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 220891.

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 for the refusal of the application for Detailed Planning Permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension, porch to the front and first floor side extension over garage, at 30 Cruickshank Crescent Aberdeen planning reference 220891.

Councillor Henrickson as Chair for the meeting, 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 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 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 13 July 2022; (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (4) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant; and (5) letter of representation from the Aberdeen City Council’s Roads Department.

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.  The application site comprised a two-storey end-terrace dwelling in a residential area, sharing a boundary with 32 Cruickshank Crescent to the southwest. The dwelling had a south-east principal elevation that fronted onto Cruickshank Crescent and to the northwest sat the rear garden of the site that adjoined the rear gardens of other properties. There was an existing driveway to the northeast of the site that adjoined the driveway at 28 Cruickshank. The existing dwelling was finished in a mix of stone chip render and brick, fitted with a white PVC door and windows and a slate roof.

In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene advised that planning permission was sought for proposed works, which consisted of two extensions to the side and front of the dwelling. To the front or south east, a porch extension had been proposed. This would measure 2.5m in width and 1.88m in length. The porch would have a door and glazed panel with a width of 1.59m on the front elevation with windows on the southwest and northeast elevations measuring 950mm in width and 1.3m in height.  To the side or northeast, a two-storey extension would form a first-floor extension sitting over a carport that would extend the existing width of the dwelling. The extension would measure 6.18m in length, 2.83m in width and 7.56m in height to the proposed ridge, which sat 215mm below the ridge of the existing dwelling. The front elevation of the extension would have a window that measures 1.36m in width and 1.24m in height and the rear elevation would have a window on the rear elevation measuring 770mm in width and 1.24m in height. The proposed carport would measure 2.71m in width and 6.18m in length, with an access width of 2.61m. The external wall of the carport, supporting the proposed first-floor extension would measure 170mm in width. Both the proposed extensions would be finished in materials to match the existing dwelling. A rear extension was also proposed that would form a kitchen to the rear of the dwelling. This extension was considered to be permitted development and thus did not form part of this application.

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

·       There would be impact to the neighbouring property at number 28 Cruickshank Crescent;

·       The extension was not complementary to the existing dwelling and would be out of character with the surrounding area;

·       The proposal was contrary to Policy H1, and D1 of the Householder Design Guide. 

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

·       The proposal was the same as an application approved at Marischal Gardens;

·       The gable window in neighbours house used to be a bedroom but was now used as a small store and was to be converted to a shower room;

·       Neighbouring property had confirmed they had no objection to the proposal.

In terms of Consultations, Ms Greene advised that the Council’s Roads Team had no objection to the proposal application and no comments had been received from the local Community Council. 

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that no further procedure was required.

The Chairperson and Councillors Clark and Cooke 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 Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017.

Ms Greene responded to various questions from members.

Members each advised in turn and by majority agreed to overturn the appointed officer’s earlier decision. Planning permission was therefore granted.  The Chairperson and Councillor Clark opted to approve the application and Councillor van Sweeden voted to 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:-

That the proposal would not result in over development of the site as the proposal was for relatively minor extensions. The building as extended, would fit in with the streetscape, not having a significant impact on the character and amenity of the area and there had been no objections. The proposal therefore accords with Policy H1 - Residential Areas and Policy D1 - Design and Placemaking in the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 and the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Guidance.