Agenda item

Members, please note that all plans and supporting documents relevant to the review can be viewed online here and by entering the application reference number 210851

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 raised decking with balustrade to the rear at 12 Woodhill Place Aberdeen, planning reference number 210851/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, Mrs Lynsey McBain with regards to the procedure to be followed and 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.  The Chairperson emphasised that the officer would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

The Local Review Body was then addressed by Mrs McBain, 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 10 June 2021; (3) the decision notice dated 24 February 2022; (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’s agent. 

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 the application site formed part of an established residential area and comprised a semi-detached one and a half storey dwelling and its front, side and rear curtilage.  The property had been extended to the rear (east) by way of a two-storey extension and the principal elevation fronts Woodhill Place, while residential properties bound the site to the north, south and east.   The property shared a mutual driveway with 10 Woodhill Place and the site slopes down gradually from west to east, resulting in a basement level to the rear of the dwelling.

Mr Evans advised that detailed planning permission was sought for the erection of a raised area of decking to the rear elevation of the dwelling, accessed via the kitchen within the existing rear extension and the decking would project 2.4m from ground level with a 1.1m high timber balustrade.  It was also proposed to include a 1.8m glazed screen along the southern extent of the raised deck.  Finishing materials include natural stained timber.   It was noted that since the application was submitted, the proposal was amended to include a section of glazed screening along the southern elevation of the proposed raised deck.

Mr Evans indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal stated in the decision notice was that the proposed raised deck, whilst of a suitable design and material finish in accordance with the provisions of Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design), fails to comply with Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 in addition to the Council's Supplementary Guidance 'Householder Development Guide'. The proposed deck, owing to its position and height would result in an adverse impact upon adjacent residential property in respect of overlooking and loss of privacy of established, private and usable rear garden ground. The proposal also fails to satisfy the relevant policies of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020.

Mr Evans outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review as follows:-

·       Highlights that the appointed officer’s report considered that the raised deck would be of suitable design and material finish;

·       Notes that the reasons for refusal relate to a perceived failure to comply with Policy H1, along with relevant policies in the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan;

·       Highlights that a screen was added to the proposal to minimise overlooking from the deck but this was considered to be inadequate to address officer’s concerns.

Mr Evans advised that no letters of objection had been received or consultee comments. 

Mr Evans advised that the applicant had expressed the view that the review could be considered without the need for any further procedure.

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

The Chairperson and Councillors Bell and Henrickson all indicated in turn that they each had enough information before them and therefore agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without any further procedure.

In terms of relevant policy considerations, Mr Evans referred to the following in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017:-

·       H1 – Residential Areas;

·       D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design;

Mr Evans also noted that the Supplementary Guidance – Householder Development Guide was relevant to the application.

Ms Evans responded to questions from members, noting that nothing had been indicated from the applicant in regards to the proposed screening and what that would entail. 

The Chairperson and Councillors Bell and Henrickson each advised in turn and by majority agreed to reverse the appointed officer’s earlier decision and to grant the planning permission conditionally.  The Chairperson and Councillor Bell were minded to approve the application conditionally and Councillor Henrickson voted to uphold the officers decision and 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:-

Members of the Local Review Body, by a 2 to 1 majority, voted to reverse the appointed officer's decision and grant planning permission, subject to a single condition.

The LRB concurred with the appointed officer's view that the proposal would satisfy policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) in relation to design quality and context.

Members considered the key issues to be in relation to overlooking and amenity. Members were satisfied that a combination of existing hedging, a new screen to southern edge of the raised deck and the presence of a driveway shared with number 10 would be sufficient to ensure that there would be no unacceptable impact on privacy or amenity as a result of the proposed development, consistent with policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (ALDP). Members noted that existing hedge which helps to screen number 14 is within that neighbouring plot, so its retention would be within neighbours' control.

The LRB noted that the application had attracted no objections from neighbours, nor from the local Community Council.

CONDITIONS

1)    Privacy Screening

No development pursuant to this grant of planning permission shall be undertaken unless full details of the privacy screen shown along the southern edge of the raised deck have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the planning authority.

The raised deck shall not be brought into use unless privacy screening has been installed in full accordance with the details so agreed, and thereafter the privacy screen shall be retained in perpetuity.

Reason - in order to mitigate potential privacy/overlooking impacts.