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 220604.

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 for the refusal of the application for the erection of a single storey extension; formation of dormer; installation of replacement windows and door to the rear and formation of roof lights to the front at 125 Blenheim Place Aberdeen, planning reference 220604. 

Councillor Henrickson as Chair for the meeting, 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 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.  He 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 12 May 2922 (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 applicant’s agent.

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.   The application site was located on the western side of Blenheim Place and related to a traditional granite, 2 storey, terraced dwellinghouse and its associated front and rear curtilage. The dwelling had an east facing principal elevation fronting Blenheim Place. 127/129 Blenheim Place and 123 Blenheim Place were located to the north and south respectively. The property backs on to a rear lane that runs between, and parallel to, Blenheim Place and Fountainhall Road.

To the rear of the property, windows and doors were framed in white uPVC with the exception of one window which was a timber framed sash and case. There was an existing single/one-and-a-half storey annex which projects from the rear elevation of the dwellinghouse, along the mutual boundary with 123 Blenheim Place. It measured approximately 8.5m in length, 2.7m in width and 4-5.2m in height.

The surrounding area was characterised by properties of a similar architectural character. With the exception of the adjoining property (123 Blenheim Place) which contained a modern box dormer, 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 lies within the Albyn Place and Rubislaw

Conservation Area.

In terms of the application, detailed planning permission was sought for the erection of a single storey extension; the formation of a dormer; the installation of replacement windows and a door to the rear; and the formation of rooflights to the front. The extension would project 0.6m from the side (north-west) elevation of the extension single storey annex, for a length of c.3.8m. It would have a flat roof design at a height of c.2.8m and be fully glazed.

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

·       The large rooflight proposed to the front would be incompatible in sale and location;

·       The proposed rear dormer would result in the loss of a traditional dormer and the creation of a considerable mass on the roof;

·       There would be tensions with the Householder Development Guide and Managing Change: Roofs;

·       With the exception of the adjoining property, alteration in the area had been designed with consideration for the context of the area;

·       The proposed features did not preserve the Conservation Area; and

·       The proposals were contrary to relevant policies in the Adopted and Proposed Local Development Plan, Householder Development Guide, Windows Supplementary Guidance and Historic Environment Scotland Managing Change Guidance.

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

·       The aspects deemed as acceptable were the single storey extension, rooflights to the rear and the replacement of the windows;

·       The proposed rooflight to the front would be recessed conservation style with vertical bars; which was contained in guidance and replicates the style of Victorian lights over stairwells;

·       Many roofs in the area had three rooflights;

·       Regarding the rear dormer, the existing dormer was not thought to be the original, and proportions of the neighbouring dormer had been replicated.  This would not set a precedent and the dormer complied with the design guide in respect of placement on roof and vertical panel;

·       Substantial area of the main roof would remain;

·       The rear roof could not be seen from the street and there was quite a restricted view from the side lane;

In terms of Consultations, Ms Greene advised no consultee comments were received and no letters of representation from neighbouring properties were received. 

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that no further procedure was required before determination.

The Chairperson and Councillors Clark and van Sweeden 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 relevant planning policies, as well as Development Guides. 

Ms Greene responded to questions from members.

Members each advised in turn and agreed by majority decision to uphold the appointed officers decision and 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:-

While aspects of the proposal could be deemed acceptable in terms of design, scale and materials, the proposed large rooflight to the front would be of an incompatible scale and location, creating a cluttered roofslope. The proposed dormer creates significant tension with the Householder Development Guide and HES’s Managing Change guidance relating to roofs as it would result in the loss of a historic dormer and the erection of an unsympathetic dormer which would be a considerable mass on the rear elevation of the original building, which is prominently visible from the rear service lane. With the exception of the adjoining property – which does not set a precedent – alterations along the other rear elevations nearby have been designed with due consideration for the context of the area but the proposed dormer extension would be at odds with that context.

Therefore, overall, 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; guidance contained within the Supplementary Guidance ‘The Householder Development Guide’ and ‘The Repair and Replacement of Windows and Doors’ and HES’s Managing Change Guidance relating to roofs; and Policies D1, D2, D6, D8 and H1 of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020. There were no material planning considerations of sufficient weight which would warrant approval of planning permission in this instance.