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 or replacement of a single storey extension to the rear of 81 Abergeldie Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 201167/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 Jemma Tasker, Planning Trainee; (2) the application dated 29 September 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 8 January 2021; (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’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.

He explained that the applicant had indicated on the Notice of Review that a site inspection should be undertaken, highlighting their view that location and context were very important in consideration of this case, and that visual impact had been cited as an issue. In the applicant’s view, visual impact had been overestimated.

Mr Evans then described the site advising that it was located on the western side of Abergeldie Road, at its junction with Broomhill Road. The property comprised a 2 storey, end-terrace dwellinghouse of traditional style, constructed in granite, with a slated roof. The dwelling fronts onto Abergeldie Road and adjoins No. 79 Abergeldie Road to the southeast. Broomhill Road was situated to the north-west,  with the boundary wall separating the property’s rear garden and the adjoining public pavement. To the rear of the dwelling there were existing 2 storey and single storey off-shoots extending along the south-east mutual boundary with number 79. These projected a total of 10.2m from the rear of the dwelling and measure 3.5m in width. These were also constructed in granite, with pitched, slated roofs. The remaining rear garden covered an area of approximately 100sqm and was enclosed by a c.1.8m high granite rubble wall on its Broomhill Road side and to the rear; and by a lower c. 1.3m high wall along the boundary with number 79.

Mr Evans outlined the proposal for Detailed Planning Permission (DPP) which was sought for the erection of a replacement single storey extension to the rear of the property. The existing single-storey off-shoot would be removed and replaced by a new single storey extension, projecting a maximum 11.8m from the rear of the dwelling. It would span the entire width of the plot, narrowing from 6.8m where it abuts the main house to 6.3m at its furthest point. The extension would have an asymmetrical pitched roof, with an eaves height of c. 2.5m and an overall height of c. 3.4m. Finishing materials include anthracite (Dark Grey) cladding for the walls, grey profile sheeting for the roof and alu-clad bi-folding doors. The drawings also referred to the removal of the existing access gate on the north-west boundary wall and blocking the opening up with stone, stated ‘to match the existing’ which actually constitutes ‘permitted development’ and therefore was not within the scope of the planning authority’s assessment.

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

• Referred to highly visible location on Broomhill Road;
• Proposal would have an adverse impact on streetscape and detrimental impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area;
• Extension would be of an incompatible scale to the original dwelling, more than doubling the length of the north west gable, sitting obviously uncomfortably with the main dwelling;
• Proposed extension would therefore conflict with Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (ALDP) and associated 'The Householder Development Guide’ Supplementary Guidance;
• Conflicted with equivalent policies in Proposed ALDP; and
• There were no material considerations that warrant granting of planning permission.

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

• The planning officer felt that the extension would be detrimental to the amenity of the area and sit uncomfortably with the main dwelling, but we disagreed with these points and would refer to the wider location on a busy vibrant part of a street which has a variety of scales and types of residential development; and
• This would be a modern, neat and sharp addition to the streetscape, which would contrast, but compliment the existing granite dwelling and boundary wall.

Mr Evans advised that there were no representations received from consultees; Ashley and Broomhill Community Council or members of the public.

The Chairperson and Councillors Allan 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, namely H1 - Residential Areas; D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design; and Supplementary Guidance - Householder Development Guide.

In terms of material considerations, Mr Evans advised that members should have regard to the Local Development Plan and provided details thereof.

Mr Evans responded to questions from members relating to the height difference of the proposed extension and the materials to be used.

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 a degree of variety in the design and scale of extensions and domestic outbuildings in the surrounding area, which includes an extension to the adjoining property which is positioned along the mutual boundary, such that there would be no adverse impact on the adjoining neighbours. In that context, members considered that the proposed rear extension would be of a scale appropriate to its context, would not represent over-development of the property and would contribute towards a traditional granite property being appropriately adapted to suit modern expectations. Members also stated that the proposal would not result in any adverse impact on the character or amenity of the area, consistent with policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (ALDP), and would afford the residents greater privacy than the current rear offshoot, which has a number of windows facing towards Broomhill Road.

The single-storey form of the extension was highlighted as mitigating its wider visual impact, and members advised that the use of granite downtakings within the construction of the extension should be controlled via an appropriate planning condition, ensuring compliance with policy D5 (Our Granite Heritage) of the ALDP.

Members of the LRB also noted the absence of any objection from the local Community Council or neighbouring properties.

CONDITIONS

1.              Scheme for the appropriate re-use of granite downtakings

That no development pursuant to this grant of planning permission shall take place unless a detailed scheme for the appropriate re-use of granite downtakings within the construction of the new extension has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority.

Thereafter, no development shall take place unless in full accordance with the scheme so agreed.

Reason: To ensure compliance with policy D5 (Our Granite Heritage) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan.