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 including first floor terrace with carpet below; formation of a new window opening in rear gable; installation of replacement of windows at upper floor; alterations to boundary wall and landscaping works in front cartilage to create garden area and parking spaces at 16-18 Fountainhall Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 191169/DPP.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Gavin Evans and advised 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 Jamie Leadbeater, Planner; (2) the application dated 22 July 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 29 November 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 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 the property in question was a detached 3-storey granite villa which contained two separate flats. The building fronted onto Fountainhall Road, with its side elevation onto Fountainhall Lane. The ground floor flat was accessed from the front, with a door in the side elevation providing access to stairs serving the upper flat. On the other side of the lane lies Blenheim House, a modern office building. There were three existing garage buildings within the plot, all of which were accessed via Fountainhall Lane. One of these directly adjoins the rear of the house, one abuts and sits parallel to the southern boundary to Fountainhall Lane, and the last sits in the north-eastern corner of the site. The area to the front of the property was laid to hardstanding and enclosed by hedging, whilst the rear garden was enclosed by granite rubble walling of circa 1.8m in height. Traditional granite lean-to outbuildings are present on the northern boundary.

Mr Evans intimated that the site was located in an area the Aberdeen Local Development Plan identified as an H1 Residential Area. It also was situated within the Albyn Place & Rubislaw Conservation Area.

Mr Evans outlined the appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal, which included the following factors:-

• The proposed extension would not suitably respect the scale, form and character of the existing historic building;
• Would therefore have a detrimental impact on the character and amenity of the Albyn Place/Rubislaw Conservation Area;
• As a result, the proposal would be at odds with Policy H1 (Residential Areas), Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and Policy D4 (Historic Environment) in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017, as well as the relevant sections of Scottish Planning Policy, Historic Environment Policy for Scotland and Historic Environment Scotland Guidance on ‘‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Guidance Notes’’;
• The scale of hard surface landscaping, including car parking, in the front curtilage was of detriment to the character of the Fountainhall Road streetscene – especially between Fountainhall Lane and Desswood Place - and therefore was of detriment to the character and amenity of the Albyn Place/Rubsilaw Conservation Area, placing the proposal at odds with the aims of Policy D4 (Historic Environment) in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017.

Mr Evans indicated that the applicant had sought the introduction to the proceedings of four letters of support from local ward members which had not been submitted prior to determination of the application by the appointed Planning Officer.

Lisa Christie, Legal Adviser provided information and advice relating to the review process, specifically making reference to Section 43B of the Town and County Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) regarding the introduction of new matters before the Review Body.

The Local Review Body agreed unanimously that no exceptional circumstances existed as to why the four letters of support could not have been submitted in good time, therefore they did not accept these into the proceedings for consideration. Additional colour visualisations which had not been uploaded to the Council’s website by officers were included as part of the proceedings.

In relation to the appellants case, Mr Evans indicated that the appeal statement highlighted the following:-

·     That the hardstanding to the front was authorised and therefore no longer a valid reason for refusal;

·     Noted that the authorised officer’s report did not take issue with the replacement garage, noted that the proposal did not represent overdevelopment of the site, and concluded that residential amenity of neighbouring properties would not be jeopardised;

·     Noted the lack of objection from any neighbours or statutory consultees and highlighted support from local members;

·     Contended that the proposal complied with policy H1 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and the Council’s Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance and Historic Environment Scotland’s Managing Change publication relating to extensions;

·     Contended that the manner in which the rear extension wrapped around the corner of the historic rear offshoot was in keeping with other end-terrace properties in the street/surrounding area;

·     Noted that the Conservation Area (CA) Character Appraisal and Management Plan did not identify detached outbuildings as making a significant contribution to the character of the CA, but this proposal would facilitate positive change in historic environment by giving new use to them; and

·     Utilised materials appropriate to the building and its setting, resulting in a high quality contemporary extension that enhanced the CA and complied with Development Plan.

In relation to the consultee response, Mr Evans advised that the Council’s Roads Team stated that an adequate level of car parking appeared to have been provided but the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed car parking facilities meet the minimum technical car parking standards. He indicated that Queen's Cross & Harlaw Community did not provide any comments and there were no representations received from members of the public.

The Chairperson and Councillors Henrickson and Macdonald 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, making reference to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 - H1 (Residential Areas: Householder Development); policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design); Policy D4 (Historic Environment); Supplementary Guidance -Householder Development Guide; Windows Supplementary Guidance; Scottish Planning Policy – Conservation Areas; Historic Environment Scotland Managing Change Guidance: Extensions and also Windows;

In terms of material considerations, Mr Evans intimated that the following key points are of relevance:-

·     Zoning: Policy H1; and

·     Design: Policy D1.

Mr Easton responded to questions from members, specifically in relation to the extension wraparound to gable end, visibility, the proposed railings, the pitched roof garage and outbuildings.

Members agreed by a majority of two to one to reverse the decision of the appointed officer and to approve the application conditionally.

The Chairperson and Councillor Henrickson indicated in turn that they were minded to overturn the officer’s decision and to approve the application, as stated below.

Councillor Macdonald supported the appointed officer’s reasons 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:-

That the proposal would not constitute overdevelopment of the site, and would allow for the adaptation of the building in order that it may remain viable for modern family living. Members considered that the integrity of the main property would be retained and, whilst the wrap-around nature of the proposed extension was not ideal, this would not be apparent from outwith the site and on balance was found to be acceptable. The proposed extension was considered to be relatively sympathetic compared to some other more contrasting examples observed, and its scale was considered to be appropriate to that of the original building.

It was noted that the reinstatement of a landscaped front garden, replacement of existing UPVC windows with timber sash and case frames and introduction of traditional railings would represent improvements appropriate to their context, and that the existing garages to be removed are of little architectural or historic value. Furthermore, the retention and refurbishment of granite outbuildings was welcomed. On balance, it was considered that the proposal would not result in a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the Albyn Place and Rubislaw Conservation Area, and that it would comply with policies H1 (Residential Areas), D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and D4 (Historic Environment) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, as well as the associated guidance contained in the 'Repair and Replacement of Windows and Doors' and 'Householder Development Guide' Supplementary Guidance publications. The lack of objection to the proposal was also noted.

CONDITIONS

1.                Materials / Finishes

That no development shall take place unless a scheme detailing all external finishing materials to the roof and walls of the development hereby approved (for the avoidance of doubt, this shall include physical samples on a sample board) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority and thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed - in the interests of visual amenity.

2.               Car parking

That the development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless the car parking areas hereby granted planning permission have been constructed, drained, laid-out and demarcated in accordance with drawing No. 1514-PL-130 REV B of the plans hereby approved or such other drawing as may subsequently be submitted and approved in writing by the planning authority. Such areas shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose other than the purpose of the parking of cars ancillary to the development and use thereby granted approval - in the interests of public safety and the free flow of traffic.

3.               Sash and Case Windows

That the window(s) hereby approved shall be constructed in full accordance with the detailed cross sections submitted and approved with the application (drawing ref. 1514-PL-150 REV A) and that the visible part of the outer frame of the front windows hereby approved shall not exceed 25 mm in width at the top and sides of the window opening with the remainder of the frame being concealed behind the masonry window check, unless the planning authority has given prior written approval for a variation-in order to preserve the character of the conservation area.

4.               Construction method statement for rubble wall

That no development pursuant to this planning permission shall commence unless a detailed site-specific construction method statement demonstrating the detailing and construction of the new section of granite rubble boundary wall has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The method statement must address include 1:20 drawings with a full specification - in order to ensure that this is appropriate to its context and preserves the character and appearance of the Albyn Place and Rubislaw Conservation Area.

5.               Railing details

That no development pursuant to this planning permission shall commence unless full details of the metal railings on the approved elevation drawing 1514-PL-141-rev A have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Submissions shall include details of materials, thickness, painted finish, means of fixing, as well as detail drawings showing full specification of any plinth, support uprights, balusters, coping rail,  baluster heads and finials.  Thereafter, all works shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details - in order to preserve the character and appearance of the Albyn Place and Rubislaw Conservation Area.