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 application for the erection removal of an existing garage/utility room to create a 1.5 storey gable extension and to extend the existing front and rear dormer windows at 38 Braeside Place Aberdeen, planning reference 181344. 

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Gavin Evans and reminded Members that although Mr Evans 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.  She emphasised that the officer would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Sheila Robertson, Planning Technician; (2) the application dated 27 July 2018; (3) the decision notice dated 27 September 2018 (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report, (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the agent along with an accompanying statement and (6) a letter of representation. 

The Local Review Body then heard from Mr Evans, who explained that the review had been submitted with all necessary information within the time limit of three months following the decision of the appointed officer.

Mr Evans then described the application and explained that planning permission was sought for the removal of an existing garage/utility room and to crate a 1.5 storey gable extension and to extend the existing front and rear dormer windows.  The property formed one half of a pair of dwelling houses, with fully hipped roofs, positioned at the entrance to a cul-de-sac which comprised 12 semi-detached and terraced properties. 

Mr Evans outlined the appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal as follows:-

·         By unbalancing this pair of semi-detached houses, there was a failure to demonstrate due regard for the design and context of the streetscape, particularly when viewed in the context of the neighbouring properties of a similar design, which retain their original roof profile;

·         The scale and dimensions of the proposed dormers would create a top heavy and bulky roof elevation, which would introduce a visually disruptive feature into a streetscape that otherwise retains its original form, character and pattern of development;

·         The proposed development would appear out of context and would impose a negative design feature on the surrounding area; and

·         As a result, failure to comply with Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and the associated 'Householder Development Guide' Supplementary Guidance.

In relation to the appellants case, Mr Evans highlighted the following:-

·         Contended that the appointed officer’s decision focuses heavily on the relationship with the other half of the semi, and gave insufficient regard to the wider context;

·         Stated that the dormer windows were 600mm from the edge of the roof, as required by the Council’s Supplementary Guidance, and that the officer’s reference to this dimension being 432mm was incorrect;

·         Disputed the appointed officer’s assessment that the dormer would create a top heavy and bulky appearance and would overwhelm the roof.  They highlighted that the extent of the roof was still visible and pointed to various examples in the surrounding area;

·         Acknowledged that the two sides of the semi would be mismatched, but in the wider context, number 40 next door had a straight gable, meaning that the difference would not be so pronounced;

·         Highlighted that the proposal would not fully straighten the gable, with a significant partial hip retained; and

·         Discussed in detail other applications in the surrounding area.

In relation to consultee responses, Mr Evans advised that one letter of objection was received which highlighted concerns for additional traffic from works vehicles and the delivery of materials. 

Mr Evans then advised that the applicant had expressed the view that further procedure should take place, by means of a site visit.

The Chairperson and Councillors Cooke and Donnelly advised in turn that they each had enough information before them and agreed that no further procedure was required and that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.

Mr Evans outlined in detail, the relevant policy considerations, making reference to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017, namely policy H1 (Residential Areas: Householder Development) and D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design).  Mr Evans also highlighted the Householder Development Guide, Supplementary Guidance and noted the general principles of:-

o   Proposals should be architecturally compatible in design and scale with the original house and surrounding area;

o   No extension should result in a situation where amenity of neighbouring properties would be adversely affected in terms of privacy, daylight and general amenity;

o   Earlier developments approved before this guidance was introduced would not be accepted as justification in support of proposals that otherwise fail to comply with these criteria;

o   The built footprint of a dwelling as extended should not exceed twice that of the original; and

o   No more than 50% of front or rear curtilage should be covered by development.

Members then asked questions of Mr Evans. 

The Chairperson and Councillors Cooke and Donnelly advised in turn and unanimously agreed to overturn the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application and therefore approve the application conditionally. 

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 were as follows:-

The Local Review Body recognised that the partial straightening of the hipped roof at 38 Braeside Place would result in a slightly unbalanced appearance when seen alongside the adjoining property at 36, which would not be ideal, however the LRB noted the other examples cited in the surrounding streets and did not consider that this would be uncharacteristic or incongruous in that local context.

The LRB considered that the proposed extension and dormer windows would not dominate or overwhelm the roof or the appearance of the dwelling generally. It was also considered that the dwelling would not appear top-heavy, and on balance the extension was considered to be consistent with the design and proportions of the original dwelling. It was considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the character of the area, which is characterised by some variety in house types.

CONDITION

1.    that no development shall take place unless a scheme detailing all external finishing materials to the roof and walls of the development hereby approved has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority and thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed - in the interests of visual amenity.