Agenda item

The Local Review Body 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 two storey extension to rear and replacement garage to the side of 97 Springfield Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 210541/DPP.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Gavin Evans and reminded Members that although Mr Evans 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 19 April 2021; (3) the decision notice dated 20 August 2021; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement with further information relating to the application.

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 outlined the application site advising that it comprised of a 1½ storey detached dwellinghouse and its front and rear curtilage was in a residential area. The dwellinghouse had a northeast facing principal elevation that fronted Springfield Road and a southeast facing side elevation that fronted Springfield Gardens. The application site was bounded to the northwest and southwest by residential properties. The property had a sun room extension to its rear and an attached garage extension to its northwest side.

Mr Evans explained that planning permission was now sought for the erection of a two-storey extension to the rear of the dwelling and the erection of a garage extension to its northwest side, which would replace the existing rear extension and attached garage extension. The extension would cover an area of c.55sqm, would project c.6.5m to the rear, and would be located c.1m from the northwest boundary. The extension would be built over two storeys and would comprise flat roofed single storey element, which would have an eaves height of c.3.2m, and an asymmetric upper storey element that would have a maximum height of c.5.7m, a mono-pitched roof on its northwest side, and vertical elevations on its southwest and southeast sides. The walls of the extension would be finished in dark grey timber/timber effect cladding and white dry dash render. The pitched roof would be finished in roofing tiles ‘to match existing’. The fasciae would be formed in dark grey aluminium, and the windows / patio doors would be framed in uPVC. The garage would be c.6.5m in length and c.2.8m in width. It would be flat roofed with a maximum height of c.3.5m and finished in white dry dash render. It would have a c.2.3m x c.2.4m garage door that fronts Springfield Road.

Mr Evans made reference to the Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal, making reference to the following factors included within the decision notice:-

·       By way of its two storey flat roofed form, unbalanced asymmetric design, projection to the rear, and extensive glazing at the upper level, the proposed rear extension would not be architecturally compatible in design and scale with the symmetrical 1½ storey hipped roofed form of the original dwelling or its wider context;

·       Prominent location, readily visible from Springfield Gardens and Springfield Road, was such that the proposed extension would adversely affect the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area;

·       Proposed single storey garage extension would uncomfortably rise above the eaves of the original dwelling which would have an unbalanced appearance on the principal elevation;

·       The proposal could set a precedent for similar proposals;

·       Conflict with Policies H1 (Residential Areas) and D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (ALDP), as well as relevant Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance; and equivalent policies in emerging Proposed ALDP 2020; and

·       No material planning considerations that warrant approval in this instance.

In relation to the appellant’s case set out in the Notice of Review and separate review statement, the submission drew attention to the following:-

·       Extension had been designed to maximise useable 1st floor space whilst avoiding overlooking of neighbouring properties;

·       Appearance from neighbouring property at 99 Springfield Road would be that of a ‘traditional’ extension

·       Roof of extension was no higher than the existing dormer window and would leave a substantial area of the roof untouched;

·       This proposal was very similar to a scheme approved at 52 Westholme Avenue (ref 191451);

·       Also highlighted another example of modern design at 68 Springfield Road (ref 120661);

·       Advised that the garage design replicates that of a replacement garage directly opposite (58 Springfield Rd – ref 150431);

·       Dismissed the notion of precedent, advising that this proposal related to a unique corner plot and its specific circumstances; and

·       Highlighted the lack of objection from any neighbours.

In terms of consultee responses, Mr Evans advised that there was no response from Craigiebuckler and Seafield Community Council and there were no letters of representation submitted.

Mr Evans intimated that the applicant’s agent had indicated on the Notice of Review that no further procedure was required.

The Chairperson and Councillors Mason and bell all indicated in turn that they each had enough information before them and therefore agreed that a site visit was not required and that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.

Mr Evans outlined the relevant policy considerations, making reference to:-

·       Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017;

-        H1: Residential Areas; and

-        D1: Quality Placemaking by Design;

·       Supplementary Guidance – Householder Development Guide

-         General Principles relating to extensions; and

-         Detached Dwellings.

Mr Evans 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.

He indicated that should members wish to overturn the decision of the appointed officer, consideration should be given to any conditions which would be appropriate in order to make the proposal acceptable, however all conditions must meet the six tests set out by Scottish Government policy.

Mr Evans responded to a question from Councillor Bell, specifically regarding the location/position of the house to the road.

The Chairperson and Councillors Bell and Mason each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to uphold the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application.

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:-

By way of its two-storey flat roofed form, unbalanced asymmetric design, projection to the rear, and extensive glazing at the upper level, the proposed rear extension would not be architecturally compatible in design and scale with the symmetrical 1½ storey hipped roofed form of the original dwelling and the other residential properties of the surrounding area. Given its prominent location, which would be readily visible on the streetscape of Springfield Gardens and Springfield Road, the proposed extension would adversely affect the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area.

The LRB noted that it had no concerns regarding the proposed garage and its relationship with the eaves level of the dwelling.

The proposal could set a precedent for similar proposals in the surrounding area, which could significantly detract from the character and amenity of the surrounding area.

It would therefore conflict with Policies H1 - Residential Areas and D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design and of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017; the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide'; and Policies H1 - Residential Areas, D1 - Quality Placemaking and D2 - Amenity of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020.

There are no material planning considerations that warrant approval in this instance.

-         COUNCILLOR MARIE BOULTON, Chairperson