Agenda item

Members, please note that all plans and supporting documents relevant to the review can be viewed online here and by entering the application reference number 211012.

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 formation of dormer to rear of 1 Bishop’s Court, Bishopdams Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 211012/DPP. 

Councillor Stewart as Chair for the first review only, gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken, advising that the LRB would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mr Mark Masson with regards to the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Ms Lucy Greene 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, she 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 Mr Masson, 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 13 July 2021; (3) the decision notice dated 3 November 2021; (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 applicant; and (6) two letters of representaion.

The LRB was then addressed by Ms Greene 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.

Ms Greene then described the site advising that it comprised a dwellinghouse which occupied the north-western wing of ‘Bishop’s Court’, a converted steading building situated on the eastern side of Bishopdams Road, just to the south-east of Westhill and the Aberdeen City Council / Aberdeenshire Council boundary. This was a single storey granite built building with concrete tiles pitch roof, dating from around the late 19th century and the steading was sub-divided some time in the late 20th century. This part of the steading had a very small (10m2) lean to extension to the north side.

In terms of the appellant’s proposal, Ms Greene indicated that planning permission was sought for the formation of a dormer on the dwelling’s rear (northern) roof slope. The dormer would be of a ‘box’ design, with horizontal proportions and a flat roof. The dormer would measure 2.4m in height by 7.7m long and 2.7m deep. The dormer would incorporate four windows on its front face, with an apron below and a narrow solid infill panel in the centre. The white upvc windows, the dormer’s front and side elevations would be finished with Siberian larch timber cladding. The dormer would have a c.350mm high white upvc fascia. The dormer matched the width of the property’s existing single storey rear lean-to extension. It would be built off to the wall head of the original steading building with its front face sitting approximately 500mm up from the eaves level of the single storey extension. The side elevations would be set 3.1m and 2.1m in from the western gable end and the eastern mutual boundary respectively, whilst the dormer’s roof would sit c. 350mm below the ridge of the steading’s pitched roof. The dormer would allow for the creation of two bedrooms and an en-suite within the roof space of the dwelling, to be accessed via a new internal staircase.

She indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal stated in the decision notice was as follows:-

·       The proposed contemporary dormer design, scale and materials would be architecturally incompatible with traditional historic agricultural steading building, contrary to Supplementary Guidance on the Conversion of Buildings in the Countryside;

·       The dormer would dominate roof slope, contrary to Householder Design Guide; and

·       It would be prominently sited, was not of the highest design quality and would have detrimental impact on Green Belt. Contrary to Policies D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design, and NE2 – Green Belt.

Ms Greene outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review as follows:-

·       The former steading had been converted into five properties and there have been several alterations over the years since. Photographs were provided of a flat roof extension and dormers on the neighbouring former farmhouse;

·       The Box dormer was required in order to provide head height within attic conversion;

·       It was not technically feasible to form two smaller dormers and provide access;

·       In terms of the timber – natural larch cladding would turn silvery and is appropriate;

·       The original form of building would remain and dormer is to the rear; and

·       The application should be determined on individual merit taking into account the changing surroundings. In this case, these include Kingshill Commercial Park, Cormack Park and Arnhall Business Park.

In terms of consultee responses, Ms Greene advised that no comments were received from Cults, Bieldside and Milltimber Community Council and there were two representations submitted, which were outlined within the papers circulated to the LRB.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that the review may proceed on the basis of the information provided.

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

The Chairperson and Councillors Macdonald and Mason all indicated in turn that they each had enough information before them and therefore agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without any further procedure.

In terms of relevant policy considerations, Ms Greene referred to the following in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017:-

• NE2: Green Belt Policy;
• D1: Quality Placemaking by Design;
• Supplementary Guidance: Conversion of Buildings in the Countryside; and
• Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide.

Ms Greene responded to questions from members in relation to the design and proposed facias to be used.

The Chairperson and Councillors Macdonald and Mason each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to reverse the appointed officer’s earlier decision and to grant the planning permission 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:-

That in the context of this site, the proposed dormer would be partially screened by existing trees and with the attachment of a condition relating to colour of materials would not be overly visually dominant without an unduly detrimental impact on the surrounding area. It would therefore comply with Policy NE2: Green Belt and Policy D1: Quality Placemaking by Design.

CONDITIONS

That no development hereby granted permission shall not take place unless there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority a scheme detailing finishing materials to the dormer, in particular to ensure that colours blend in with the colour of the roof. The development shall thereafter be implemented only in accordance with such details as so approved.