Agenda item

The Local Review Body 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 request for planning permission for proposed dormers to the front of the ancillary building (Retrospective) at 1 Cairnview Crescent, Aberdeen.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Mr Paul Williamson and stated that although the Planning Adviser was employed by the planning authority he 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 Local Review Body had before it (1) a delegated report by Ms Sepideh Hajisoltani, Trainee Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 22 August 2016; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement.

Mr Williamson advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Mr Williamson provided a brief description of the application and advised that the appeal relates to the refusal of planning permission for the retrospective formation of two dormer windows to the front elevation of an ancillary building to the rear of 1 Cairnview Crescent, Aberdeen.  He indicated that the existing property was of pink granite construction with a slate roof and the footprint of the existing 1½ storey semi-detached dwelling covered approximately 89 square metres.

Mr Williamson made reference to the delegated report and intimated that the proposal sought to obtain permission retrospectively for the formation of two dormers onto the east facing roof plane of an ancillary building previously approved under application 150474.  In that application, the floor area of the replacement garage was 70.56 square metres, with accommodation on the upper floor accessed via an external stair on the northern gable.  The floor plans indicate that the upper floor could be used as a gym/office, ancillary to the existing dwellinghouse.  In order to provide light to this area, two, double rooflights were shown on the plans.  The materials for the approved ancillary building were grey dry dash render, slate roof, and a UPVC roller door to the garage element, and a timber doors. 

Mr Williamson advised that it was identified that the amendment of the proposals to form two dormer windows could not be considered Non Material Variation, and an application requested to consider the proposals further. 

Mr Williamson then referred to the Decision Notice and advised that the application was refused on the grounds that the proposal fails to comply with Policies D1 and H1 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, in light of the proposal not demonstrating due regard for the design and context of the surrounding area, and as a result, the proposed development would appear out of context thus having a negative impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area.  Furthermore, it was also considered that the dormer windows would compromise the privacy of neighbouring properties due to overlooking.

Mr Williamson then referred to the matters raised in the Notice of Review statement which advised:-

• that the provision of the dormers was to enhance the use of the upper floor room.  It is contested that the dormers do not make the overlooking situation any worse;
• that at the time of confirming that a new application would be required, the Planning Authority at no time, indicated that the proposal would be viewed as contrary to policy;
• that no decision was made within the 2 month period for determination, and the only formal correspondence received was the refusal notice;
• that the policies referred to in the refusal notice are subjective;
• that in respect of design, scale and massing - The dormers would only be partially visible from Cairnview Crescent, which would diminish any potential ‘dominant appearance’;
• that turning to residential amenity - Velux windows would produce the same degree of visibility as the dormers would.  Furthermore, an existing dormer window to the southern roof hip already overlooks No. 94 Cairncry Road, and poses more of an overlooking than the proposed dormers, and a rear (west) facing former on the house also overlooks No. 3 Cainview Crescent – therefore the overlooking issue should be dismissed as insignificant;
• that no objections were received from neighbouring properties.  However, it should be noted by the Local Review Body that initially an objection was received by a neighbour on Cairncry Road, as evidenced on Page 87 of the papers, although it was subsequently withdrawn; and
• that there are other instances where domestic garages have dormers.

Mr Williamson indicated that the relevant considerations were (a) in respect of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2012), Policies H1 (Residential Areas) and D1 (Architecture and Placemaking), which are effectively reiterated through the Proposed Local Development Plan; and (b) the Supplementary Guidance relating to the Householder Development Guide.

In conclusion, Mr Williamson advised that the LRB needed to assess the proposal against the policies of the Development Plan, and the other material considerations identified such as the Councils Supplementary Guidance relating to Householder Developments.  The principle considerations in this instance, is whether the proposal would have any adverse impact upon neighbouring residential amenity via overlooking, and the visual amenity of the wider area. 

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

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 proposed dormers to the front of the ancillary building are not in compliance with Policy D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012. The proposal does not demonstrate due regard for the design and context of the surrounding area and as a result the proposed development would appear out of context and would have a negative impact upon the visual amenity of the surrounding area and also compromise the privacy of neighbouring properties due to unacceptable level of overlooking from the dormers. On this basis, it is considered that the proposal does not accord with the provisions of the Development Plan and that there are no material planning considerations – including the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan – that would warrant approval of the application.