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 timber decking with external steps to the rear – retrospectively, at 27 Birkhall Place Aberdeen, 201317/DPP. 

The Chairperson advised that Ms Lucy Greene 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, she 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) an application dated 28 October 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 28 January 2021; (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent; and (6) comments received from representations. 

The LRB was then addressed by Ms Greene 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.

Ms Greene then described the site advising that the site is the residential curtilage of a two storey mid-terraced dwellinghouse on the southern side of Birkhall Place in Mastrick. The rear curtilage comprised a split-level decking and artificial grass area with an outbuilding (not requiring planning permission in itself as it constitutes Permitted Development) at the far end. Decking nearest to the rear of the dwellinghouse is set c. 1.6m above ground level whilst the largest decking area comprising the artificial grass is set 435mm above ground level, the outbuilding is set at ground level. Side garden boundaries are treated by c 1.6m high timber fencing set at ground level, although the highest part of the decking nearest the house includes additional 930mm high fencing above its 1.6m deck level.   In terms of the wider site context, the application site and wider terrace it sits within, is located perpendicular to the rear of properties on Upper Mastrick Way to the west and Cairnwell Drive to the east.   Subsequently, the rear gardens of three residential streets (including Birkhall Place) converge, and views from the application property and rear garden area look out over a number of properties on different streets to varying degrees.

In terms of the proposed application, Ms Greene explained that retrospective planning consent was sought for the erection of raised timber decking in the rear garden area with associated steps and 0.93m high fencing above deck level along both side boundaries. The decking sits c. 1.6m above ground level and at c.5.8m, spans nearly the full width of the rear garden area, leaving a gap of c.0.6m to the boundary with the neighbouring property at No. 25 Birkhall Place, projecting c.3.5m out from the rear elevation of the dwellinghouse, and covering a total area of c.20m2.

Ms Greene indicated that the Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal stated in the decision notice was as follows:-

·       the proposed raised decking had far-ranging adverse impacts on the private amenity of both immediate adjoining properties (no. 25 and 29 Birkhall Place) and other neighbouring properties (no. 31 Birkhall Place, 74 Upper Mastrick Way and properties 165 and 167 Cairnwell Drive) in their garden areas within the immediate surrounding area, due to the height the decking sits relative to the height of neighbours garden boundaries.

·       the height and proximity of the decking to neighbours windows had a very imposing/oppressive impact on no. 25 Birkhall Place, both within the neighbour’s rear garden space and also within their habitable living room and does result in a significant loss of privacy/increased overlooking to this property.

·       the proposal was considered to be in conflict with the requirements of Policy H1 (Residential Areas) and relevant provisions of Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and both the relevant "general principles" and guidance set out in Section 3.1.10 of their attendant supplementary guidance the Householder Development in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017; and

·       the proposal would also be in conflict with policies D1, D2 and H1 in the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan. In the absence of any other overriding material considerations, the proposal is considered worthy of refusal.

Ms Greene outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review as follows:-

·       the decking in the rear garden was upgraded as a result of the existing timber becoming damaged and rotting;

·       the heights of the decking have not been altered from previous/existing decking levels;

·       there was a number of examples in the local area/neighbouring properties, in which similar works have been completed;

·       both neighbouring properties to 27 Birkhall Place have decking at the same level. These works were carried out to be in keeping with the levels of both neighbours' decking.

In terms of consultee responses, Ms Greene noted that three responses had been received in relation to the proposed application, one in support and two objections.  No consultee responses were received.  

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that an inspection of the property to which the review relates should be undertaken before determination.

At this point, the LRB considered whether they had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review. The Chairperson and Councillors Henrickson and Reynolds all indicated in turn that they each had enough information before them and therefore agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.

Ms Greene outlined the relevant policy considerations, making reference to H1: Residential Areas; D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design and Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide.

Ms Greene explained that in determining the appeal, members should also take into consideration any material considerations they feel were relevant to the application that would point to either overturning the original decision or dismissing the review. In addition to the relevant policies from the development plan, the Scottish Planning Policy would be material considerations.

Mr Greene responded to various questions from members. 

The Chairperson and Councillors Henrickson and Reynolds each advised in turn, and agreed by majority to reverse the appointed officer’s earlier decision and to grant the planning permission conditionally.  Councillor Henrickson advised that he felt that planning permission be refused, with the Chairperson and Councillor Reynolds opting to overturn the decision and approve the planning 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:-

The Local Review Body considered, by a majority of 2 to 1, that the appointed officer's decision should be reversed and planning permission granted subject to a condition requiring the introduction of soft landscaping and an opaque screen along edge of the elevated decking closest to the boundary with the neighouring property at 25 Birkhall Place. Subject to implementation of planting and an opaque screen, which reduces scope for overlooking but still permits light to penetrate into the neighbouring plot, members were satisfied that the proposal would be acceptable on balance and would comply with the relevant policies of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan. Members noted the existence of decking at 23 Birkhall Place and the absence of any objection from that property, as well as the steps taken by the applicants to position the decking off the boundary with number 25 and thereby reduce impact on the closest ground floor window. Members considered that the design of the proposal would not be incompatible with its context, and whilst a degree of overlooking was identified, members did not consider that this would warrant refusal subject to the additional measures to be secured by conditions.

CONDITIONS

1.    Screening and Landscaping

Within 3 months from the date of this grant of planning permission, soft landscaping to the eastern boundary and an obscured screen which addresses overlooking into number 25 Birkhall Parade but allows for light to penetrate into the neighbouring garden shall be installed in accordance with details which have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the planning authority. Both landscaping and screening shall be retained thereafter unless the approved decking has been removed.

Reason: To reduce overlooking into the adjoining garden whilst retaining appropriate levels of daylight to the downstairs window of number 25 Birkhall Parade.

-                  COUNCILLOR MARIE BOULTON, Chairperson.