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 installation of raised timber decking with external steps and boundary wall to the rear of 24 Goodhope Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 201035/DPP.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Jamie Leadbeater, Planner; (2) the application dated 1 September 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 2 February 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 agent along with an accompanying statement.

The Local Review Body then heard from Mr Evans explain 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 no new matters, which were not before the appointed officer at the time of the original decision, had been raised in the review submission and in terms of the procedure by which the review would be conducted, however they had appended a set of plans which show proposals for additional boundary fencing to assist in mitigating any concerns over loss of privacy for reference. These plans were submitted during the course of the application, however the applicant ultimately decided to proceed with the original proposal.

He indicated that the LRB’s role was to review the same proposal which was refused by the appointed officer, so the plans showing additional fencing were included for reference only. He intimated that the applicant had requested that a site inspection be undertaken, highlighting that the appointed officer’s decision was made without visiting the site, therefore they had not determined the minimal impact this proposal would have on the neighbouring properties.

Mr Evans then described the site advising that it was a residential curtilage of a modern two storey semi-detached dwellinghouse on Goodhope Road in Bucksburn, to the north of Auchmill Road and the Aerden-Inverness railway line. To the rear of the property, its 15m deep back garden sloped down to the north east (towards back fence). The last 3m of the garden was much more steeply sloping that the preceding 12m, which was on a more gradual slope.  The rear garden was enclosed by 1.8m high timber fencing along its north-western and north-eastern boundary (to neighbour at 26 and rear boundary respectively).  The boundary to the adjoining semi at number 22 was demarked by a combination of wall and fencing of approx. 3m in height. The rear garden of this neighbouring plot sat at a higher level than the application site. There was a rear access lane (footpath only) beyond the rear boundary, providing rear garden access for neighbouring properties. Neighbouring plots to the north-east sat at a lower level than the upper portion of the application site, such that there were currently views over a number of neighbouring gardens.

Mr Evans outlined the proposal for Detailed Planning Permission (DPP) which was sought for the formation of tiered raised timber decking with associated steps in the rear garden of dwellinghouse. The proposed decking area would span the bottom 10.3m depth of the garden area and would cover its full width equating to 70 square metres in area. It would rise as high as 650mm above the existing ground level at its highest point. Steps were incorporated along the north-western side boundary.

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

• Proposal would “significantly worsen the level of privacy” currently afforded to the rear gardens of numbers 20, 26, 28 and 30 Goodhope Road;
• It would reduce the effective height and level of screening between mutual boundaries to an unacceptable level;
• It was considered to be contrary to Policy H2 (Mixed Use Areas) due to the conflict with the amenity of adjacent land uses, as well as the relevant "general principles" and guidance set out in Section 3.1.10 of the Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance;
• Also in conflict with policies D1, D2 and H2 in the Proposed Aberdeen Local development Plan (ALDP); and
• No overriding material considerations were in favour of approval.

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

• Applicant’s garden was steeply sloping, and this proposal was intended to reduce maintenance and increase useability of the garden;
• Argued that the lack of a site visit had unduly affected the decision to refuse on grounds of overlooking;
• Existing boundary fence already varied in height and the proposed deck levels had been designed to limit overlooking, with steps directly abutting boundary fence;
• Highlighted that neighbouring properties were already overlooked from the existing garden level and there would be no further loss of amenity due to the raised decking;
• Due to the garden level sloping at an angle, there was only a small portion of the decking that would bring it outwith the scope of current Permitted Development Rights;
• Applicants offered to increase height of fencing, but this was discounted on the basis that it would adversely affect neighbours’ amenity. The case officer also stated that some areas of existing fencing were insufficient;
• Highlighted that the appointed officer’s decision was taken after the extended determination period agreed with the applicant;
• Disputed officer’s reference to the adjoining property to the south east being affected, as this actually sat higher than the application property; and
• Concluded that impact on privacy would be negligible and does not warrant refusal

Mr Evans advised that there were no representations received from consultees, Bucksburn and Newhills Community Council or members of the public.

The Chairperson and Councillors Allan and Duncan 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 D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design; H2 – Mixed Use Areas; Supplementary Guidance General Principles and Decking.

Mr Evans responded to questions from members relating to location of the amenity area and fencing of the property.

The Chairperson and Councillors Allan and Duncan each advised in turn and unanimously agreed 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 that the existing rear garden of the application property sits on sloping ground, the uppermost part of which currently overlooks a number of other residential gardens lying to the east.  In that context, the LRB did not consider that the proposals's modest changes to site levels through the introduction of decking would result in any significant loss of privacy. Members noted that the most likely source of additional overlooking would be along the north-western boundary (to number 26), where the steps serving the deck would be directly beside the fence. Members considered that this could be addressed through the use of a planning condition to secure a scheme of additional fencing/screening in that location.

The sloping nature of the rear garden was also considered to limit its useability, and members of the LRB felt that this proposal would address that and make the rear garden much more useable for residents without undue impact on the amenity afforded to neighbouring properties. It was noted that there were no objections from neighbouring residents or from the local Community Council. The proposal was considered by members to accord with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, including policies H2 (Mixed Use Areas) and D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and the 'Householder Development Guide' Supplementary Guidance.

CONDITIONS

1. Additional Screening

No development pursuant to this grant of planning permission shall be undertaken unless a scheme for the provision of additional screening along the north-western boundary (with number 26), to achieve a consistent height of 1.8m above the decking level, has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority.

Thereafter, the decking shall not be brought into use unless the approved screening has been installed in full accordance with the agreed scheme.

Reason: to protect neighbouring residents from overlooking and loss of amenity, as required by the Council’s ‘Householder Development Guide’ Supplementary Guidance.

-                 COUNCILLOR MARIE BOULTON, Chairperson