Agenda item

Members, please note that you are reviewing the decision of the case

officer to refuse the above application.

The Local Review Body then considered the final request for a review of the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request for planning permission for the erection of a box dormer roof extension on the rear elevation of the dwelling and three rooflights on the principal elevation of the dwelling at 40 Whitehall Road, Aberdeen (P161476).

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would be addressed by Mr Matthew Easton and reminded members that Mr Easton 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.  Mr Easton 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 report of handling by Mr Brown, Planning Officer; (2) the decision notice dated 23 December 2016; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) links to planning policies referred to in the report of handling; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant along with an accompanying statement and the initial planning application; and (6) a consultation response from the Roads Development Management Team.

In respect of the Review, Mr Easton advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.  Mr Easton explained that the Local Review Body was required to consider whether it had sufficient information before them to determine the review today.

Thereafter, Mr Easton referred to the report of handling wherein a description of the site was provided, along with detail of the relevant planning policies, and reasons for refusal.

Mr Easton advised that no public representations had been received and that one consultation response from the Roads Development Management Team had been received and copy was contained in the agenda and referred to in the report of handling.

Mr Easton then took Members through the plans showing the existing building and the proposed development, in particular showing the location of the proposed dormer window and how this would be viewed from Craigie Park and Whitehall Terrace.

Mr Easton then advised, as detailed in the report of handling, that the stated reason for refusal of planning permission was as follows:-

Due to its non-traditional design, its scale, size, massing, materials and location, the proposed dormer extension would be unacceptable in the context of 40 Whitehall Road and the surrounding area. Further information was required to assess whether the proposed rooflights would be acceptable.  This information was requested, but not forthcoming. Overall, the proposal would negatively affect the character of the Albyn Place/Rubislaw conservation area. The proposed extension and dormer would thus fail to comply with Scottish Planning Policy; Historic Environment Policy Statement and its associated document, ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Roofs’; Policy D1 – Architecture and Placemaking, Policy D5 – Built Heritage and Policy H1 – Residential Areas of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan; the Supplementary Guidance: ‘The Householder Development Guide’; the related policies of the proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

The statement from the applicant which accompanied the Notice of Review as contained in the agenda stated the applicant’s response to the reasons for refusal. In conclusion, the applicant viewed that statement demonstrated that (a) contrary to the reasons given for refusal, the proposed development complied with the Council’s Supplementary Guidance and by implication therefore complied with Development Plan Policy; (b) the Appointed Officer had overstated the prominence of the dormer in the report of handling and that, in fact, the dormer would only be seen over a very short section of Craigie Park and at one point on Whitehall Terrace; (c) there was no adverse impact on the character of the Albyn Place/Rubislaw Conservation Area; (d) the application did  not give rise to any adverse impact on neighbours and indeed

had not attracted any objections from neighbours or amenity societies.

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

Members asked questions of Mr Easton regarding the proposed development, namely: design of the proposed non-traditional dormer and potential impact on the character of the area; location of rooflights; and the visibility of the dormer and potential impact on privacy of neighbouring properties.

The Local Review Body therefore unanimously agreed to reverse the decision of the appointed officer and to approve the application subject to the following condition:

That no development shall take place unless details of the distance which the three roof-light windows would project from the plane of the roof, had been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter the development shall take place in accordance with the approved details.

Reason – in order to preserve the character of the conservation area.

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 are as follows:-

Despite its non-traditional design, the Local Review Body was satisfied that the scale, size, massing, materials and location of the proposed dormer extension was acceptable in the context of 40 Whitehall Road and the surrounding area and would not negatively affect the character of the Albyn Place/Rubislaw conservation area. Therefore, it was satisfied that the proposed extension and dormer would comply with Scottish Planning Policy; Historic Environment Policy Statement and its associated document, ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Roofs’; Policy D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design, Policy D4 – Historic Environment and Policy H1 – Residential Areas of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2017); and the Interim Planning Guidance: ‘The Householder Development Guide’.

COUNCILLOR RAMSAY MILNE, Convener