Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the third 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 dormers and balcony with deck area to rear (retrospective) at 39 Craigton Terrace, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 191756. 

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 22 November 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 31 January 2020 (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 representation from consultees and members of the public.

The Local Review Body then heard from Mr Evans explain 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 it was situated on the south side of Craigton Terrace and comprised a 1½ storey semi-detached house with adjoining garage and associated front and rear gardens. The property was constructed in pink and grey granite, with a partially hipped slate roof.  There were three hipped, pitched dormers to the front elevation, whilst to the rear there were three cat-slide dormers. To the rear a single storey, flat roofed extension projects 4 metres from the original rear building line, with a raised terrace projecting a further 3 metres beyond this. Two of the three rear dormers formed part of an earlier approved extension (approved in November 2017), but had not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. The rear garden was enclosed by 1.8m high timber fencing.  The site lay within an area the Aberdeen Local Development Plan identified as an H1 Residential Area.

Mr Evans referred to therelevant planning history and outlined the proposal before members.

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

• Dormers of inappropriate scale and design, appearing particularly dominant on the roof slope, and failing to address the requirements of the Council's Supplementary Guidance on Householder Development, which stated that new dormers or roof extensions should respect the scale of the building and not dominate, overwhelm or unbalance the original roof;
• Introduction of direct access via glazed door onto a 1st floor level balcony, in conjunction with the enlarging of dormer window and increase in glazing to the rear face of the building, raised concerns regarding the potential for overlooking and impact on privacy and residential amenity;
• Proposal considered to be contrary to the requirements of Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen City Local Development Plan, and to the Council's Supplementary Guidance on Householder Development; and
• No material planning considerations which would warrant approval of planning permission is this instance.

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

• Highlighted that many neighbouring properties had been altered, many including dormer windows which were totally unsympathetic to their surroundings. Included examples of the variety seen in dormer windows locally;
• Stated that the proposals were consistent with design of existing dormers and those of adjoining property, and were sympathetic to their surroundings;
• Highlighted that rear dormers and balcony could not be seen from Craigton Terrace or Gordon Road;
• Stated that compromises made to obtain initial consent led to unworkable floor area and lie-ins (coombs) in upstairs bathrooms;
• Glass on all bathroom windows were treated with obscure film;
• Flat roofed extension was not designed to take extra loads (e.g. roof terrace/balcony), nor to accommodate required safety barriers;
• Door onto balcony allowed for one person only due to presence of balustrade; and
• Noted that there was no significant change from the views previously afforded from first-floor windows.

Mr Evans advised that 5 letters of objection had been received at the time of the application, all from addresses on Craigton Terrace and Gordon Road (over the rear boundary). In addition, two of these respondents had provided further comments on submission of the application for review. 

The matters raised was summarised as follows:-

1.  The as-built structure was markedly different to what was approved;

2.  If approved, the roof terrace/balcony would impact on existing privacy with overlooking of neighbouring gardens;

3.  There was the potential to extend the area of roof terrace/balcony in the future with relative ease;

4.  The rear dormer which served two bathrooms was considerably larger than what was initially approved (increased by over 30%) and included clear glass which introduces overlooking and affects privacy;

5.  If approved, this would establish an undesirable precedent for future development along this street;

6.  Design of the development was out of character with that of the surrounding area;

7.  Access to clean the roof window was possible by ladder, with no need for access via a door; and

8.  Noise and nuisance would likely be an issue with increased and elevated access to the roof.

Mr Evans explained that supplementary comments lodged on notification of the applicants’ review reiterate the above concerns, that they do not accept the applicant’s supporting arguments and reaffirmed their objection. Respondents also characterised the situation as a deliberate flouting of planning control.

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 H1 (Residential Area); D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design); Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide; and Dormer Windows: General Principles.

The Local Review Body members asked questions of Mr Evans in regard to the application, specifically relating to the distance between the dormer and gable, the roof area and the balastrade.

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 proposed dormer extensions are deemed to be of an inappropriate scale and design, appearing particularly dominant on the roof slope, and failing to address the requirements of the Council's Supplementary Guidance on Householder Development, which states that new dormers or roof extensions should respect the scale of the building and not dominate, overwhelm or unbalance the original roof.  Notwithstanding that the significant area of clear glazing which has been fitted and incorporated within the dormer design results in an uncomfortable level of overlooking from within the property, and this in itself could only be partially addressed through the introduction of opaque glazing to the bathroom accommodation, the proposal also includes the introduction of direct access, via a bedroom dormer extension incorporating a fully glazed door and glazed panels, onto a 1st floor level balcony.  The balcony would be formed on the roof of the rear extension, with such development raising concerns regarding the resulting potential for overlooking and impact on privacy and residential amenity.   The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the requirements of Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen City Local Development Plan, and to the Council's Supplementary Guidance on Householder Development.  There are no material planning considerations which would warrant approval of planning permission is this instance.

Additionally, the LRB expressed its comfort with the increased size of the middle dormer window on the rear roof slope, but indicated that the use of an applied film was not appropriate and that such windows should be fitted with obscured glazing in order to offer a permanent safeguard to the privacy and amenity of neighbouring residents. The LRB expressed the view that a balcony or roof terrace was not acceptable in any form due to its adverse impact on privacy and amenity, and the glazed door offering the potential for access to the flat roof of the ground floor extension was therefore not supported. It was the LRB's wish that this commentary be added to the reasons for decision in order that it would represent a material consideration in the planning authority's consideration of any future proposals.

-         COUNCILLOR MARIE BOULTON, Chairperson