Agenda item

The Local Review Body (LRB) of Aberdeen City Council met on this day to review the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request for planning permission for the formation of dormers to the front and rear of 6 Hammerfield Avenue Aberdeen, 200295/DPP.

Councillor Boulton as Chair, gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken, advising that the LRB would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mrs Lynsey McBain with regards to the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Mr Gavin Evans who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the cases under consideration this day.

The Chairperson stated that although the Planning Adviser 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.

The Local Review Body was then addressed by Mrs McBain, Assistant Clerk in regard to the procedure to be followed, at which time reference was made to the procedure note circulated with the papers calling the meeting and to more general aspects relating to the procedure.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Roy Brown, Planner; (2) the application dated 18 January 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 8 June  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 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 then described the site advising that the application site was located on the south-western side of Hammerfield Avenue between its junctions with Great Western Road (to the north) and Duthie Place (to the south).  The site comprised a two-storey semi-detached house of a traditional granite construction, along with its associated front and rear gardens.  The property adjoins number 4 to the north.  Hammerfield Avenue included a mix of two-storey semi-detached and 1 and ½ storey detached and semi-detached homes, some of which feature a white wetdash render finish.  Mr Evans explained that neither number 6 nor the adjoining number 4 appear to have been significantly altered at roof level, with no dormer windows present at the front or rear.  It was also noted there were two existing rooflights on both front and rear slopes of number 6’s roof.

Mr Evans advised that the application site was located in an area which the Aberdeen Local Development Plan identified as a Residential Area, where policy H1 would apply.  The site also sat just outside the Great Western Road Conservation Area.

In regard to the proposed application, Mr Evans advised that the application sought permission for detailed planning permission for the formation of two dormer windows with a slated linking panel on the front elevation and also the formation of a flat-roofed box style dormer on the rear elevation.

Mr Evans also indicated that planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey extension to the rear of the dwelling in September 2016 and the permission was implemented and work completed.

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

•        The proposed linked panelled box dormer on the principal elevation would adversely affect the architectural integrity of the original dwelling by way of its design, siting and proportions;

•        The box style dormer was unsympathetic to the historic character of the building;

•        Sited uncomfortably high on the slope of the roof, unbalancing its appearance particularly when seen alongside the unaltered property at number 4;

•        It conflicted with the Householder Development Guide;

•        There would be an adverse impact on the character and amenity of the streetscape, which featured few alterations to the original roof forms;

•        There would be an unwelcome precedent if approval was issued and would encourage unsympathetic alterations, to the detriment of the character and amenity of the area; and

•        It conflicted with policies D1 and H1 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and policies of the emerging Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

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

·        They stated that the proposed works would allow the owners to adapt their property to meet changing family circumstances and modern living requirements;

·        Highlighted lack of objection from the neighbouring properties or consultees;

·        Highlighted two former planning approvals for a front dormers with linking panels in 2009 and 2015;

·        Notes that the reasons for refusal relate only to the front dormer, with the officer’s report concluding that the rear dormer would be acceptable;

·        Contends that there have been no significant change in the applicable policy since those earlier approvals;

·        Contends that dormer windows were an established part of the character of the area and that the proposals would not be out of place or upset the streetscape; and

·        Considered that the planning authority had been inconsistent in dealing with similar applications in the same street.

In relation to consultation, Mr Evans indicated that there were no responses from consultees or neighbouring properties. 

Mr Evans indicated that the applicant had indicated on the Notice of Review that further procedure was required, and that a site visit should take place before determination. 

The Chairperson and Councillors Cameron and Reynolds advised in turn that they had enough information to determine the application and did not require any further procedures. 

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 Householder Development Guide, Supplementary Guide.

Members asked a number of questions of Mr Evans in relation to the proposed application. 

The Chairperson and Councillors Cameron and Reynolds 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 on the principal elevation would adversely affect the architectural integrity of the original dwelling by way of its position on the upper part of the roof slope and its proximity to the roof ridge. For the avoidance of doubt, the Local Review Body did not object in principle to the presence of a slated linking panel on the front elevation, which was cited as a contributing factors to the appointed officer's decision.

The proposed front dormer would be sited uncomfortably high on the roofslope, which would unbalance the roofslope. The unbalanced appearance of the roof would be exacerbated because 4 Hammerfield Avenue would remain unaltered from its original form. The proposed dormer would detract from the architectural integrity of the original dwelling and the prevailing character and visual amenity of the streetscape of Hammerfield Avenue. The proposed front dormer would therefore adversely affect the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area.

The grant of planning permission could set a precedent for similarly unsympathetically sited dormers on the principal elevations of shallow pitched roofed properties in the surrounding area, which could further adversely affect the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area.

As a result of the proposed front dormer, the proposal would therefore conflict with Policies D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design and H1 - Residential Areas of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017; the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide'; and Policies D1 - Quality Placemaking, D2 - Amenity and H1 - Residential Areas of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020. There were no material planning considerations that warrant the grant of planning permission in this instance.