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 garage extension to the side and front and associated alterations to the boundary wall and formation of a hard surface access/driveway; and formation of two windows to the rear of 25 Westfield Terrace, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 191897/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 following case 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 20 December 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 26 June 2020; (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) a letter of representation submitted by the Roads Management 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. He made reference to the notice of review and review statement, wherein a new matter was raised by the applicant in terms of an assertion that the proposed garage would accommodate an electrical vehicle and associated charging infrastructure, and remove access to the rear of the property if the application was approved. In this regard, as these matters were not covered within the original application but only referred to in informal discussions with the case officer, the LRB members would be required to decide whether they take these new matters into consideration as part of the review, having regard to the relevant legal tests.

The LRB members received legal advice, thereafter members agreed unanimously that there was no good reason or exceptional circumstances provided by the applicant to consider the new matter, therefore they declined to consider the additional information as part of the review submission.

Mr Evans then described the site advising that it comprised a detached dwelling house on a corner plot, which was two storeys at the front and 3 storeys to the rear due to a change in ground levels. The building had a pitched slate roof, and its walls were finished in a wetdash render. The principal frontage faced north-west onto a section of Westfield Terrace which was a dead end to the west, abutting the rear gardens of properties on Whitehall Terrace.

Mr Evans indicated that it had been previously extended, with a 1½ storey extension added to the western elevation. The garden grounds to the side and rear were enclosed by a granite rubble wall of approximately 2m in height, with a lower rendered ‘dwarf’ wall at the front and east side of the property stepping up beyond the rear wall of the house itself. He intimated that the photographs included in the applicants’ submission showed that in some sections, the height of the wall had been increased through the use of brick (though not the section to be altered for the proposed works). The higher section of wall to the east of the property frontage was rendered on its street-facing side. Off-street parking was available to the rear of the property, however the applicants’ statement referred to issues with this due to the presence of on-street parking directly opposite and ground level changes made it unsuitable for vehicles with low ground clearance.

Mr Evans highlighted that the application site was located within the Rosemount and Westburn Conservation Area.

Mr Evans outlined the Planning History of the site and also the proposed detailed planning permission which was sought from the applicant.

The Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal stated in the decision notice made reference to the following:-

Design, Scale & Impact on Conservation Area

·       Would detract from historic character of the building and its surroundings;

·       Principally resulting from projection forward of principal elevation of dwelling;

·       Excessive width also noted as unbalancing symmetry of elevation;

·       Materials would not complement wet-dash render of dwelling;

·       Proposal would result in the loss of a historic granite boundary wall, with limited re-use of downtakings proposed, contrary to policy D5 (Our Granite Heritage); and

·       Would adversely affect special character and appearance of the Rosemount and Westburn Conservation Area, contrary to Scottish Planning Policy, Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS) and policies D1, H1 and D4 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (ALDP), as well as equivalent policies in Proposed Local Development Plan, Householder Supplementary Guidance, relevant Historic Environment Scotland (HES) ‘Managing Change’ publication and the aims of Rosemount and Westburn Conservation Area Character Appraisal.

Impact on Public Safety

·       Proportions of driveway area do not comply with ‘Transport and Accessibility’ Supplementary Guidance;

·       If parked at right angles to road (as recommended in Supplementary Guidance for best visibility), cars would overhang footway; and

·       If parked parallel to road, driver visibility would be inadequate.

Excessive Off-street Parking

·       When considered in context of existing and previously approved parking;

·       Notes also the availability of on-street parking; and

·       Conflict with ‘Transport and Accessibility’ Supplementary Guidance and aims of policy T2 (Managing the Transport Impact of Development) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

The appellant had submitted a statement in support of the application for Local Review, and Mr Evans referred directly to the reasons for refusal and the main points put forward were as follows:-

·       Highlighted that the stated reasons for refusal did not refer to the proposed new windows – only the garage extension (report also clarified that the windows were considered acceptable);

·       Contended that the proposals comply with ALDP and its Supplementary Guidance, and was supported by other material considerations including Scottish Planning Policy, HEPS, HES Extensions guidance, Conservation Area Character Appraisal and earlier planning decision at 4 Westfield Terrace. (ref 182030/DPP);

·       Respected the historic character of the Conservation Area, having regard for the reason behind its designation;

·       Would facilitate use of electric vehicle through installation of charging infrastructure and encourage sustainable travel by allowing space for bike storage;

·       Would deliver a net improvement in road safety, compared with current situation; and

·       Would use materials appropriate to the building and its setting (happy for conditions to be used to ensure appropriate materials).

In relation to consultee and representation submissions, Mr Evans made reference to the following:-

-        Queen's Cross & Harlaw Community Council – No response received.

-        ACC Roads Development Management – Objected. Area between garage and pavement should be no more than 1m, unless it can achieve standard 6m driveway length. (3m length proposed). Their response otherwise highlighted that a parking survey had demonstrated that the loss of 2no on-street spaces was acceptable in this instance. Noted also that only one footway crossing per property was permitted, and therefore the existing driveway to the rear should be closed off/removed at the applicants’ expense (presumably the removal of the pavement crossing itself).

The Chairperson and Councillors Bell and Duncan 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 highlighted the relevant policy considerations, making reference to the following:-

• the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 - H1 – Residential Areas: Householder Development; D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design;D4 – Historic Environment; D5 – Our Granite Heritage;
• Supplementary Guidance - Householder Development Guide (Extensions);
• Windows and Doors Supplementary Guidance;
• Transport and Accessibility Supplementary Guidance;
• Scottish Planning Policy;
• Historic Environment Scotland - Managing Change Guidance: Extensions; and
• Rosemount & Westburn Conservation Area - Character Appraisal.

Mr Evans advised that members should have regard to the Local Development Plan and any other material considerations they feel were relevant to the application that would point to either overturning the original decision or dismissing the review.

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 granite, specifically whether it would be reused and the process of applicants complying with a condition in this regard.

The Chairperson and Councillors Bell and Duncan each 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:-

Design, Scale and Impact to the Conservation Area

The proposed garage would significantly detract from the special historic character of the original building and the surrounding area in terms of its design, siting, proportions, massing and scale. This is primarily because of its projection forward of the principal elevation of the original dwelling which would dominate the principal elevation and would not be compatible with the established pattern of development on the streetscape; its excessive width which would unbalance the symmetry of the principal elevation; and the finishing material of the walls of the extension would not complement the wet dash render walls of the original building. The formation of the large opening in the original boundary wall, and the formation of a parking area at the front of the property would detract from the established pattern of development and the character of the surrounding area.

The proposal would result in the loss of a historic granite boundary wall, and would re-use an insufficient volume of granite down-takings, in conflict with Policy D5 – Our Granite Heritage of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan and Policy D7 - Granite Heritage of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020. The proposal would therefore adversely affect the special character and appearance of the Rosemount and Westburn Conservation Area. The proposal would therefore conflict with Scottish Planning Policy; Historic Environment Policy for Scotland; Policies D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design, H1 - Residential Areas and D4 - Historic Environment of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017; Policies D1 - Quality Placemaking, H1 - Residential Areas, D6 - Historic Environment of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan; the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide'; Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Extensions; and the aims of the Rosemount and Westburn Conservation Area Character Appraisal.

Impact to Public Safety

The proposed 3m long and 7.5m wide driveway/hard surface would adversely affect road safety and would directly conflict with the Supplementary Guidance: 'Transport and Accessibility' in that if cars were parked perpendicularly to the road they would overhang the footways, and if they were parked at a parallel to the road, it would not be possible for the driver to be able to see adequately, both to the detriment of the safety of pedestrians using the public footway, especially young children and those with a disability. The negative impact to the safe function of the local transport network would conflict with Policy T2 - Managing the Transport Impact of Development of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy T2 – Sustainable Transport of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020.

Parking

In addition to the negative impact to character and appearance of the surrounding area which would result from the proposed parking provision at the front of the property, given the inner city location of the site, the availability of on-street parking provision in the surrounding area and the existing and approved parking provision at the rear of the site, the proposed parking provision at the front of the property would be excessive, would conflict with the Supplementary Guidance: 'Transport and Accessibility', and the aims of Policy T2 - Managing the Transport Impact of Development of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017, and Policies T2 - Sustainable Transport and T3 - Parking of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020 in terms of encouraging sustainable and active travel. There are no material planning considerations that warrant the grant of planning permission in this instance.

In addition to restating the Appointed Officer's reasons for refusal, the Local Review Body did indicate that it was broadly supportive of the principle of extending the property in a different form, which would address matters of scale, projection and relationship with the existing property, whilst also ensuring that the property would maintain only one point of vehicular access and that granite downtakings would be appropriately re-used, potentially in the blocking up of the existing vehicular access to the east.