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 application for the formation of a dormer to the rear at 28 St John’s Terrace Aberdeen. 

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 following case 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 the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 29 September 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 26 January 2021; (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. 

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 site was located on the north western side of St John’s Terrace, a slip road running parallel with North Deeside Road, at its junction with Springfield Road, and is occupied by a two storey plus attic, substantial detached granite dwelling. The dwelling has a single storey extension along the width of the rear elevation and conservatory, thereafter, located centrally. The attic has three skylights located on the rear roof elevation and one to the front. A single, rendered garage is located within the rear granite rubble boundary wall and is accessed from an unnamed lane and a large garden extends from the rear of the dwelling. The surrounding area is characterised by residential dwellings; traditional dormer bungalows are located either side of the property.

In terms of the proposal, detailed planning permission was sought for the formation of a dormer to the rear at 28 St John’s Terrace Aberdeen.

In relation to planning history, Mr Evans noted that planning permission was approved in December 2020 for the erection of dormers to the rear. This application was approved following the submission of acceptable plans regarding the design of the dormer and the current application relates to a previous iteration of the proposed proposal, which the Planning Authority did not find acceptable.

Mr Evans indicated that the Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal stated in the decision notice was as follows:-

·       The dormer is not set on an acceptable distance below the ridge line of the dwelling, giving the dormer an unbalanced and uncomfortably high appearance on the roof slope, which is a publicly visible elevation;

·       The design, form and proportions would not be sympathetic to the traditional proportions and architectural style of the house, therefore having an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of both the dwelling and surrounding area, taking special cognisance of its highly visible position when viewed from Springfield Road;

·       The proposed dormer had therefore not been designed with due consideration for its surrounding context and would therefore fail to comply with Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and H1 (Residential Areas) and the associated Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan;

·       It would also fail to comply with equivalent policies of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan;

·       There was no material planning considerations that would warrant approval of planning permission in this instance.

Mr Evans outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review advising that:-

·       The dormer extension was required to provide useable floor space on the 2nd floor;

·       They contend that the dormer would sit on a substantial area of roof slope, and would not dominate the existing roof;

·       They consider that its design, form and proportions are sympathetic to the proportions and architectural style of the property;

·       Due to the elevation above ground level, the relationship between the dormer and roof ridge would not be visible from street level; and

·       A previous planning approval (201192/DPP) permitted dormers which would be set at the same height on the roof slope.

In terms of consultee responses, Mr Evans advised that none were received. 

Mr Evans advised that the applicant had expressed the view that no further procedures were required before determination.

At this point, the LRB considered whether they had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review. 

The Chairperson and Councillors Cameron and Reynolds all indicated in turn that they each had enough information before them and that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.

Mr Evans outlined the relevant policy considerations, making reference to:-

·       Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017;

-        H1: Residential Areas; and

-        D1: Quality Placemaking by Design;

·       Supplementary Guidance – Householder Development Guide

Mr Evans explained that in determining the appeal, members should also take into consideration any material considerations they feel were relevant to the application that would point to either overturning the original decision or dismissing the review. In addition to the relevant policies from the development plan, the Scottish Planning Policy would be material considerations.

Mr Evans indicated that should members wish to overturn the decision of the appointed officer, consideration should be given to any conditions which would be appropriate in order to make the proposal acceptable, however all conditions must meet the six tests set out by Scottish Government policy.

Mr Evans responded to various questions from members.

The Chairperson and Councillors Cameron and Reynolds each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to overturn the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application and therefore approve the application unconditionally. 

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:-

Members of the Local Review Body (LRB) noted that the proposed dormer windows would comply with the guidance set out in the relevant Householder Development Guide (HDG) Supplementary Guidance as it relates to the design of dormer windows. The position of the dormer higher up the roof was acknowledged, however members felt that this would not in itself justify refusal given an earlier decision to grant planning permission for dormer windows in a similar position relative to the roof ridge. Members states that the proposed dormer windows are of design and proportions that would be sympathetic to the property and would not result in unacceptable impact on the character or amenity of the wider area, which is characterised by dormer windows of varying styles. The use of slated linking panels in the design of the dormer was noted as being provided for by the relevant HDG Supplementary Guidance and consistent with the natural slate roof of the original property.