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 application for the erection of a 1.5 storey detached domestic garage at 275 North Deeside Road, planning reference 200544.

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 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 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 the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) the application dated 8 May 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 17 November 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 applicant.

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 application site was located on the south side of North Deeside Road, Milltimber, at its junction with Station Road East, and extends to an area of some 4130m².  The site comprised a 2 storey, detached dwelling house with single integral garage.  The dwelling house is centrally located within the plot, with quite extensive garden ground to the front, side and rear, and was well screened by mature trees, all of which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO No 225).   A drive provides access off North Deeside Road, splitting in two as it extends south within the site, with the eastern section delivering a route to the rear entrance to the dwelling and an area of hardstanding, whilst the western section provides a route to the front of the property with access to the existing integral garage, and a further area of hardstanding.  To the south east of the dwelling and running parallel at a distance of some 8 metres from the eastern boundary of the site, lies an overgrown path which has been identified as an old driveway.  The path extends from the hardstanding which lies to the east of the property to the southern boundary of the site.

Mr Evans outlined the proposal for Detailed Planning Permission (DPP) which was sought for the erection of a double garage to the east of the dwellinghouse and along the eastern boundary of the application site which was delineated by a 1.6 metre high boundary wall, beyond which lies Station Road East. 

The proposed garage would measure 7.6 metres wide and 7.6 metres deep (57.8m²) with a ridge height of 6 metres and eaves level of 2.8 metres, delivering an internal floor area of just under 80m². The garage would incorporate a 5m wide double garage door opening to the west elevation, a single door opening to the north elevation, 6 rooflights with 3 each to the east and west elevations, and fully glazed French doors with Juliet balcony design on the south elevation.  Internal stairs would provide access to the upper floor which includes a shower room and was identified as a store on the submitted plans. The proposed garage would be finished in a smooth render with Fernhill stone detailing on the west elevation, wrapping around the gable ends, and a red tile roof to match the existing dwellinghouse. Along the eastern boundary, a lead flashing would be introduced to the top of the existing boundary wall where it would join with the eastern garage wall.

To facilitate the construction of the garage, it was proposed to fell 7 trees that lie within the footprint of the proposed garage. The Tree Survey Report also identifies a further 6 trees to be felled; 3 trees to the north of the proposed garage and 3 trees close to south boundary. All the trees identified for felling are Spruce trees.

Mr Evans indicated that the Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal stated in the decision notice made reference to the following:-

·         inappropriate scale and massing which did not reflect the typical proportions of an ancillary building;

·         the appearance would be overly dominant from the outside and failed to respect the context of the surrounding area, nor any established pattern of development, and would have a negative visual impact on its established character;

·         the proposal would result in the loss of 13  protected mature trees which form part of a continuous line of trees along the eastern boundary of the site (Tree Protection Order 225);

·         whilst tree removal may be justified due to limited long-term potential, appropriate replanting should seek to ensure the existing landscape character and amenity is maintained and protected in the long term;

·         the proposal was considered to be contrary to the requirements of Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design), H1 (Residential Areas) and NE5 (Trees and Woodlands) of the ALDP, and associated Supplementary Guidance on Householder Development; and

·         no material planning considerations identified that would justify approval.

Mr Evans outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review advising that the applicant had noted the following:-

•      the planning officer had accepted the principle of a garage and that the reasons for refusal related to scale/height;

•      that the size of the site, was relative to the size of the proposed garage, and to the reductions made by the applicant from initial submission (circa 700mm reduction in height to ridge);

•      highlighted that the existing outbuilding presents a gable to Station Road, whereas this proposal presents a sloping roof, with the boundary wall and tree canopies offering further screening;

•      Notes that the necessary tree removals havd been recommended by a qualified consultant due to their existing condition, rather than to enable development, and the applicant is committed to undertaking necessary replacement planting;

•      Contends that any alternative location on the site would result in greater harm to healthy trees;

•      Explains that the garage and upper floor accommodation was required for the storage of landscaping equipment, parking of family vehicles, and provision of a recreational space/home office at upper level;

•      Notes that achieving minimum 2m headroom was essential to making that space useable, but that the proposed garage still retains the appearance of a single storey building;

•      Makes reference to exchanges with the case officer regarding amendments to make the scheme acceptable; and

•      Notes that Supplementary Guidance does allow for upper floor accommodation.

In terms of representations, Mr Evans advised that there were no consultee concerns or representations received. 

Ms Evans advised that the applicant had expressed the view that no further procedures were required.

The Chairperson and Councillor MacKenzie advised that they each had enough information before them and that the application should be determined without further procedure.  Councillor Macdonald advised she would like a site visit to be held before determination.  By majority, the Local Review Body concluded to proceed to determine the application without further procedure. 

Mr Evans outlined in detail, the relevant policy considerations, making reference to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 advising that all policies were relevant to the determination of this application and all were used by the appointed officer in assessing the proposal, as follows:-

·         H1 – Residential Areas;

·         D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design;

·         NE5 – Trees and Woodlands;

·         Supplementary Guidance – Householder Development Guide;

·         Supplementary Guidance – Householder Development Guide – outbuildings;

Mr Evans responded to questions from members relating to the upper level of the proposed garage, confirmation that there would a velux window, trees and the construction of the proposed garage.

Members in turn, agreed by majority to uphold the decision of the appointed officer and refuse the application.  Councillors Macdonald and MacKenzie voted to uphold the decision to refuse and the Chairperson voted to approve 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:-

The proposed garage development is deemed to be of an inappropriate scale and massing which does not reflect the typical proportions of an ancillary building.  It would appear overly dominant from outwith the site, fails to respect the context of the surrounding area, nor any established pattern of development, and would have a negative visual impact on its established character.  Furthermore, the proposal if approved would result in the loss of 13 protected mature trees which form part of a continuous line of trees along the eastern boundary of the site (TPO 225), and whilst their removal may be necessary due to their limited long-term potential, appropriate replanting should in the first instance seek to ensure the existing landscape character and amenity which they contribute towards is suitably maintained and protected in the long term, rather than enabling development.  The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the requirements of Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design), H1 (Residential Areas) and NE5 (Trees and Woodlands) of the Aberdeen City Local Development Plan, and does not address the expectations of the Council's Supplementary Guidance on Householder Development.  There are no material planning considerations which would warrant approval of planning permission is this instance.