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 detailed planning permission the erection of a single storey extension to the side at 4 Deemount Road Aberdeen, 200440. 

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 Local Review 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 3 April 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 1 July 2020 (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the agent along with an accompanying statement.

The Local Review Body then heard from Mr Evans, who explained 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 and advised that the property was located on the southern side of Deemount Road on the western side of its junction with Deemount Gardens.  The site was a residential curtilage which comprised a detached L-shaped bungalow along with associated garden grounds.  The property is described as being designed with dual frontages, facing onto both Deemount Road and Deemount Gardens.  The white rendered property had both pitched and hipped roof elements, with the roof finished in red roof tiles.

The application site was located in an area which the Aberdeen Local Development Plan identifies as a Residential Area, where H1 applies.  The site also lies immediately to the east of but outside, the Ferryhill Conservation Area. 

In regard to the proposal, Mr Evans explained planning permission was sought for the erection of a single-storey, flat roofed extension of a contemporary design to the front/side of the dwellinghouse.  This would measure approximately 5.4metres by 5.8metres with a height of 3.7metres.  The extension would be finished in grey vertical timber cladding, with a smooth grey cement basecourse.  The north and south elevations would feature large windows with a horizontal emphasis.

Mr Evans outlined the appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal as follows:-

·        The proposal would not respect the character and appearance of the existing dwellinghouse, as well as the character and appearance of other dwellinghouses in the immediate surrounding area.  Siting, projection, disproportioned contemporary form, large window openings and finishes were cited as contributing factors;

·        The impact would be exacerbated by extension’s siting forward of the building line to Deemount Gardens and its prominent location at the junction of Deemount Road and Deemount Gardens;

·        Fails to comply with Policies H1 (Residential Areas) and D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) as well as Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance; and

·        Highlighted that the existing hedging may be removed without planning permission, so cannot be relied upon for mitigating visual impact. 

Mr Evans highlighted the following key points from the appellant’s review statement:-

·        They highlighted the need for a second bathroom and additional storage space;

·        They explained that an extension can only realistically be sited on the east side of the property if a workable internal hallway was to be maintained;

·        They noted that siting to the west would necessitate loss of a recently modernised outhouse/home office;

·        They explained that the proposed location was the most cost effective option due to the level ground;

·        They contended that the modern design complements the building and did not detract from its surroundings;

·        They suggested that concern over the building line onto Deemount Gardens was unwarranted given the enclosed nature of the site and the screening offered by existing hedging, which there were no plans to remove;

·        They highlighted the support from the closest neighbouring properties on Deemount Road and Deemount Gardens; and

·        Highlighted a planning approval at 1 Deemount Gardens in 2011.

In relation to consultee and representation responses, Mr Evans advised that none were received. 

Mr Evans then advised that the applicant had expressed the view that a site visit should take place before determination of the application. 

The Chairperson and Councillors Cameron and Reynolds 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 in detail, the relevant policy considerations, making reference to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017, namely policy H1 (Residential Areas: Householder Development), D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and the Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance.  Mr Evans also made reference to guidance on front extensions.  

The Local Review Body members asked questions of Mr Evans in regard to the application. 

The Chairperson and Councillors Cameron and Reynolds 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:-

1.     The proposal extension - by virtue of its siting, projection, disproportioned contemporary form, large window openings and finishes - would not respect the character and appearance of the existing dwellinghouse, as well as the character and appearance of other dwellinghouses in the immediate surrounding area. This impact would be exacerbated by the fact the proposed extension would sit forward of the principle building line on Deemount Gardens and the site sits at the junction of Deemount Road and Deemount Gardens. As such, the proposed extension would be harmful to public visual amenity and the proposal would fail to comply with the relevant requirements of Policy H1 (Residential Areas) and Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) as well as their attendant supplementary guidance The Householder Development Guide in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017. 

2.     The proposed extension - by virtue of its siting forward of the front elevation and scale of projection - would breach the established building line along Deemount Gardens which is intrinsic to the street's pattern of development and therefore would be at odds with the street's established character. The existing hedging can be removed without planning permission, and therefore its current existence carries no weight in mitigating this unacceptable visual impact. As such, the proposal would fail to comply with the relevant requirements of Policy H1 (Residential Areas) and Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) as well as their attendant supplementary guidance The Householder Development Guide in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017.

Councillor Marie Boulton, Chairperson