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 formation of a dormer window to the front of the property at 108 Crown Street, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 181426/DPP.

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 Jane Forbes, Planner; (2) the application dated 9 August 2018; (3) the decision notice dated 2 May 2019 (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report;  and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant along with an accompanying statement with further information relating to the application.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Evans who advised 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 indicated that the applicant had indicated on the Notice of Review that no new matters, which were not before the appointed officer at the time of the original decision, had been raised in the review submission.

In terms of the procedure by which the review would be conducted, the applicant had stated satisfaction that the review may proceed to conclusion without further procedure being required (e.g. site visit, hearing etc).

Mr Evans proceeded by describing the site advising that it was located on the west side of Crown Street, between its junction with Dee Place and Academy Street.   The site comprised a category B listed, 2½ storey mid-terrace property with basement, as well as garden to the rear.  The site was located in an area zoned as residential within the Aberdeen City Local Development Plan, where policy H1 applies. In addition to residential properties, there were also hotels, guest houses, offices and shops. The property was situated within the Bon-Accord Crescent and Crown Street Conservation Area.

Mr Evans outlined the planning history of the property.

In terms of the Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal, Mr Evans made reference to the following factors included within the Decision Notice:-

·         Acknowledged that the proposal largely accorded with Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen City Local Development Plan, nevertheless considered that it would result in a negative visual impact arising from the introduction of a new dormer on a prominent roof slope, which would affect the roof symmetry and cause a degree of imbalance, causing the roof to appear overcrowded;

·         Failed to comply with Historic Environment Scotland’s Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance on ‘Roofs’ and did not address the expectations of Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS) when considered in the context of the listed building and the conservation area within which the site lies; and

·         Was contrary to the requirements of Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and Policy D4 (Historic Environment) of the Aberdeen City Local Development Plan and failed to comply with Scottish Planning Policy.

In terms of the appellant’s case, Mr Evans referred to the Notice of Review, Statement and other documentation which were all available via the website portal, and highlighted the following:-

·         That the Listed Building Consent (LBC) refused by the Council was overturned by the Scottish Government Reporter on appeal, and the LBC was granted on 29^th July 2019;

·         Contended that, contrary to stated reasons for refusal, careful consideration had been given to the setting and features of the existing property. Argued that the proposed dormer matched the existing ones, used traditional detailing and materials, and was therefore appropriate to its context. Noted that the reporter’s reasoning for the LBC appeal agreed with the appellant’s assessment – “given the existing mix of dormers on both sides of the street I do not consider the setting or special interest of the building would be adversely affected by the proposal”;

·         Argued that the long-terraced block in which this property sat, possesses no consistent rhythm or pattern of roof design, and included a mix of single, double, linked dormers and full-length box examples. Drew attention to the LBC reporter’s statements that “taking the street as a whole there was no dominant pattern of room form” and that following the addition of a further dormer “the two dormers would then provide a symmetrical appearance to the roof”;

·         Considered that the proposal did satisfy policy D4 by respecting the character, appearance and setting of the building; and

·         Contended that the dormer would provide greater amenity to the top-floor flat in terms of daylight and useable floor space, which facilitated the continued use and occupation of the listed building.

Mr Evans advised that there were no comments from Ferryhill and Ruthrieston Community Council and there were also no representations submitted.

The Chairperson and Councillors Macdonald and Reynolds all indicated in turn that they each had enough information before them and therefore agreed that a site visit was not required and that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.

Mr Evans outlined the relevant policy considerations, making reference to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017, specifically H1, D1, D4, Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide, specific content on Dormer Windows and Historic Environment Scotland: Managing Change ‘Roofs’.

Mr Evans indicated that members should have regard to the Local Development Plan and any other material considerations they feel are relevant to the application that would point to either overturning the original decision or dismissing the review.

He explained that the following key points were of relevance:-

Zoning: Did the proposal satisfy the tests set out by policy H1:-

1.    Would it have an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the area?; and

2.    Did it comply with the relevant Supplementary Guidance (Householder Development Guide

Design: Was the proposal of sufficient design quality (D1) - having regard for factors such as scale, siting, footprint, proportions relative to original, materials, colour etc?

Relationship to Listed Building and Conservation Area:

·         D4 – did this ‘protect, preserve and enhance the historic environment’?;

·         S59 Duty (LBs) to have ‘special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses’; and

·         S64 Duty (CAs) to ‘pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA’

Mr Evans intimated that 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.

He concluded by indicating that if members were minded to overturn the decision then he would advise on a condition relating to submitting material samples for approval before work starts, construction of windows per submitted cross-section (stating maximum thickness of 25mm).

Members agreed unanimously that the proposal was acceptable and therefore the Local Review Body’s decision was to overturn the decision of the appointed officer and 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 LRB considered that the proposed dormer window would satisfactorily replicate the existing traditional dormer, would be of an appropriate scale and design, and would utilise suitable traditional materials. Members concluded that the proposal would be appropriate to its context, would not over-crowd the roof of the listed building, and would enhance the character of the area, consistent with policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and D4 (Historic Environment) of the ALDP and the associated guidance contained in the Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance.

CONDITIONS

(1)  No development shall take place unless a sample of the roofing material (slate) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter, the dormer shall be constructed in accordance with the approved sample.

Reason: in the interests of protecting the special character of the listed building.

(2)  The dormer window hereby approved shall be constructed in full accordance with the cross-sections and elevations as shown on Drawing 07, 3319/06 and 3319/08. The visible part of the outer frame of the window hereby approved shall not exceed 25 mm in width at the top and sides of the window opening with the remainder of the frame being concealed behind the masonry window check, unless the planning authority has given prior written approval for a variation.

Reason: in the interests of protecting the special character of the listed building.