Agenda item

The LRB then considered the third 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 single storey extension to the side and formation of carport and garden room/gym, the Highfield, Borrowstone Road Aberdeen, planning reference number 220265. 

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 25 February 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 6 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 explained that new information had been provided by the applicant, namely information from Transport Scotland and an updated drawing.  These were not considered by the original Planning Officer when a decision was made.  Members agreed unanimously to accept the new information as this information would not have been available at the time of the decision by the appointed officer. 

Mr Evans explained that the applicant had indicated on the Notice of Review that no further procedure was required before determining the application.  Members agreed unanimously to proceed without further procedure.

Mr Evans then described the site advising that it was a detached bungalow with detached double garage set in the east corner of a substantial residential curtilage extending to c.6200m². Both the dwelling and garage were of a modern design and finished in render and Fyfestone with a red tiled roof. The dwelling had been previously extended with a conservatory to the south elevation.

In terms of the description of the application, Mr Evans advised that the application consisted of two distinct elements:

1.    A single storey extension to the north elevation projecting c.5.6m, extending across the full width of the dwelling (c.8.9m), providing an additional bedroom, walk-in wardrobes, and two bathrooms. The west elevation would contain a hipped roof bay window with additional smaller windows in the west, north and east elevation. Proposed finishes would match the existing dwelling and include bullnosed Fyfestone and roughcast for the walls, and concrete roof tiles for the roof;

2.    A garden room/ gym and double width carport attached to the existing double garage. The car port would have a width of c.6m and a depth of c.7.2m, with the garden room/gym measuring c.6.1m by c.7.2m. The garden room/gym would have a pitched roof with gables to the front and rear, matching the roof profile of the existing double garage. Proposed finishes would include vertical timber linings for the wall and concrete tiles to match the existing roof. Full height windows would be integrated in the south and west elevations. 

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

The proposal was considered to have a significant impact on the root protection area of a total of five mature beech trees located just outside the application site boundary, which could have a significant detrimental impact on their health. Furthermore, it would result in a further significant encroachment of development within the Zone of Influence of a total of seven mature beech trees, which would have a significant future impact on these trees due to both the potential requirement for extensive works and the proximity of large trees to the dwelling and outbuildings. This was further aggravated by the fact that the trees fall outwith the ownership of the applicant, as this would impose an additional burden on a third party. As such, the proposal is considered contrary to policy NE5 (Trees and Woodlands) of the 2017 Aberdeen Local Development Plan, policy NE5 (Trees and Woodlands) of the Proposed Local Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance on Trees and Woodlands. There were no other material considerations that would warrant approval of the application.

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

•      Highlighted that the refusal is based on conflict with one policy only (NE5: Trees and Woodlands). The reason for refusal does not specifically say what was unacceptable about the proposal in terms of the information which was provided to assess and mitigate for Root Protection Areas (RPA) and Zone of Influence (ZoI);

•      Contends that there was no conflict with ALDP Policy NE5 or the associated Supplementary Guidance as impacts on the RPA’s and the ZoI had been adequately addressed and mitigations proposed;

•      The house, garage and part of the garden were already located within the RPA and ZoI of some of the trees, these trees had not been adversely affected by this and the proposed extensions would not have a considerable or significant impact on the trees;

•      There was no alternative location to locate the required extensions on the ground floor;

•      The layout, siting and design of the proposal was otherwise acceptable as is the development in all other respects;

•      Transport Scotland had advised that the trees were not a safety concern and there was no need for their removal as a result of the proposed development. Transport Scotland would be responsible for monitoring, management and maintenance of the trees as necessary to maintain their health; and

•      ACC’s inflexible approach to development which was in the RPA or ZoI of trees was inconsistent with the British Standard BS5837:2012 and insufficient regard had been given to the proposed mitigation.

In relation to representations, no comments were received from statutory consultees and no objections were received from interested parties. 

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 Policy NE1 – Green Space Network; NE2 – Green Belt; NE5 – Trees and Woodland; NE8 – Natural Heritage; D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design; and Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance as well as the Trees and Woodland Supplementary Guidance. 

Mr Evans responded to questions from members relating to the various trees. 

Members agreed unanimously todefer determination on the item in order to allow an arboricultural specialist to be in attendance to assist members with their queries on tree matters, noting that the said officer would be acting in the same impartial capacity as the planning adviser.

The Clerk advised that a new date would be set in due course.

-               COUNCILLORS JENNIFER STEWART AND MARIE BOULTON, Chairpersons