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 220422

The LRB then considered the third 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 a 2 storey extension to front/side at 9A Overton Crescent, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 220422/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 31 March 2022; (3) the decision notice dated 29 June 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 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 comprised a modern, two-storey, detached dwelling with front, side and rear curtilage. The dwelling fronts onto Overton Crescent, forming part of a radial cul-de-sac arrangement shared with five other dwellings and was bound to the north, south and east by residential properties and their respective gardens.

In terms of the applicant’s proposal, Ms Green indicated that planning permission was being sought for the formation of a driveway to the rear (south-west) of the building. It was proposed to remove a section of the granite boundary wall measuring 2.7m wide. This, along with the removal of existing bushes, would accommodate the proposed driveway which would measure 3m x 5m and would have a porous paver finish. A note within the proposed plans stated that a mirror is to be mounted on top of the boundary wall to give views of oncoming vehicles and pedestrians along the lane. She explained that that planning permission was not required for the demolition of the existing boundary wall.

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

·       Layout, composition, form and scale within cul-de-sac would harm visual amenity and the character of the street;

·       Lacked architectural compatibility, due to massing and lack of glazing; and

·       Was Contrary to Policies H1 and D1.

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

·       9A was the host for a property split and had already had a two storey extension to the front;

·       Front door to No. 9 had always been set back with an entrance ramp – proposed extension did not impact on amenity space or cause over shadowing;

·       Existing two storey extension would break the ‘radial development line’;

·       Scale and materials were consistent with existing property; and

·       Window openings related to the use of rooms and large openings would over power the elevation.

Ms Greene advised that there were no comments submitted from the Community Council, nor any other consultee responses. There were no representations submitted.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that a site inspection of the land to which the review related should be undertaken.

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: New Residential Developments; and

·       Policy D1: Quality Placemaking by Design.

Ms Greene responded to a question from the Chairperson in relation to the potential amenity impact on the area in terms of views from the main road.

The Chairperson and Councillors Thomson and van Sweeden each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to uphold the appointed officer’s decision to refuse 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 front/side extension by reason of its layout, composition, form and scale and the general arrangement of dwelling within the cul-de-sac would cause harm the visual amenity and character of the streetscape. The proposed extension is not considered to be architecturally compatible with the host building owing to its massing and the lack of glazing found to its principal elevation. The proposal is therefore considered to have a detrimental impact on the character and

appearance of the building and, owing to its exposed nature, the surrounding area. The proposed extension therefore conflicts with the relevant provisions of Policy H1 (Residential Areas) and Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017, including the Council’s Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide. On the basis of the above, it is considered that there are no material planning considerations of sufficient weight that would warrant approval of the application.

-         COUNCILLOR DELL HENRICKSON, Chairperson