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 alterations and extension to  the dwellinghouse at Borrowstone, Borrowstone Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 210930/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 Ms Lucy Greene 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, 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.

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 24 June 2021; (3) the decision notice dated 11 November 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 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 it was a traditional granite house with curtilage mainly to the south and east. It lay to the south of the farm buildings and to the east of Borrowstone Bothy that had been extended and converted for residential use. The frontage of the building faced south. Other buildings in the grouping include a collection of agricultural buildings of a mix of sizes and materials, mostly modern. The site was accessed from a private track off a minor road which joins the AWPR roundabout on the A944.

Ms Greene indicated that there was no relevant planning history and advised that Detailed Planning Permission (DPP) was sought for the contemporary style single storey extension to the front and side of the house and would wrap around the corner of the building. The extension would be glazed to the south, with black horizontal and vertical timber cladding. The roof would be a single ply membrane with aluminium parapet flashing and aluminium clad timber windows. Other works including to dormers, do not require planning permission as they were permitted development. Three trees would be removed due to ash die back. The extension would not be within the root protection area of remaining trees, whilst it would be slightly within the Zone of Influence, approximately the falling area of the mature tree.

She indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal stated in the decision notice was as follows:-

·       that it was detrimental to the character and appearance of the traditional farmhouse;

·       that it was therefore detrimental to the character of the green belt and the contribution of the traditional building to that character; and

·       that it conflicted with policies NE2 (Green Belt), D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 and Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance.

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

• there was no adverse impact on the green belt with the existing house being screened by mature trees from public view, impact on the wider landscape setting of the city and impact on the boundary of the existing community;
• the proposed extension was smaller than the recently constructed extension to the bothy building to the west. It was consistent with the established pattern of development;
• the extension was subservient and of high quality design, complying with policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and policy NE2 (Green Belt);
• there was no impact on natural heritage including trees and protected species;
• it was consistent with the Council’s Technical Advice Note on Materials;
• it was not possible to extend the house to the north and the extension to the south would deliver solar gain;
• the proposed extension was smaller than the size of the extension that could be built under permitted development rights; and
• there was reference to various points within the Report of Handling, confirming compliance with elements of policies and Supplementary Guidance.

In terms of consultee responses, Ms Greene advised that no comments were received from Kingswells Community Council and there were no representations submitted.

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

At this point in the proceedings, the LRB considered whether they had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review.

Councillor Allan advised that she had enough information before her and that the review under consideration should be determined without any further procedure. Councillor Mason and the Chairperson in turn requested that a site visit be undertaken prior to determining the review, therefore the LRB agreed by a majority of 2 to 1 that a site visit be held prior to determining the review.

The review under consideration was therefore adjourned for a site visit to be conducted in due course.