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 230767.
Minutes:
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 7 April 2023 (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 agent; and (5) two letters of support.
Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal. The application site comprised a 1.5-storey semi-detached dwelling in Mannofield which shared a mutual boundary with 29 Morningside Avenue to the north. The dwelling had a west-facing principal elevation that fronts onto Morningside Avenue and a rear garden to the east which is bounded by residential sites on each side. To the north and south of the site sat another set of semi-detached properties. The application dwelling was formed of a two-bedroom property with a single-storey garage extension to the side. There was an existing single box dormer on both the front and rear of the roof, each of which shares a party wall with the dormer on the other half of the semi-detached property. The dwelling was constructed in granite, with white windows and a doors and a slate roof. The existing garage was finished with a black roller shutter door and white lining cladding on the exterior wall and the ground level of the road noticeably slopes down towards the south of Morningside Avenue.
In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene explained that detailed planning permission was sought for the erection of a first-floor extension, extending the
height of the garage extension and building over it to rearrange the top floor, incorporating three bedrooms and a bathroom.
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 interfering with the existing chimney. The extension would also conflict with the prevalent character of the surrounding area as the majority of properties had maintained a balanced hipped roof form with a chimney in the centre or to the sides of the property. Furthermore, the proposed front dormer would overwhelm the existing roof slope when incorporated into the proposed extension, interfering with the appearance of the existing chimney and diverging from the character of front dormers in the surrounding area. As such, the proposal was 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) of National Planning Framework 4.
Ms Greene outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review as follows:-
In terms of Consultations, two letters of support 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 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.
There were no 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 is acknowledged that these were built 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 similar styles of extension, and 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 and in this case it was both difficult to extend to the rear and potentially would have more impact on neighbours compared to the proposal.
The proposed materials would match those of the existing house and would be the subject of a condition; the retention of the chimney was also welcomed, as it was a feature in common with other houses on the street . 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). Although in terms of roof alterations the proposal does not comply with the Aberdeen Planning Guidance: Householder Guide, this was outweighed by the particular considerations of this case as noted above.
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 retention of the garden, as opposed to an alternative proposal of extending to the rear, meant that the proposal did not impact negatively on climate change mitigation and detract from biodiversity, thus according with Policy 1: Tackling the Climate and Nature Crisis and Policy 3: Biodiversity in NPF4.
CONDITIONS
This permission is granted subject to the following conditions.
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.