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 211447.

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 porch, 1.5 storey extension to north elevation, dormer extensions and detached domestic garage at Kingshill, Kingswells, Aberdeen, AB15 8QB, Planning Reference number 211447/DPP. 

Councillor Henrickson, who was chairing the following two reviews 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 15 September 2021; (3) the decision notice dated 13 September 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; and (6) a consultee response submitted by the Roads Development Management Team.

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 1.5 storey late 19th century granite-built dwellinghouse, known as Kingshill. It has associated residential curtilage, and an area of undeveloped land to its east. The dwellinghouse had a southeast facing principal elevation; it had single-storey flat roofed extension to the rear and a box dormer to the front. The site sloped c.1m from the north of the site to the ground adjacent to the southeast elevation of the dwellinghouse. The application site was allocated within Opportunity Site 38 – Countesswells (OP38) in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017, the delivery and construction of the Countesswells development is on-going and much of it to the south of the application site had been completed. The dwellinghouse was part of a group of four dwellinghouses bounding Kingshill Road.

In terms of the appellant’s proposal, Ms Greene advised that Detailed Planning Permission was sought for the erection of a two storey extension next to the existing projecting gable. The extension would have a maximum height of 5.6m, with ridges at 5.5m and eaves at 2.8m. The extension would project 6m beyond the existing flat roofed extension and the porch would include an entrance door and would project out 2.6m. In terms of the materials, the front elevation would be in reclaimed granite and the roof would be slate. The roof tiles would match the existing, other finishes would  be cement timber effect cladding and fyfestone (slate and pink mix) with UPVC windows.

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

• Excessive massing, projection to rear and dominant built elements;
• Inconsistent design features;
• Footprint relative to original house;
• Detracts from character and amenity of the area; and
• Contrary to Policy D1, and Householder Design Guide, D1 and D2 of the Proposed Plan.

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

• Roof form was compromised when dormer was installed;
• Footprint of building previously included area to north, albeit not with flat roof (1901 ordnance survey submitted);
• Proposal was superior quality and more traditional roof, less brutal dormer and over design cohesion;
• Materials are consistent with local vernacular;
• Existing footprint was 122m2, whilst proposed is 188m2 – 54% increase;
• Site area is 957m2 and proposal is 217m2 with garage – 23% of plot;
• Area was dominated by Countesswells, proposal would not detract; and
• There were a few examples of vernacular architecture in area.

Ms Greene provided details in relation to the consultee response from the Council’s Roads Development Management Team advising that they had no objections to the proposal. There were no comments from the community council and no other representations submitted.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that the further procedure was required, with a request that a site inspection be undertaken.

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 following in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 and the Proposed Plan 2020.

Ms Greene responded to questions from members in relation to the site plan from the west, she also clarified that the property was not listed and not in situated within a Conservation Area.

The Chairperson and Councillors Clark and Cooke each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to reverse the appointed officer’s decision and to therefore grant planning permission conditionally.

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:-

Taking into account the context of the surrounding area, the proposed extension would be acceptable in terms of its design, scale and massing, including its impact on the original dwellinghouse. It would not detract from the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area. It would therefore accord with Policy H1 - Residential Areas and Policy D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017; the Supplementary Guidance: ‘The Householder Development Guide’; and Policy H1 - Residential Areas, Policy D1 – Quality Placemaking and D2 – Amenity of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020.

Condition

Duration of Permission - The development to which this notice relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date of this notice. If development has not begun at the expiration of the 3-year period, the planning permission lapses.

Reason - in accordance with section 58 (duration of planning permission) of the 1997 act.