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 220221

The LRB then considered the second 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 1.5 storey and single storey extensions and installation of rooflights to rear of 55 Argyll Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 220221/DPP. 

The Chairperson advised that Ms Lucy Greene would again be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the following case under consideration this day and reiterated 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.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council (ACC); (2) the original application dated 22 February 2022; (3) the decision notice dated 18 May 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’s agent; (6) a consultee response submitted by the Roads Development Management Team (ACC); and (7) a 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 the residential curtilage of a category-B listed end-of-terrace one and three quarter dwellinghouse on the western side of Argyll Place in Rosemount, which was located within the Rosemount and Westburn Conservation Area. The application property was predominantly finished in an ashlar granite to front and rear with pink granite stringcourse on front elevation. Two piended dormer windows were incorporated into the front roof slope with granite chimney stacks located on both sides whilst the rear roof slope incorporated rooflights and a unique third chimney stack inset into the principal rear elevation wall. A partially hipped roof single storey extension lay on the rear elevation which was finished in a local granite and slate tiled roof featuring four rooflights. Some brick quoining was also incorporated into the extension. A detached pitched roof garage with gables to front and rear existed within the rear garden area finished in a green render and a set of black vehicle access doors complete the western boundary

enclosure to the site, which were accessed by a rear lane serving properties 37 to 93 Argyll Place. Mile End Lane adjoined the rear lane to the west which served other residential properties to the  west of the site.

In terms of the appellant’s proposal, Ms Greene advised that Detailed Planning Permission was sought for the erection of a rear extension with two and single

storey components, and installation of rooflights. The extension projected up to 4.5m out from the principal rear elevation at a width of 8m, set 1.3m off the southern boundary wall and 1.18m off the northern boundary wall. The single storey part of the extension would have an eaves height of 3.5m with a flat roof whilst the two-storey part of the extension would have an eaves height of 4.82m and ridge height of 6.15m, with the two-storey component of the extension projecting 0.5m further out from the rear elevation than the single storey part. The west elevation of the extension would be predominantly glazed across both floor levels with a brown timber cladding surrounding, which would also finish the southern elevation. Granite down-takings from the existing rear extension would finish the northern elevation. Rooflights would be incorporated into both roof planes of the two-storey pitched roof and one in the flat roof of the single storey part of the extension.

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

• Excessive scale and massing would have adverse impact on character, setting and appearance of the Category B listed building and terrace;
• Detrimental to character of Rosemount and Westburn Conservation Area;
• Contrary to H1, D1, D4 and policy and guidance from Historical Environment Scotland; and
• Design merits of rooflight and re-use of granite would outweigh matters above.

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

·       Rear elevations had been extended and altered over time;

·       Extension was modern interpretation of the form of surrounding properties;

·       Materials were high quality including re-use of granite;

·       Layout allowed preservation of stair and principle rooms;

·       Extension positioned to reduce impact on neighbours and it complied with daylighting guidelines;

·       Extension represented only 18% increase in floorspace;

·       Height of roof was subservient to original house and respects character;

·       It was an obvious modern addition. Architectural character of listed building had been retained; and

·       Extension would adapt house for modern living allowing its use for the next 100 years.

Ms Greene advised that there were no comments submitted from the Community Council, nor any other consultee responses, although one representation had been received, which objected to the proposal.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that the review may proceed on the basis of the information provided.

The Chairperson and Councillors Thomson and van Sweeden 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: Relating to new residential developments;

·       Policy D4: Historic Environment;

·       Policy D1: Quality Placemaking by Design;

·       Policy D5: Our Granite Heritage;

·       Policy T2: Managing the Transport Impact of Development;

·       Policy T3: Sustainable and Active Travel; and

·       Policy R6: Waste Management Requirements for New Development.

Ms Greene responded to a question from the Chairperson who sought clarification in terms of the importance placed on the front and rear of the property when determining views from various locations.

The Chairperson and Councillors Thomson and van Sweeden each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to uphold the appointed officer’s earlier decision to refuse the planning permission.

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 proposed rear extension would be excessive in scale and massing on the basis that it would have an adverse impact on the historic character, setting and appearance of the category B-listed building and wider terrace it lies within, thus detracting from the character and appearance of the surrounding area, which would be of detriment to the Rosemount & Westburn Conservation Area. As such, the proposal would fail to comply with all relevant requirements of Policy H1 (Residential Areas), Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and Policy D4 (Historic Environment) in the extant Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 and policies H1 (Residential Areas), D1 (Quality Placemaking) and D6 (Historic Environment) in the Proposed Local Development Plan. The proposal would also be at odds with relevant national policy and guidance published by Historic Environment Scotland. The design merits of the proposed rooflight and re-use of existing granite within the proposed extension are not considered to materially outweigh the departures from the aforementioned relevant policies and guidance. Therefore, the proposal is worthy of refusal.