Agenda item

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 to refuse the request for planning permission for the proposed creation of two bedroom flat within roof space, including formation of dormer windows to front and rear elevations (retrospective) at Flat B, 12 Summerfield Terrace, Aberdeen.

Councillor Milne as Chairperson gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken.  He indicated that the LRB would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mr Mark Masson as regards the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Mr Gavin Evans who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the case under consideration this day.

The Chairperson stated that although the Planning Adviser was employed by the planning authority hehad 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 Mr Masson, Assistant Clerk in regards 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 certain more general aspects relating to the procedure.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Mr Ross McMahon, Trainee Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 12 October 2016; (3) copies of the plans showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) four letters of representation; and (6) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Evans who advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Mr Evans advised that detailed planning permission had been sought retrospectively  for the formation of a new attic floor flat, achieved through the provision of a box dormer at the front and rear elevation of the property. He intimated that planning permission was previously granted for a proposal of the aforementioned description and that works had been completed on the site, however it had not been constructed in accordance with the consented plans and elevations.

Mr Evans referred to the reasons for refusal and indicated that the principle of creating an additional flat had been accepted by the Planning Officer, however the front dormer failed to comply with Aberdeen Local Development Plan Policies D1 (Architecture and Placemaking), aspects of H1 (Residential Areas), aspects of the Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance, relating to the design of dormer windows. He explained that the front dormer does not respect the scale and form of the existing property, is of size, scale and design that is considered inappropriate and visually intrusive to the streetscape and wider area generally, to the detriment of visual amenity. He intimated that no material planning considerations, including the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan and matters raised in representations, would warrant approval of the application.

Mr Evans advised that four letters of support had been received and that there were no objections from consultees.

Mr Evans referred to Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) wherein it states the following:-

• that regard is to be had to the provisions of the Development Plan; and
• that determination shall be made in accordance with the Plan, so far as material to the application, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Mr Evans also made reference to the Scottish Government Planning Enforcement Charter Circular 10/2009 which advised the following:-

• retrospective applications should not be treated differently;
• use of enforcement powers is at discretion of the planning authority;
• refusal does not mean that enforcement action will necessarily be merited – enforcement based on whether it would be expedient in the public interest; and
• enforcement should always be ‘commensurate with the breach of planning control to which it relates. For example, it is usually inappropriate to take formal enforcement action against a trivial or technical breach of planning control which has no material adverse planning implications’

Mr Evans outlined the key determining factors as follows:-

• is the principle of residential use acceptable in this location?;
• are the physical alterations to the building consistent with the design policies in the Plan and its associated supplementary guidance relating to dormer windows?;
• what sort of environment would be provided for residents of the new flat?, Is this to the standard expected? (considering matters including privacy, access to garden/amenity space etc); and
• to consider whether approval would set any precedent for future developments, if approving something contrary to the Development Plan, would the planning authority be able to resist similar proposals elsewhere, what are the consequences?

The Grounds of Appeal Statement which accompanied the Notice of Review advised (a) that the development fully conforms to the content of the extant Development Plan; (b) that the reasons for refusal stated within the report of handling in relation to Policy D1 and Policy H1 are unsubstantiated and fail to consider the previously approved application on site and the subsequent completion of the works in this regard; (c) that an error in construction had resulted in a departure  from the plans approved and as a result, the front dormer exists in position 500mm further forward than its consented location; (d) that the dormer remains 400mm from the wall head, a distance which is not considered as unreasonable; (e) that the appellant has expended significant monies in completing the works to a high standard and dismissal of the appeal would result in greater costs being incurred through further works to resolve a minor departure from the approved plans; and (f) that there were no objections from consultees and four representations were received in support of the application.

The delegated report advised that the stated reason for refusal of planning permission was as follows:-

The principle of creating an additional residential unit in this location is considered to be acceptable and compliant with the provisions of Policy D2 and aspects of H1 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan. However, the front dormer as constructed, fails to comply with the relevant policies of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012, namely Policies D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and aspects of H1 (Residential Areas), in addition to aspects of the dormer design guide contained within the Council’s Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide, in that the proposed front dormer has not been designed to respect the scale and form of the existing property and is of a size, scale and design that is considered to be inappropriate and visually intrusive to the streetscape and wider area generally, to the detriment of visual amenity. On the basis of the above, and following on from the evaluation under policy and guidance, it is considered that there are no material planning considerations – including the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan – that would warrant approval of the application. Full regard has been given to all matters raised in representations, but neither do they outweigh the policy position as detailed above, nor do they justify approval of the application.

The Local Review Body then asked a number of questions of Mr Evans.

The Local Review Body thereupon agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.  The members of the Local Review Body therefore agreed that a site visit, a hearing session nor further written representations were required, as members felt they had enough information before them.

Members unanimously upheld the decision of the appointed officer 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(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 in which the Local Review Body based this decision were as follows:-

The principle of creating an additional residential unit in this location is considered to be acceptable and compliant with the provisions of Policy D2 and aspects of H1 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan. However, the front dormer as constructed, fails to comply with the relevant policies of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012, namely Policies D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and aspects of H1 (Residential Areas), in addition to aspects of the dormer design guide contained within the Council’s Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide, in that the proposed front dormer has not been designed to respect the scale and form of the existing property and is of a size, scale and design that is considered to be inappropriate and visually intrusive to the streetscape and wider area generally, to the detriment of visual amenity. On the basis of the above, and following on from the evaluation under policy and guidance, it is considered that there are no material planning considerations – including the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan – that would warrant approval of the application. Full regard has been given to all matters raised in representations, but neither do they outweigh the policy position as detailed above, nor do they justify approval of the application.