Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the second 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 an 1.5 storey extension to the side, front porch and dormers to the front and rear at Pomona, 38 Cameron Street, Aberdeen, AB23 8QB (P170755).

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would be addressed by Mr Andrew Miller and reminded members that Mr Miller 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 Miller 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 Roy Brown, Planning Technician; (2) the decision notice dated 6 September 2017; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) links to planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant along with an accompanying statement and the initial planning application; and (6) two public representations and consultation responses from Flooding and Coastal Protection and Roads Development Management.

In respect of the Review, Mr Miller advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes. 

Mr Miller advised that the site subject to the review formed a 1.5 storey semi-detached house dating from the 1970s. The surrounding area was formed of similar housing. Mr Miller showed photos of the site.

He explained that the application sought consent for the erection of a 1½ storey extension to the side of the dwelling, a front porch, and box dormers to the front and rear of the dwelling.

The reasons for refusal stated by the appointed Planning Officer were that the proposals were contrary to policies Quality Placemaking by Design and H1 – Residential Areas of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan; and the Supplementary Guidance: ‘The Householder Development Guide’ on the following basis:

• The proposed porch would be substantial and failed to incorporate sufficient glazing which was contrary to Supplementary Guidance;
• The proposed dormers would fail to comply with the Supplementary Guidance, as they would not have glazing to their extremities and would be less than 600 mm from the ridge of the house;
• Overlooking from rear dormer window into garden ground of 11 Gordon Place; and
• Finally, it was considered there was a potential for a precedent to be set for further porches of this scale in the area.

With regards to the applicant’s statement, Mr Miller advised that the applicant’s agent had highlighted the following matters from their perspective:

• The only location a door could be created was to the front, given that a garage would be on the site (maintaining a car parking space);
• The design reflected the character of the surrounding area;
• Whilst the dormer windows failed to comply with the Supplementary Guidance in terms of distance from ridge, the dormer height would match the attached neighbour and thus would not appear imbalanced on the house. The windows were also at extremities of the dormers;
• There was an incorrect statement on the decision notice that there were no amendments;
• Materials were suitable for the surrounding area; and
• A larger porch to front would be more in keeping with the surrounding area rather than that allowed under permitted development (i.e. did not need consent).

Mr Miller highlighted that the applicant’s submission also made several comments on what was debated with the case officer (frosted glass, roof light windows etc.) but emphasised it was for members to determine the review based on the information in front of them.

With regards to consultation responses and objections, Mr Miller advised that the following responses had been received:

• Roads Development Managementhad raised no objections but noted that the width of the garage would be less than that required by the Supplementary Guidance, though they queried whether a wider garage could be achieved on the site;
• Flooding raised no objections but recommended advisory notes on rain water attenuation and permeable surfaces;
• Public Objection - Two letters of objection were submitted. The matters raised related to:

1.    Loss of daylight to bedroom, bathroom and hall of 36 Camron Street due to height of side extension.

2.    Absence of similar development in the surrounding area.

3.    General overbearance would close in 36 Cameron Street and would jeopardise the security of the property.

4.    Overlooking from rear dormer (bedroom windows) into the curtilage of 11 Gordon Place to the detriment of privacy of the occupants (diagram provided by objector on page 395 of the agenda).

5.    Overlooking into two bedroom windows of 11 Gordon Place.

Mr Miller then highlighted that the applicant had asked that the review procedure include one or more hearing sessions, a site visit and further written information prior to the Local Review Body determining the Review and explained that the Local Review Body was required to consider whether it had sufficient information before them to determine the review today.

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 sufficient information before them.

Thereafter, Mr Miller made reference to the relevant planning considerations, as follows:-

Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017

• D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design: Required development to be of a high standard of design.
• H1 – Residential Areas: Householder Development should:
  • Not result in an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area;
  • Comply with Supplementary Guidance.

Householder Supplementary Guidance

• Contains guidance to ensure front extensions were modest and incorporate substantial glazing.
• Dormer windows should not dominate the roof space, and should be within the basic principles outlined in the Supplementary Guidance.

Mr Miller reminded members, that in determining the appeal, they should also take into consideration any material considerations they felt were relevant to the application that would point to either overturning the original decision or dismissing the review.  Should members wish to overturn the decision of the appointed officer, consideration should be given to any conditions which would be appropriate in order to make the proposal acceptable. However all conditions must meet the six tests set out by Scottish Government policy which he would advise upon if necessary.

Members asked questions of Mr Miller regarding the proposed development, namely: the difference in the scale of the proposal in comparison to the development at number 40; clarification that there were proposed to be dormer windows on both the existing and new roof; the depth of the proposed porch; the distance between dormer and neighbouring property to the rear; minimum distance from the rear of a property to another property in terms of planning policy; the size of the garage; solutions to the privacy issues raised; and the potential impact on privacy of the proposed window on the western elevation.

Following discussion, Members agreed by a majority (two to one) that the proposal was unacceptable and therefore the Local Review Body’s decision was to refuse.

One Member, Councillor Cameron, concluded that subject to conditions, he was satisfied that the scale, size, materials and massing of the proposed extension in the context of 38 Cameron Street, Aberdeen, was acceptable and that it would not be out of context with the area or adversely affect residential amenity subject to the relevant conditions being applied. Therefore, he was satisfied that the proposal complied with policies D1 Quality Placemaking by Design and H1 - Residential Areas of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan; and the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide'.

However, two members, the Chair and Councillor Copland, agreed with the decision of the appointed Planning Officer that the proposal would be contrary with policies D1 Quality Placemaking by Design and H1 - Residential Areas of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan; and the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide' and the more specific reasons for this decision were as detailed below.

In coming to their decision, the members of 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, on a majority basis, based this decision were as follows:-

The proposal would be incongruous in terms of design and scale to the original dwelling and the surrounding area. The proposed porch would be substantial in terms of massing and, in contravention to the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide', would not incorporate a substantial proportion of glazing. There were negligible examples of front porches in the surrounding area and this proposal would set an unwelcome precedent for similar development in the area. The proposed dormers would fail to comply with this Supplementary Guidance as they would not have glazing to the extremities and would be less than the advised minimum of 600mm from the ridge of the dwelling. Due to the incompatible design of the porch and, in particular, the front dormer, the proposal would not be architecturally compatible in terms of design and scale in the context of the original building and the surrounding area. The proposed dormer on the rear elevation would have two windows to habitable rooms which would directly overlook the rear garden ground of 11 Gordon Place, which would significantly adversely affect the level of privacy, and therefore the level of amenity afforded to this property. The proposal would therefore adversely affect the character and amenity of the surrounding area.

The proposal therefore failed to comply with the principles of Policies D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design and H1 - Residential Areas of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan; and the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide'. There were no material planning considerations which would indicate other than the refusal of planning permission in this instance.

Having weighed these considerations, the Local Review Body, on a majority basis, considered the proposal as unacceptable and therefore the Local Review Body’s decision that the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application be upheld.