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 211117.

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 change of use from class 10 (non-residential institutions) to class 9 (houses), removal of single storey rear extension, installation of new windows and bi-fold doors, replacement windows, formation of replacement steps with wall and balustrade and erection of domestic double garage and driveway to rear of 499 Great Western Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 211117/DPP. 

Councillor Henrickson 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 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.  He 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 August 2021; (3) the decision notice dated 9 February 2022; (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; (6) consultee responses submitted by the Roads Development Team and Waste Services Team (ACC);  and (7) one letter of representation.

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 located on Great Western Road, close to the junction with Anderson Drive and within the Great Western Road Conservation Area. The adjacent site had been extended and subdivided into flats. The building was a traditional, two storey, semi-detached granite property, most recently used as a pre-school nursery. The building fronted north onto Great Western Road. 447 Great Western Road had been divided into flatted properties, which was located to the east; and a rear service lane was located to the south. To the rear along the eastern mutual boundary, there was a single storey annex with a projection of 6 metres between it and the western boundary was a modern conservatory. The ground floor level of the property was situated approximately 2 metres higher than garden level. The rear garden was bound by a 1.8 to 3.2 metre high granite boundary wall on the eastern and western boundaries, and by a 1.8 metre high timber fence on the southern boundary. At the far end of the site, there was a 100sqm area of hardstanding currently used for car parking.

In terms of the appellant’s proposal, Ms Greene indicated that planning permission was sought for the change of use from Class 10 (non-residential institutions) to Class 9 (houses); the removal of a single storey rear extension; the installation of new windows and bi-fold doors; the replacement of windows; the formation of replacement steps with wall and balustrade; and the erection of a domestic double garage and driveway. The existing conservatory would be removed and a terraced patio area would be created, infilling the area between the western mutual boundary and the single storey annex. On the southern boundary, the patio would be retained and enclosed by a 2 metre high wall and 1.1 metre high balustrade. 11 new steps would then lead down to the remaining garden ground. It was proposed to install a projecting bay window on the lower rear elevation, which would be exposed once the conservatory was removed. It would measure 2.6 metres in width and 4.4 metres in height, including a thick aluminium frame on all sides, coloured grey. It was proposed to retain the wall of the conservatory along the west boundary. It was proposed to extensively glaze the southern and western elevations of the rear annex through the installation of 4 metre wide bi-folding doors on the west elevation and a full height corner window which would wrap round the west and south elevations. Finishing materials included aluminium and coloured grey. On its north elevation, the existing secondary entrance would be replaced with a 0.9 metre wide full height window, finished with aluminium coloured grey which showed the 2.6 metre wide by 4.4 metre high projecting windows and the similar style glazing to the annex. The proposed framing material was powder coated aluminium.

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

·       Enlarged bay windows and openings in annexe did not relate to existing building or context;

·       The features mentioned above were highly visible modern interventions;

·       The features did not preserve the Conservation Area

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

·       The proposal would return property to residential use supported by Policy H1;

·       New openings are to the rear in line with Replacement Windows Supplementary Guidance and Technical Advice Note on Materials, therefore complied with Policy D1;

·       No impact features of historic interest, in relation to the Conservation Area designation, with works not visible from public viewpoints in Conservation Area;

·       There would be appropriate re-use of a granite building and would result in more granite being exposed, in compliance with Policy D5;

·       Design informed by clear understanding of significance and complies with Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS);

·       Efficient reuse of site for residential use, rather than greenfield site and was of good quality design, being therefore a sustainable development; and

·       It was consistent with other proposals in the Conservation Area and included a decision at 427 Great Western Road (170934/DPP).

In terms of consultee responses, Ms Greene advised that there were no objections, from either the Roads Team, Waste Team or Community Council and one neutral objection had been received which related to showing dimensions for the garage.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that the review could be considered without the need of 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 Allard and Thomson 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, Ms Greene referred to the following in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017:-

·       Policy H1: Relates to New Residential Developments;

·       Policy D4: Historic Environment;

·       D1: Quality Placemaking by Design;

·       D5: Our Granite Heritage;

·       T2: Managing the Transport Impact of Development;

·       T3: Sustainable and Active Travel;

·       T5: Noise; and

·       R6: Waste Management Requirements for New Development.

Ms Greene responded to questions from members in relation to the rear elevation and its visibility from the road and provided clarity in relation to policy D4 in terms of preservation and enhancement.

The Chairperson and Councillors Allard and Thomson each advised in turn and by a majority of 2 to 1 agreed to uphold the appointed officer’s decision to refuse planning permission.

Councillors Allard and Thomson agreed with the appointed officer’s decision to refuse the application.

The Chairperson indicated that he believed that in this instance, and on balance, he was comfortable with the proposed development as it would be an improvement to what currently was there, the view from various locations would be acceptable and it did not impinge on the character of the conservation area and surrounding properties.

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 enlargement of the existing bay opening and installation of new openings on the annexe fail to relate to the existing building or wholly take account of the surrounding context, in that they would result in excessive, modern interventions which would dominate the rear elevation of this traditional property, which is highly visible from a public viewpoint. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the requirements of Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and H1 (Residential Areas) of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017; the Supplementary Guidance: ‘The Householder Development Guide’; and Policies D1, D2 and H1 of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020.

The proposal would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Great Western Road Conservation Area in line with the legislative requirements of Scottish Planning Policy and Historic Environment Policy Scotland and would therefore also fail to address the requirements of Policies D4 (Historic Environment) and D5 (Our Granite Heritage) of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 and Policies D6, D7 and D8 of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020.

Taking the above into account and following on from the evaluation under policy and guidance, it is considered that there are no material planning considerations of sufficient weight that would warrant approval of the application in this instance.