Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the third request for a review.  The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Ms Lucy Greene and reminded members that Ms Greene 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.  Ms Greene would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

Ms Greene explained that the application which was the subject of the review was for the proposed formation of a straight gable, extension to front dormer and erection of1.5 storey extension to rear.  

Ms Greene explained that she had checked the submitted Notice of Review and found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes. 

Ms Greene explained that the site referred to was located to the south of King’s Cross Road and extended to 511.7 sq.m and was occupied by a 1.5 storey semi-detached dwelling house and a detached single garage to the rear. The area was characterised by properties of similar design and materials.  The site was identified by the Adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012 as a residential area. 

Ms Greene explained that planning permission was sought to straighten the existing hipped gable and erecting a 1.5 storey rear extension to the existing dwellinghouse. The proposed extensions would accommodate a new kitchen/ living area at the ground floor and three numbers of enlarged bedrooms with an en-suite, a bathroom and a storage space on the first floor. The proposed rear extension would have an overall projection of 4m and would have an eaves height of 3.4m and a ridge height of 7.3m.

The proposal also included dormer extensions to the front of the property (north elevation) and a new dormer on the eastern pitch of the proposed rear extension pitched roof.  Finishing materials would include a slated roof and rendered cladding.

She also highlighted the site’s previous planning history, wherein it was advised that detailed planning application for formation of a dormer window was approved unconditionally in May 2005.

In relation to documents which the Members of the Body should consider, Ms Greene outlined that all the following documents were accessible via web links, and available as set out in the papers:-

In relation to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan:-

Policy D1- Architecture and Placemaking

To ensure high standard of design, new development must be designed with due consideration for its context and make a positive contribution to its setting. Factors such as siting, scale, massing, colour, materials, orientation, details, the proportions of building elements, together with the spaces around buildings, including streets, squares, open space, landscaping and boundary treatments, would be considered in assessing that contribution.

Policy H1- Residential Areas

Within existing residential areas (H1 on the Proposals Map) and within new residential developments, proposals for new residential development and householder development will be approved in principle if it:

1. did not have an unacceptable impact on the character or amenity of the surrounding area; and
2. complied with Supplementary Guidance contained in the Householder Development Guide.

In relation to Supplementary Guidance:-

The Council’s Supplementary Guidance on the Householder Development Guide was a material consideration in this instance.

In relation to the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan, Policies D1- Quality Placemaking by Design (D1- Architecture and Placemaking in adopted LDP) and H1- Residential Areas (H1- Residential Areas in adopted LDP) were material considerations.

National Policy and Guidance – Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) required that where, in making any determination under the planning acts, regard was to be had to the provisions of the development plan and that determination should be made in accordance with the plan, so far as material to the application, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. 

In relation to consultations, Ms Greene advised that no representations had been received in respect of the proposal.

Ms Greene highlighted that the application site was located within an area zoned for residential use in the Adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2012), and related to an exisitng dwelling. Therefore, the proposal was acceptable in principle subject to an acceptable form and appearance. In determining what constituted an acceptable form of extension, the aforementioned national and local planning policies and associated supplementary guidance would be of relevance.

Specifically regarding the design, scale and massing of the proposed hip to gable extension, Ms Greene referredto the Council’s Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide which was adopted in August 2012 and introduced specific guidance on straightening of the hipped roofs. This document highlighted that applications for such development prior to this date were determined under different circumstances in terms of the applicable policy context and therefore offer no precedent for applications submitted after the adoption of this guidance. The current Householder Development Guide stated that modifying only one half of a hipped roof was likely to result in the roof/ building having an unbalanced appearance.

The practice of extending a hipped roof on one half of a pair of semi-detached houses to terminate at a raised gable would not generally be acceptable unless the other half of the building had already been altered in this way or such proposal would not, as a result of the existing streetscape and the character of the buildings therein, result in any adverse impact on the character or visual amenity of the wider area. As the application property adjoined another with a hipped roof, the proposal did not meet the first criteria and the proposal therefore falls to be assessed agianst the second exception.

In this case the existing streetscape, particularly on Kings Cross Road had a consistent design theme of hipped roofed properties. It was considered that there was a clear predominance of the original design character of hipped roof prevailing within this streetscape. The only two exceptions with a hip to gable extension in the immediate area are No. 2 Kings Cross Avenue (approved in 2004) and 2 Kings Cross Terrace (approved in February 2012) and Ms Greene explained that the decision did not set precedent for similar applications submitted after the introduction of the Supplementary Guidance in August 2012.

Ms Greene advised that the stated reason for refusal of planning permission was as follows:

The proposal did not comply with Policy D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and H1 (Residential Areas) of Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012 and the associated ‘Householder Development Guide’ Supplementary Guidance in that the proposal did not demonstrate due regard for the design and context of the streetscape, and as a result the proposed development would appear out of context and would impose a negative design on the surrounding area. Also the proposed rear dormer would have a detrimental impact on privacy of No. 8 Kings Cross Road. On the basis of the aforementioned information, and following on from the evaluation under policy and guidance, it was considered that the proposal did not accord with the provisions of the Development Plan and that there were no material planning considerations – including the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan – that would warrant approval of the application.

Ms Greene referred Members to electronic plans of the proposed development. She also advised of the applicant’s response to the decision, referring to the Notice of Review and accompanying statement.

The Local Review Body then asked a number of questions of Ms Greene and the Chairperson confirmed that Members had taken into consideration all of the documents which were before them today in respect of this review.

At this point, the Local Review Body considered whether it had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review. The Local Review Body thereupon agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure. 

Members unanimously agreed that the proposal was contrary to Policy (1) D1 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, which advised that high standards of design, new development must be designed with due consideration for its context and make a positive contribution to its setting.  Factors such as siting, scale, massing, colour, materials, orientation, details, the proportions of building elements, together with the spaces around buildings, including streets, squares, open space, landscaping and boundary treatments, would be considered in assessing that contribution; and (2) H1 (Residential Areas) of Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012 and the associated ‘Householder Development Guide’ Supplementary Guidance.

The Local Review Body therefore unanimously agreed to uphold the decision of the appointed officer and 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(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) which required that where, in making any determination under the planning acts, regard was to be had to the provisions of the development plan and that determination should be made in accordance with the plan, so far as material to the application, unless material considerations indicated otherwise.

More specifically, the reasons on which the Local Review Body based this decision were as follows:-

The proposal failed to accord with Scottish Planning Policy, Policy D1 (Architecture and Placemaking); and Scottish Planning Policy, Policy H1 (Residential Areas), of Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012 and the associated ‘Householder Development Guide’ Supplementary Guidance, in that whilst Members acknowledged that there were two properties on Kings Cross Crescent and Kings Cross Avenue with approved planning applications for a hip to gable extension, Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide which was adopted in August 2012 had introduced specific guidance on straightening of the hipped roofs. This document highlighted that applications for such development prior to this date were determined under different circumstances in terms of the applicable policy context and therefore offer no precedent for applications submitted after the adoption of this guidance. The current Householder Development Guide stated that modifying only one half of a hipped roof was likely to result in the roof/ building having an unbalanced appearance. Members considered that the proposed straightening of the hipped roof on Kings Cross Road would create an unbalanced look for the semi-detached property and additionally that the proposed dormers combined with the hip to gable extension would overwhelm and dominate the original appearance of the dwelling roof in a manner that failed to demonstrate due regard for its context or make a positive contribution to its setting. Also, the proposed dormer to the rear of the application property would have a detrimental impact in terms of privacy on the neighbouring property to the east. Members also acknowledged that the principle of forming dormers to the front and rear elevations was acceptable, however any such dormers must be designed in a manner which was architecturally compatible with the scale and building proportions of the application property and should not have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the surrounding properties.

-       RAMSAY MILNE, Chairperson