Issue - meetings

The Local Review Body then considered the second request for a review to evaluate the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the application for the installation of replacement windows to the front and rear of the property at 68 Burns Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 181046DPP.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Gavin Evans and reminded members that although Mr Evans 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.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Roy Brown, Planning Technician; (2) the planning application dated 25 June 2018; (3) the decision notice dated 31 August 2018; (4) links to the planning policies and plans referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent.

Mr Evans described the site, advising that it was an early twentieth century mid-terraced two storey granite dwelling in a residential area, and its associated front and rear curtilage. The dwelling has a southwest facing principal elevation fronting Burns Road and the northeast (rear) boundary of the site bounds Forbesfield Lane. The dwelling had a three-bay window at ground floor level which has one-over-one timber framed sash and case windows which had modern framed secondary glazing fixed to the outer frames of these windows. There was no glazing in the lower sash of the central window of the bay and it was currently boarded up.

In terms of the proposal, Mr Evans indicated that there was three sash and case windows in the front bay with uPVC sash and case replicas and at the time of the case officer’s visit, the lower pane in the central part of the bay was boarded up. The proposal sought the replacement of existing uPVC window in rear extension with a uPVC window of different colour and fenestration pattern and the replacement of a traditional rooflight in rear slope of roof with a conservation-style rooflight with central glazing bar.

Mr Evans referred to the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal which outlined the following factors:-

•          That no justification had been provided to demonstrate that the timber sash and case windows on the front elevation had deteriorated beyond practicable economic repair;

•          That the proposed modern uPVC windows on the front elevation would adversely affect the historic architectural integrity of the building and the character and appearance of the wider Great Western Road Conservation Area;

•          That it could set an unwelcome precedent for similar development, resulting in cumulative erosion of the character of the Conservation Area;

•          For the above reasons, the proposal was concluded to conflict with the principles of Scottish Planning Policy, Historic Environment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2

The Local Review Body then considered the second request for a review to evaluate the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the application for the erection of a residential development of eight two-bedroom flats and associated car parking and amenity space at 42A Seaforth Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 180352DPP.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Gavin Evans and reminded members that although Mr Evans 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.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Mr Gavin Clark, Senior Planner (2) the original planning application dated 5 March 2018; (3) the decision notice dated 3 May 2018; (4) links to the planning policies and plans referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement; and (6) letters of representation relating to the planning application.

Mr Evans 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 described the site, advising that it extended to approximately 636 sqm and was located on the southern side of Seaforth Road, at its junction with Urquhart Lane, incorporating a single storey, pitched-roof ‘warehouse’ type building. The building was constructed of synthetic aggregate blockwork with a metal sheet roof oriented with its gable facing onto Seaforth Road.

He indicated that the appointed officer’s report described the premises as currently vacant and most recently used as a storage shed for a plumbing business. The surrounding area was largely residential, which was reflected in its residential zoning in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, and incorporated a mix of housing styles and scales, from 2 storey - four in a block flats, to more dense 3 and 4 storey flatted developments of both traditional and modern design.

Mr Evans provided details of the planning history of the site, prior to outling the proposal which sought permission for the erection of a four storey building containing 8 flats. The flatted building would have a footprint of approximately 176 sqm, with the site accommodating 6 car parking spaces to the rear of the building and one motorcycle space, accessed via Urquhart Lane (a one-way street only accessible by vehicles from the south via Urquhart Road).

He advised that landscaped amenity space would also be provided to the rear, with cycle lockers and bin storage facilities. A section of the boundary wall would be reduced to 1m in height to provide visibility at the site access. The building would be finished in a buff-coloured synthetic stone at ground floor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3