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 dormer windows to the existing first floor extension, replacement of conservatory, installation of replacement rooflights and a dormer to the rear of 3 Osborne Place Aberdeen, 200445. 

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 Local Review 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 Alex Ferguson, Planner; (2) the application dated 4 April 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 11 May 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 as located on the southern side of Osborne Place, approximately 20m to the west of its junction with Albert Street and comprised a 1½ storey traditional mid-terraced dwellinghouse with associated garden grounds.

Mr Evans noted that historic maps appeared to indicate that the granite-walled, slate pitch-roofed terrace was constructed at some point in the late 19th Century. The terrace was not listed, but it does lie within the Albyn Place / Rubislaw Conservation Area.

The dwelling had a built footprint of approximately 110sqm, including a 28sqm single-storey lean-to extension along the mutual western boundary (which is either original or an addition from the early 20th Century) and a 20sqm modern (late 20th Century) conservatory which runs along the eastern mutual boundary. Both extensions project approximately 7.5m out from the rear elevation of the original dwellinghouse and the historic single storey rear extension incorporated a modern cat-slide dormer whilst the rear roof slope of the original dwelling incorporated a modern pitch-roofed dormer and two rooflights.

Mr Evans advised that the property had a circa 240sqm, 35m long rear garden area, which included a 67.5sqm detached garage at the southern end, facing onto Albert Lane. The application site lies within a residential area and is bound to the east and west by neighbouring terraced dwellings.

In regard to the proposal, Mr Evans explained that planning permission was sought for the enlargement and alteration of an existing rear extension in order to provide accommodation across 2 floors and this would involve the removal of an existing rear conservatory, alteration of the roof to the existing rear offshoot, including formation of new dormer windows and erection of a new lean-to style ground floor extension to replace the existing conservatory.  Existing rooflights on the rear slope of the main roof would be enlarged, whilst an existing rear dormer would be reduced in size.

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

·        Notes that some aspects of the proposal are acceptable, but nevertheless concludes that the scale, mass and design of the rear extension is not subservient or sympathetic to those of the original dwelling. The proposal was considered to be detrimental to the character of the area;

·        The proposal did not comply with the Householder Development Guide supplementary guidance and Policies H1 (Residential Areas) and D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan;

·        The unsympathetic extension was considered to dominate the rear elevation of the property, which is prominently visible from Albert Street, where other alterations have generally been more sympathetic;

·        There would be an adverse impact on the character of the Conservation Area, and thus fails to comply with Scottish Planning Policy, Historic Environment Policy for Scotland and Policy D4 (Historic Environment) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan;

·        Insufficient detail to make a full assessment of the proposed replacement window to the rear dormer, which could also have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area; and

·        Various policies of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020 also supports refusal of the application.

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

·        They disagreed that the proposal would effectively create a 2-storey extensions of an unsympathetic scale, design & form, and considered that the existing rear extension was already across 2 storeys;

·        They did not consider that the proposal would dominate the rear elevation;

·        Highlighted that the rear of the property was not highly visible and only seen from one spot on Albert Street and the visual impact was not significant;

·        Points to other nearby properties which have large rear extensions and photos were provided in their statement.

·        Clarifies that the reduced dormer and new dormer would have details to match existing, however a more traditional design is something the applicant could incorporate if essential.

In relation to the consultee response, Mr Evans advised that none were received. 

Mr Evans then advised that the applicant had expressed the view that a site visit should take place before determination of the application. 

The Chairperson and Councillors Allan and Mason 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), D4 (Historic Environment), the Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance and Householder Development Guide (Dormer Windows).  Mr Evans also made reference to Windows Supplementary Guidance, Scottish Planning Policy, Historic Environment Scotland Managing Change Guidance for Extensions and the Albyn Place and Rubislaw Conservation Area Character Appraisal.  

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

The Chairperson and Councillors Allan and Mason advised in turn and unanimously agreed to overturn the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application and approved 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 (LRB) considered that the proposed works were acceptable and allow for the adaptation of a traditional granite property to support modern living. The reduction in the size of the non-original rear dormer window was welcomed, and it was noted that the proposed rooflights are of an appropriate size and style, in accordance with the guidance contained in the Council's Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance. Members also noted that the roofline of this proposal represented an improvement to an earlier refused scheme.

Members noted the varied scale and form of extensions to the rear of properties on Osborne Place,  and felt that the proposed works would utilise sympathetic materials and an appropriate design, such that there would be no resultant harm to the character or appearance of the Albyn Place and Rubislaw Conservation Area. The LRB considered that the rear elevation of this property is not unduly prominent when viewed from Albert Street, and that its main contribution to the character of the Conservation Area is from its frontage to Osborne Place.

Taking account of these factors, the LRB concluded that the proposal would accord with policies H1 (Residential Areas), D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and D4 (Historic Environment) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, as well as the relevant national policy and guidance.

CONDITIONS

(1)  Materials / Finishes

That no development pursuant to the planning permission hereby granted shall be undertaken unless full details of the materials and finishes to be used in roof and walls of the development (including physical samples) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter, all works shall be carried out in full accordance with the details so agreed.

Reason: In order to ensure the use of high quality materials appropriate to the site context, as required by policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

(2)  Rooflight details

That no development pursuant to the planning permission hereby granted shall be undertaken unless full details of the proposed rooflights have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. For the avoidance of doubt, this shall include details of materials and specification, along with section drawings to demonstrate any projection above the plane of the roof. Thereafter, all works shall be carried out in full accordance with the details so agreed.

Reason: In order to ensure that the new rooflights are sufficiently unobtrusive and do not result in any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the Albyn Place and Rubislaw Conservation Area.