Agenda item

The LRB 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 formation of a pitched root to an existing garage to form a store and single storey workshop at 2 Gladstone Place Aberdeen, planning reference 200557. 

Councillor Boulton as Chair, advised that Mr Gavin Evans would again be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the following case under consideration this day and reiterated 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.

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 12 May 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 2 October 2020; (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) and the Notice of Review and supporting statement submitted by the applicant’s agent.

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 also explained that no new matters had been raised however the submission with the Notice of Review included an alternative scheme and 3D images and the Appointed Officer did not use these when determining the application.  Members heard from the Legal Adviser, who explained that no new matters should be used unless under exceptional circumstances.  Members discussed this information and concluded that they would accept the 3D images as part of their consideration but not the alternative scheme.

Mr Evans then went on to explain that the applicant had indicated on the Notice of Review that no further procedure was required before determination.

Mr Evans then described the site advising that the application related to a 2-storey terraced granite dwelling house of traditional build and design on the northwest of Gladstone Place within the Albyn and Rubislaw Conservation Area. The rear garden was fully enclosed with approximately 1.4m high boundary walls on each side and by an existing garage on its rear boundary. To the rear (north) was Queen’s Lane South: a rear lane of a character typically found in the West End of Aberdeen, which was predominantly used as a rear access to buildings on Gladstone Place to the south and Queens Road to the north. There were a number of buildings that front directly onto the lane, including 2 Queen’s Lane South which adjoins the application site. The majority of the buildings were domestic garages, together with a grouping of buildings near to the junction with Forest Avenue associated with Albyn School. An existing double garage, which extends across the full width of the feu, is located to the rear of the garden. The existing garage has a total height of c. 3.1m, depth of c. 5.8m and width of c. 8.5m. It had a very shallow pitched roof, incorporates a double width roller shutter door and is finished in roughcast render

Mr Evans indicated that Planning permission was sought for the construction of a pitched roof to the existing garage to form an attic/storage area above and the erection of a single storey workshop extension to rear. The altered garage would have an overall height of c. 6.1m (to the ridge of the roof) and would see a rise in the wall height to the eaves of c. 3.5m; an increase of approx. 0.4m on the front elevation and approx. 0.7m on the rear elevation. The single storey extension constructed to the rear (south east), would have a wall head height matching that of the proposed altered garage of c.3.5m and an overall height of c.4.4m to the top of the mono-pitched roof. The extension would project c.3.9m by a width of c.2.3m resulting in an overall footprint of c.9sqm. It would include a door and window in the rear and windows in the side (south west) elevations. Both the rear of the existing garage and the extension would be finished in cedral composite cladding, the garage gable would be rendered to match existing. The roof would be finished in slates. Finally, velux windows would be introduced in the front and rear roof slopes of the garage, and in the side facing elevation of the extension.

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

·         There was an excessive and unsympathetic scale and massing in relation to the surrounding context;

·         It would adversely affect the pattern of back lane development on the south side of Queen’s Lane South and the historic character and appearance of the surrounding Albyn Place and Rubislaw Conservation Area

·         The proposed materials (Cedral composite cladding and uPVC) were not traditional or sympathetic materials and would not be appropriate in the curtilage of a historic building in a conservation area,

·         It conflicted with principles of Scottish Planning Policy; Historic Environment Policy for Scotland; Policies H1 - Residential Areas, D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design and D4 - Historic Environment of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan; the Council's Householder Development Guide SG;

·         Also highlights conflict with corresponding policies in Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan; and

·         Concludes that there were no material planning considerations which would warrant approval.

Mr Evans highlighted the following key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review:-

·         Contends that the proposal is modest, sympathetic to context, and consistent with the character of the Conservation Area (CA);

·         Notes that garages of a larger scale have been approved elsewhere within the CA;

·         Delineation between feus is maintained and the proposal would ‘read’ as a domestic garage;

·         Proposal complies with ‘Householder Development Guide’ Supplementary Guidance in terms of outbuildings (subordinate scale, no dormer windows, internal access, appropriate scale). Highlights that the garage would not be highly visible and the roof form is an improvement on the existing flat-roofed form, which does not result in conflict with the CA Character Appraisal;

·         Highlights use of non-traditional materials in recent planning approvals, including Cedral (fibre cement) cladding elsewhere in the rear lane. Notes also that these materials are to garden side only;

·         States that height is necessary to accommodate existing garage door and mechanism, and highlights suggested compromises which were rejected by officers, but which the applicant would accept if members were minded to approve on that basis;

·         Highlights that neighbours had welcomed the proposals and there was no objection to the application; and

·         Notes that reasons for refusal refer only to the roof/height and not to the formation of the workshop extension on the garden side, which is understood to be acceptable to planning service.

In relation to consultees and letters of representation, there were none.

The Chairperson and Councillors Bell and MacKenzie advised in turn that they each had enough information before them and agreed 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 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;

·         D4:  Historic Environment;

·         Supplementary Guidance:  Householder Development Guide;

·         Supplementary Guidance:  Householder Development Guide – Outbuildings

·         Supplementary Guidance – Transport and Accessibility; and

·         Scottish Planning Policy.

Mr Evans also made reference to the Albyn Place and Rubislaw Conservation Area Character Appraisal. 

Mr Evans responded to questions from members.

Members agreed unanimously to reverse the decision of the appointed officer and to 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:-

Members of the Local Review Body (LRB) noted the variety in scale, style and form of buildings along Queen's Lane South and concluded that the proposed outbuilding would not be incongruous in the local context, nor would it detract from the character or appearance of the Albyn Place and Rubislaw Conservation Area. Members considered that the proposal would not constitute overdevelopment of the plot and that any increase in height would not be excessive. The LRB concluded that the proposal would be accord with policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and D4 (Built Heritage) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (ALDP), subject to the use of appropriate materials and suitable low-profile rooflights, details of which may be secured and agreed via the use of appropriately worded planning conditions.

It was further considered that the proposal would comply with the relevant 'Householder Development Guide' and 'Transport and Accessibility' Supplementary Guidance, and would also comply with policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the ALDP.

CONDITIONS

1.    Materials/Finishes

That no development pursuant to the planning permission hereby granted shall commence unless details of external finishes and materials (including slate sample, render sample and details of guttering) have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter, development shall take place in full accordance with the details so agreed.          

Notwithstanding the detail shown on the approved plans, the garden elevations of the garage/workshop shall be finished using the same render approved for use on the north-western elevation, to Queen’s Lane South. For the avoidance of doubt, the Local Review Body did not support the use of cedral cladding on the approved building.

Reason: In order to ensure that the proposal is appropriate to its historic context, consistent with policy D4 (Historic Environment) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

2.    Low-profile rooflights

That no development pursuant to the planning permission hereby granted shall commence unless details of low-profile rooflights appropriate for use within a Conservation Area have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the planning authority.

Thereafter development shall take place in full accordance with the details so agreed.

Reason: In order to ensure that the proposal is appropriate to its historic context, consistent with policy D4 (Historic Environment) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan.