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 230683.

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 formation of first floor extension over the existing garage and extensions to the front and rear at 6 Morningside Avenue Aberdeen, planning reference 230683.

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 5 June 2023 (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 to the south-west of the city in the established residential neighbourhood of Mannofield. The application dwelling was circa 1950s, 1.5 storey in height and semidetached.  The principal elevation faced south-east onto Morningside Avenue, its rear garden was to the north-west, which abuts the Mannofield Water Treatment Works, and bounded with neighbouring residential properties to both sides. To the north-east and south-west of the site lie other sets of semi-detached dwellings.

The application dwelling comprises a 2-bedroom property with a single-storey garage extension to the north-east side. There were existing dormers on both the front and rear of the dwelling, a large single pitched roof dormer to front and flat roofed dormer to rear. The property had been previously extended to the rear by means of a single storey rear extension which occupies the whole feu width, with pitched/hip and flat roof elements. The dwelling was of an architectural style typical of the street and is finished in grey granite, with pink granite quoin, cill and basecourse detailing, white windows, light grey door and slate roof. The side garage was finished in stone, flat roof and light grey door. The ground level of the road noticeably slopes upwards towards the front elevation of the dwelling (south-east) and gave the property a more elevated positioning compared to the opposite side of the street. The front garden contained a single width driveway, with the majority laid as rockery shrub planting.  The site sits just outwith the boundary of the Great Western Road Conservation Area which is to the north west.

In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene explained that planning permission was sought for the erection of a first-floor extension, which proposed to extend the height of the existing garage, extending up and building over it to rearrange the upper floor layout of the dwelling, incorporating a new master bedroom with en-suite and study.

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

The scale and design of the proposed extension was not compatible with the original dwelling, adversely unbalancing the semi-detached property due to the form of the roof and overwhelms the existing dwelling but virtue of its form and massing, thus resulting in over-development. The extension was also considered to conflict with the prevalent character of the street, effectively creating a terrace and resulting in no clear division between it and its neighbouring dwelling, which had an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding residential area. Furthermore, the proposed front and rear dormers would overwhelm their existing roof slopes when incorporated into the proposed extension, exacerbating the adverse impact on the surrounding residential area. As such, the proposal is not compliant with Policy H1 (Residential Areas) or Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023. The proposal was also not considered acceptable against Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and Policy 16 (Quality Homes) of National Planning Framework 4.

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

• The proposals reflect scale and design of the house and do not dominate or overwhelm;
• The streetscape was a mix of house types and their various alterations over time;
• The design was consistent with the original house and also with many alterations in the surrounding streets;
• The roof would mirror that at 4 Morningside Avenue;
• There were imilar extensions at 8 Morningside Avenue (2011) which was considered a suitable scale and design;
• The property and surrounding areas were not in a conservation area;
• the applicant had personal reasons to stay in the area;
• No representations received and no detrimental impact on neighbouring properties;
• Householder Development Guide had not yet been adopted, and the weight was at the discretion of the decision maker;
• The dormers complied in position, window placement was also within the guidance;
• The proposed roof shape would not match adjoining semi as that had an extended straight gable, however, many variations exist in the area and the officers view was subjective; and
• It complied with D2 on Amenity – light, privacy and amenity space.

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 no further procedure was required before determination.

The Chairperson and Councillors Alphonse, Boulton, Bouse and Lawrence 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 National Planning Framework 4 and the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023.

Ms Greene responded to questions from members.

Members each advised in turn and agreed unanimously to overturn the appointed officers previous decision.  Planning permission was therefore granted 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:-

There was a mixture of styles of houses and extensions on the street and within the surrounding area, although it was acknowledged that some of these at varying times. The proposal would not result in over development of the plot and would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the area. Houses in the surrounding area had a similar style of extension, and although it was acknowledged that each case was determined on its own merits, in this case the proposal was not out of keeping with the character of the area. There was a need for extensions, in order to allow smaller houses to accommodate the needs of families today, including people working from home. The proposed materials would match those of the existing house and would be the subject of a condition. The proposal thereby accords with Policy H1: Residential Areas and D1: Design, in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023 (LDP) and Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place and 16: Quality Homes in the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Aberdeen Planning Guidance: Householder Guide.

There was no significant impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring houses and an adequate level of amenity would be created for the residents of the application property, in accordance with Policy D2: Amenity, in the LDP.  The proposal would not impact on the character of the nearby Conservation Area and would therefore preserve its character in accordance with Policy D6: Historic Environment, in the Local Development Plan.

                                                      CONDITIONS

This permission is granted subject to the following conditions.

(01)    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.

(02) MATERIALS

That no materials shall be used on site other than in accordance with details, including samples where necessary, submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority.

Reason - in the interests of quality design and visual amenity.