanying statement with further information relating to the application; and (6) a letter of representation from the Council’s Roads Team.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Easton 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 Easton then described the site advising that it was located on the west side of Devenick Place. It comprised a two storey, end-of-terrace dwellinghouse, situated on a wedge-shaped plot extending to an area of some 205m².  The property had an enclosed rear garden, accessed along a 1m wide path which extended the length of the mutual boundary with 5 Devenick Place, which lay to the east. To the front (south), there was an area of garden ground and a dropped kerb which allowed access to an unsurfaced area of hardstanding utilised for parking.  On-street parking within the neighbourhood was controlled by permit.

He indicated that detailed planning permission was sought for the erection of a two-storey pitched roofed extension to the eastern gable of the house, to provide internal garage accommodation with bedroom accommodation above at first floor level.  The extension would extend to a width of some 4.5 metres along the front building line, reducing to a width of 2.4 metres at the rear, which would result in an angled side elevation which fits with the ‘wedge’ shaped site.

Mr Easton outlined the appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal advising that planning officers found that it would result in a scale of development which would be deemed excessive for the application site and which would not be in-keeping with the established pattern of development in the surrounding residential area. Whilst the general principle of residential development within this area was acceptable, the impact of the proposed development in this instance would be considered unacceptable for its context, given that it raised fundamental issues in terms of the design, scale and positioning of development within the site, and the adverse impact which this would have on the character and appearance of the area. On this basis the proposal failed to comply with the requirements of Policy H1 (Residential Areas), Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and the Supplementary Guidance on 'Householder Development’.

Mr Easton explained that planning officers indicated that the proposed development failed to deliver garage accommodation with internal dimensions required by 'Transport and Accessibility' guidance and had not sought to address the resulting shortfall in parking, thereby failing to comply with the Policy T2 (Managing the Transport Impact of Development).

In relation to the appellants case, Mr Easton indicated that the appeal statement highlighted four main grounds of appeal as follows:-

• that the proposal was only marginally out with the planning guidance and that due to the shape of the site this was the only option to form a side extension;
• that they disagreed that the proposal would be out of character and detrimental to the streetscape, indicating that the extension would sit comfortably in the area and would not be overbearing;
• that there were no objections from neighbours; and
• that the garage design provision had an area greater than the minimum standards and more generous than currently being allowed and constructed by developers in new housing development.

In relation to the consultee response, Mr Easton advised that the Council’s Roads Team objected to the proposal due to the garage being too small. He indicated that Garthdee Community Council did not provide any comments and there were no representations received from members of the public.

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 Easton outlined the relevant policy considerations, making reference to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017, namely policy H1 (Residential Areas: Householder Development), policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and Policy T2 (Transport and Accessibility).

In terms of material considerations, Mr Easton intimated that the applicant had provided details of several examples at other locations which they considered to be similar and act as precedents. He advised that the householder guidance stated that any extensions which were approved prior to the introduction of the guidance, which was 2017, would not be considered to provide justification for a proposal, which would otherwise fail to comply with the guidance. Of the five examples provided, Mr Easton indicated that three dated from the 1990s and the others were from 2006 and 2007, therefore no weight should be given to these examples in determining the review. Similarly, whilst examples of garages by housebuilders had been provided, no indication as to where these were or when they were approved were available so he suggested no weight should be given to this.

Mr Easton responded to a question from Councillor Mackenzie regarding the minimum standard for garage extensions and also from the Chairperson regarding the layout of the proposal and the photographs which had been shown.

The Chairperson and Councillors Allan and MacKenzie advised in turn and unanimously agreed 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.

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 extension was considered to be acceptable in terms of its size, design and layout within the site. It would sit comfortably in the street and would not have an adverse impact upon the character of the area, in accordance with Policy H1 (Residential Areas) and Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the ALDP. Although the dimensions of the garage did not meet the requirements of the Transport and Accessibility Supplementary Guidance and Policy T2 (Managing the Transport Impact of Development), it was considered that it could still be used to accommodate a vehicle and was therefore acceptable.

CONDITION - (01) EXTERNAL FINISHING MATERIALS

No development will take place unless details of the proposed external finishing materials for the extension have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter work should be undertaken in accordance with the approved details

Reason - to ensure that the development did not harm the visual amenity of the area.