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 220673

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 a first floor extension over the existing garage to the front at 131 Grandholm Drive Aberdeen, planning reference 220673.

The Chairperson stated that although the Planning Adviser for the LRB 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; (2) an application dated 29 August 2022 (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (4) the Notice of Review submitted by the agent. 

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.    The application site was located within the Grandholm Development in Danestone, north of the River Don. The house was a large, 2 storey detached property with an attached single storey garage to the north west of the site, built forward of the building line. The house was located on a corner plot and was the last house on Grandholm Drive, heading west. It was located at the edge of a larger development with a well-used area of public open space with a footpath to its west. The site was enclosed by a circa 1.8m Fyfestone boundary wall.

In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene advised that the proposal was for the erection of a first floor extension above the existing garage, located to the front of the house, to form a home office. The resulting form would be 2 storeys in height with the roof designed in the same pyramid form as existing, with a linking section of roof to join into the main roof of the house.

Ms Greene indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal outlined in the report of handling was as follows:-

·       The proposal had an inappropriate design for the house and its context, with the scale, siting and roof design;

·       The massing and scale would result in over development;

·       There would be an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area, especially the rear elevation from the open space;

·       The proposal overwhelms and dominates the original form and appearance of the dwelling and was not subservient in terms of height, mass or scale.

·       It was contrary to Policy H1 and D1 and the Householder Design Guide.

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

• The house was two storeys and fronts Grandholm Drive but had a garage extending forward of the house, which was the prominent element;
• The garage provided termination at the end of a private road and mirrors other end where number 121 had a projection forward of the main house.
• The character of the houses views across the open space to west was of two storeys behind the masonry wall;
• The proposed extension introduced windows to the first floor on all elevations and mirrors band course on the front of house, with roof replaced in the same form. The finish, colour and pitch of roofs continues and the extension was a sensitive solution.

In terms of Consultations, no letters of representation were received and no consultee comments.   

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that a site visit should take place before determination.

The Chairperson and Councillors Clark 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 relevant planning policies contained in the Local Development Plan.

Ms Greene responded to various questions from members.

Members each advised in turn and agreed unanimously to overturn the original decision.  Planning permission was therefore granted. 

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 proposal was of an appropriate design for the house and surrounding context.  The scale and siting of the proposed extension, the roof design, massing and general scale of the proposal, would have an acceptable impact within the context of the surrounding area and as it is set back the extension would not be unduly dominant in views from the nearby open space. The proposed extension fits the original form and appearance of the dwelling.  As such the proposal complies with Policies H1: Residential Areas and D1: Quality Placemaking by Design as well as the Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance.