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 of a single storey extension to the public facing rear and formation of dormers to the front and rear at 36 Raeden Crescent Aberdeen, planning reference 191508/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 Roy Brown Planner; (2) the application dated 3 October 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 10 December 2019 (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) letters of representations submitted.

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 site as a two-storey semi-detached house, located within a mid-20^th century residential development on the southern side of Westburn Road. The drydash rendered property could be seen through trees from Westburn Road.  Its South west elevation fronts onto an area of open space shared with other properties, and the property sits on a slope, with the rear north east elevation sitting approx. 0.8m lower.

Mr Evans also advised that It was notable that the surrounding development was characterised by rows of properties arranged around public open spaces and footpaths, with separate communal car parks, but dormer windows were not a feature of the original properties, and there were no examples in the immediate surrounding area.

In regard to the proposal, Mr Evans explained that planning permission was sought for the erection of box dormers on the front and rear of the dwelling and for the erection of a single storey extension to the rear.  The proposed dormers were 5.5m in width,  positioned c.0.6m below the roof ridge and located on the mutual boundary 680mm in from the gable.   The front faces would be fully glazed with dark grey window frames and the sides and roof would be finished in grey metal cladding.  The rear extension would have a lean-to style roof with a maximum height of c.4.6m and an eaves height of c.3.8m. It would be c.5.9m in width and would project c.2.1m from the rear elevation of the property, and along the boundary shared with 34 Raeden Crescent. The extension finished with brick walls, concrete roof tiles, and white uPVC framed windows and doors.

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

·        The dormers would detract from uniform character and established pattern of development in the surrounding area and the design and scale would dominate the roof of the property, and were not designed to match the style of the original house;

·        Given the absence of existing dormers in the surrounding area, approval would risk setting a precedent for similar proposals, detracting from the uniform character and the visual amenity of the surrounding area;

·        Conflicted with Policies D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design and H1 – Residential Areas of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan; and the associated Supplementary Guidance: ‘The Householder Development Guide’; and

·        There were no material considerations to warrant departing from the local development plan.

Mr Evans highlighted the following key points from the appellant’s review statement:-

·        Noted that reasons for refusal relate to dormer windows only, and not to the extension element;

·        Argued that the introduction of dormer windows would not harm the amenity or appearance of the area;

·        Contended that the distance from Westburn Road and intervening tree cover offer partial screening;

·        Considered that the dormers would not dominate the roof as stated; and

·        Highlighted that some representations were not from local addresses.

In relation to the consultee response, Mr Evans advised that four letters of objection were received and focused on:-

·        The scale of the extension and impact on adjoining property at 34 Raeden Crescent;

·        The design and scale of the dormers were too large;

·        The visual impact of dormers in the location;

·        Materials not appropriate match for the dwelling;

·        Potential loss of privacy for neighbours; and

·        Precedent for similar proposals in the area. 

Mr Evans then advised that the applicant had expressed the view that no further procedure was required before determination.  

The Chairperson and Councillors Duncan and MacKenzie advised in turn that they each had enough information before them and agreed that a site visit was not 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), D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and the Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance.  Mr Evans also made reference to guidance on extensions to semi-detached dwellings, dormer windows general principles and dormer windows in modern properties.  

The Local Review Body members asked questions of Mr Evans in regard to the application. 

The Chairperson and Councillors Duncan and MacKenzie advised in turn and unanimously agreed to uphold 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 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 proposed dormers would detract from the uniform character and appearance and the established pattern of development of the surrounding area of Raeden Crescent, where there are no such dormers. The proposed dormers would be of a design and scale that would serve to dominate the roofslope of the original dwelling and would not be compatible with the architectural character of the original dwelling.

Notwithstanding every planning application is assessed on its merits, given the absence of existing dormers and dormers having been approved under current policies and guidance in the surrounding area, the grant of planning permission for the proposed dormers could set a precedent for similar scaled dormers in the surrounding area, which detract from the uniform character and the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

The proposed dormers would therefore conflict with Policies D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design and H1 - Residential Areas of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan; and the associated Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide'. There are no material planning considerations that warrant the grant of planning permission in this instance.