How can we help you...

Agenda item

9 Kildrummy Road - Erection of Two Storey Side Extension with Integral Garage and Alterations to Boundary Wall and Rear Extension Roof - 210477/DPP


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 of a two-storey side extension with integral garage and alterations to boundary wall and rear extension roof at 9 Kildrummy Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 210477/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 the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 2 April 2021; (3) the decision notice dated 16 June 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.


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 then described the site advising that it was a residential curtilage, located on a corner plot at the junction of Kildrummy Road and Fintray Road. The site comprised a one-and-a-half storey, semi-detached dwellinghouse with associated front and rear gardens. There was currently a lean-to garage abutting the southern gable of the dwelling (onto Fintray Road). To the rear of the garage was a single storey extension, measuring 5.2m long by 2.2m wide. These two single-storey elements of the property were set slightly back from the boundary wall (circa 1.3m).


Mr Evans made reference to the history of the site and outlined the proposal for Detailed Planning Permission (DPP) which was sought for the erection of a 1.5 storey side extension, with integrated garage and utility/storage space at ground floor level and living accommodation at first floor level by virtue of dormer windows at front and rear. The extension would measure approximately 4.3m wide, taking it right up to the boundary with Fintray Road, and would project c.9.3m (matching the depth of the existing house and lining up with its front and rear walls). The proposed extension was of a pitched roof design to match the roof of the existing dwelling, with the roof of the existing single-storey rear extension altered to tie in with this new section of roof over the new extension. The extension incorporated dormer windows on both the front and rear slopes of the roof. These would be formed through the extension of existing dormer windows, as could be seen from the elevations. These extended dormer windows would be set in slightly from the roof edge (0.7m at front and 0.9m to rear). Finishing materials would include white roughcast render, brown concrete rooftiles and white uPVC fascia, soffits and rainwater goods. A section of the boundary wall to Fintray Road would be removed to accommodate the extension, with the wall then rebuilt to tie in to the front and rear walls of the extension. This aspect of the works could be undertaken as ‘permitted development’, therefore was not within the scope of the appointed officer’s assessment.


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

·       the proposed extension, due to its massing and location - extending entirely to the southern boundary of the site where it meets the public footpath – would create an oppressive, dominating structure, as a result of site specific characteristics, which would be to the detriment of the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area;

·       The proposal had not been designed with due consideration for its context, having an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of the area and thus, fails to accord with Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan; its associated Supplementary Guidance: 'Householder Development Guide'; and Policies D1, D2 and H1 of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan; and

·       there are no material planning considerations that would warrant approval of permission in this instance.


Mr Evans outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review making reference to the following:-

·       highlighted the positive elements of the proposal identified in the officer’s report – including: size and design of the extension; developed extent of the plot; design of dormer windows/roof extension; and amenity/privacy/light impact on neighbours;

·       concluded that corner plot location and relationship with wider context are the basis for refusal. Suggested that the scale of its impact is over-stated within the officer assessment;

·       advised that amendments suggested by the case officer would significantly compromise the additional accommodation and queried whether this would be materially different in terms of its relationship with the street;

·       provided a detailed review of the proposal against the relevant Aberdeen Local Development Plan policies;

·       provided various examples of existing properties which have been extended to directly abut the public footway/road, as well as traditional properties constructed in this manner; and

·       included a statement of the applicants’ personal circumstances and motivations behind the proposal.


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 received.


Mr Evans advised that the applicant had expressed the view that no further procedures were required.


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 Bell 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.


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


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.


Mr Evans responded to a question from Councillor Bell, specifically regarding a similar extension to a property in the area.


The Chairperson and Councillors Bell and Henrickson each advised in turn and by a majority of two to one, agreed to reverse the appointed officer’s earlier decision and to grant the planning permission unconditionally.


The Chairperson and Councillor Bell indicated that the proposal would not be overwhelming, nor would it be detrimental to the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area or have an impact on the neighbours and would therefore accord with the relevant policies of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, as well as the relevant sections of the 'Householder Development Guide' Supplementary Guidance.


Councillor Henrickson agreed with the appointed officer’s decision 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:-

To reverse the appointed officer's decision and grant planning permission unconditionally. The LRB noted that properties in the surrounding area have been subject to various different forms of extension and alteration, such that there is no strong sense of uniformity, and highlighted that the appointed officer's report noted a number of areas where the proposal is in compliance with the relevant 'Householder Development Guide' Supplementary Guidance. Members considered that the extension's siting along the boundary with Fintray Road did not warrant refusal, and also highlighted that a revised scheme suggested by the case officer would have a similar degree of impact.


Taking these matters into account, the LRB felt that the proposal would accord with policies H1 (Residential Areas) and D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, as well as the relevant sections of the 'Householder Development Guide' Supplementary Guidance.

Supporting documents: