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 to the rear and installation of roof light to the front at 189 Bon Accord Street, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 200068. 

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, Jamie Leadbeater, Planner; (2) the application dated 16 January 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 26 March 2020; (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 agent along with an accompanying statement.

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 advising that the property at 189 Bon-Accord Street was a two-storey detached dwellinghouse of traditional granite construction, on the eastern side of Bon Accord Street, just south of Ferryhill House Hotel. The property fronts Bon Accord Street and was constructed with granite walls and a pitched slate roof, with the front elevation featuring a gablet and a bay window at ground floor. The front slope of the roof features one existing rooflight, with a further two rooflights on the rear slope. Windows were formed in brown stained timber, with sash-and-case frames to the front of the property and casement frames to the rear. A sizeable rear garden was enclosed by a granite rubble boundary wall.

He indicated that the site lay within the Ferryhill Conservation Area, and within an area the Aberdeen Local Development Plan identified as an H1 Residential Area.

Mr Evans referred to therelevant planning history advising that the appointed officer’s report drew attention to the refusal of an earlier application for a dormer window to the rear of the property in October 2019 (ref 191248/DPP). The appointed agents sought to appeal that decision via the Local Review Body, but made submissions too late, outwith the requisite 3 month period.

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

·       Scale of the proposed dormer would dominate the rear roof slope by virtue of its height and massing;

·       Size of the two windows within the proposed box dormer would not reflect the established fenestration pattern on the rear of the application property;

·       Dormer not of a scale and design that respected the character and appearance of the application property;

·       visual harm to the character and appearance of the Ferryhill Conservation Area;

·     Proposal was at odds with Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design), Policy D4 (Historic Environment) and Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the ALDP 2017, as well as relevant guidance within Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance; and

·     Proposal would not accord with the relevant national guidance published by Historic Environment Scotland.

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

·       Drew attention to other box dormers in the local area, noting that these were now an accepted feature of the properties on this section of Bon-Accord Street;

·       Highlighted that the neighbouring properties at 191 and 193 had box dormers of a similar type to that proposed;

·       Noted that the proposed dormer would not be visible from a public road, and therefore its visual impact on Bon Accord Street would be negligible;

·       Contended that the rear of the property was an appropriate location for this form of extension, as evidenced by the number and variety of extensions and dormers to the rear of neighbouring properties;

·       Noted provision within the Householder Development Guide for standards to be relaxed on non-public elevations and in instances where there are many such extensions present; and

·       Contended that the dormer would not dominate the original roof slope and that other criteria set out in the guidance was satisfied.

There were no consultee comments or representations received.

The Chairperson and Councillors Bell 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); Supplementary Guidance (Householder Development Guide); Dormer Windows: General Principles andOlder properties of a traditional character: Rear elevations; Rooflights; D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design; and D4 – Historic Environment.

The Local Review Body members asked questions of Mr Evans in regard to the application, specifically relating to the roadside view and the scale and design of the rear dormer.

The Chairperson and Councillors Bell 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 scale of the proposed dormer would dominate the rear roof slope by virtue of its height and massing relative to the size of the rear roof slope. Furthermore, the size of the two windows within the proposed box dormer would not reflect the established fenestration pattern on the rear of the application property. As such, the proposed dormer would not be a scale and design that respects the character and appearance of the application property and would subsequently cause undue visual harm to the character and appearance of the Ferryhill Conservation Area. As such, the proposal is considered to be at odds with the relevant requirements of Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design), Policy D4 (Historic Environment) and Policy H1 (Residential Areas) in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 as well as relevant guidance set within the Householder Development Guide supplementary guidance document. Additionally, the proposal would not accord with the relevant national guidance published by Historic Environment Scotland.