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 211241.

The Local Review Body (LRB) of Aberdeen City Council then considered the third review to evaluate the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the application for Detailed Planning Permission for the formation of linked dormer to the rear and replacement windows to the front, side and rear at 57 Blenheim Place Aberdeen, planning reference 211241.

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.

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 25 August 2021; (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (4) the Notice of Review submitted by the agent.

It was noted that the applicant had submitted additional information with the Notice of Review which was not before the appointed officer when a decision was made, therefore this was classed as new information.  Having heard from  the Legal Officer, the LRB agreed unanimously to accept this new information. 

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.  The application site was located on the western side of Blenheim Place, immediately across from the junction with Osborne Place and adjacent to a car park which sits along the southern boundary, related to the Blenheim House office building, currently occupied by EY (formerly known as Ernst and Young) and The Wood Foundation. The property backs on to a rear lane that runs between, and parallel to, Blenheim Place and Fountainhall Road. The property was an upper floor flat that formed part of a traditional granite, 2 storey, semi-detached property. All windows relating to the upper floor flat were white, metal, sash and case units. The rear (west) roofslope contained two piended dormers which mirrored the adjoining property. The surrounding area was characterised by properties of a similar architectural character. The vast majority of the roofs of these properties – notably on the western side of Blenheim Place – contained either piended dormers or rooflights. The site lay within the Albyn Place and Rubislaw Conservation Area.

In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene advised that Detailed Planning Permission (DPP) was sought for the extension of the existing dormers to the rear (west) elevation of the building and the installation of replacement windows to the front (east), rear (west) and side (south) elevations of the property. It was proposed to infill the area between the two end haffits of the existing dormers, forming a dormer which would total a maximum 6.8m in width. The infill area would consist of an additional sash and case window and slate roof tiles. The pitched roofs of the existing dormers would be removed and a large flat roof created, finished with a dark grey single membrane, giving the dormer a maximum height of 2.5m. The result of these changes was that a large box dormer would be formed. Consent was also sought for the replacement of windows on the front (east), rear (west) and side (south) elevations of the building. The existing metal sash and case windows would be replaced by timber sash and case, double glazed units.

Ms Greene indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal outlined in the report of handling was as follows:-

The proposed dormer created significant tension with the Householder Development Guide and HES’s Managing Change guidance relating to roofs through the removal of the traditional dormers. The unsympathetic dormer extension would be a considerable mass on the rear elevation of the original building, which was prominently visible from the adjacent car park and rear service lane. Alterations along the other rear elevations nearby had been designed with due consideration for the context of the area but the proposed dormer extension would be at odds with that context. Therefore, the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and would thus fail to comply with Scottish Planning Policy; Historic Environment Policy for Scotland; Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design), H1 (Residential Areas) and D4 (Historic Environment) of the Adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan; Policies D1, D2, D6, D8 and H1 of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan; and guidance contained within the Householder Development Guide and HES’s Managing Change Guidance relating to roofs. There were no material planning considerations of sufficient weight which would warrant approval of planning permission in this instance.

Mr Evans outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review as follows:-

·       In relation to others locally, view that this was ‘ unsympathetic’ was subjective – the dormer fits between haffits of existing and involves an extra 7m2 of roof.  The proposed dormer was 24m2 on roof of 63m2, this was not a “considerable mass”

·       References made to other alterations, in particular number 30 Fountainhall Road, and more recent decision at 56 Fountainhall Road - Householder Design Guide was guidance and should be applied flexibly;

·       Planning Authority advised that any further development to roofscape would be unacceptable, which was intransigent.  References to application for roof terrace at adjacent office building; and

·       Materials were in keeping with the building and ends of dormers would be retained.

In terms of Consultations, Ms Greene advised that no responses were received and there were no letters of representation. 

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that a site visit should take place before determination. 

The Chairperson and Councillors Donnelly 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 Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017.

Ms Greene responded to questions from members.

Members each advised in turn and agreed unanimously to uphold the officer’s earlier decision.  Planning permission was therefore refused. 

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 created significant tension with the Householder DevelopmentGuide and HES's Managing Change guidance relating to roofs through the removalof the traditional dormers. The unsympathetic dormer extension would be aconsiderable mass on the rear elevation of the original building, which is prominentlyvisible from the adjacent car park and rear service lane. Alterations along the otherrear elevations nearby had been designed with due consideration for the context ofthe area but the proposed dormer extension would be at odds with that context.

Therefore, the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character and

appearance of the conservation area and would thus fail to comply with Scottish

Planning Policy; Historic Environment Policy for Scotland; Policies D1 (Quality

Placemaking by Design), H1 (Residential Areas) and D4 (Historic Environment) of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017; Policies D1, D2, D6, D8 and H1 of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020; and guidance contained within the Householder Development Guide and HES's Managing Change Guidance relating to roofs. There were no material planning considerations of sufficient weight which would warrant approval of planning permission in this instance.