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 property at 85 Hamilton Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 180950DPP.

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 Alex Ferguson, Planner; (2) the planning application dated 11 June 2018; (3) the decision notice dated 30 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 including a supporting statement with further information relating to the application.

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, however he then indicated that new evidence presented by the applicant in the form of (1) a letter dated 21 November 2018 which made reference to planning approval for a neighbouring property; and (2) a new drawing showing a different window had been submitted and therefore required approval from the LRB to accept the letter as part of the proceedings.

Ms Christie, Legal Advisor indicated that the new information, which was not before the planning officer, could only be taken into account where (a) that the matter could not have been raised before that time; or (b) that it not being raised before that time was a consequence of exceptional circumstances.

The Local Review Body agreed to accept the letter in to the proceedings as they were satisfied that the information could not have been submitted earlier, however they did not agree to accept the new drawing into the proceedings.

Mr Evans described the site, advising that the property in question was a  detached 2½  storey granite building of traditional style on the southern side of Hamilton Place. The building fronts onto Hamilton Place, but its western gable bounds an unnamed rear lane which runs from Hamilton Place to Desswood Place, and was characterised by garages serving properties on Blenheim Place and Fountainhall Road. The upper floor and roof level of number 85 Hamilton Place’s rear elevation were visible from this lane. The building was within the Albyn Place/Rubislaw Conservation Area.

Mr Evans indicated that this application proposed the replacement of windows on the building’s rear elevation which included two windows at ground floor level, two at first floor level, and six  ...  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 removal of an existing garage/utility room to create a 1.5 storey gable extension and to extend the existing front and rear dormer windows at 38 Braeside Place Aberdeen, planning reference 181344. 

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 Sheila Robertson, Planning Technician; (2) the application dated 27 July 2018; (3) the decision notice dated 27 September 2018 (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 agent along with an accompanying statement and (6) a letter of representation. 

The Local Review Body then heard from Mr Evans, who explained 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 application and explained that planning permission was sought for the removal of an existing garage/utility room and to crate a 1.5 storey gable extension and to extend the existing front and rear dormer windows.  The property formed one half of a pair of dwelling houses, with fully hipped roofs, positioned at the entrance to a cul-de-sac which comprised 12 semi-detached and terraced properties. 

Mr Evans outlined the appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal as follows:-

·         By unbalancing this pair of semi-detached houses, there was a failure to demonstrate due regard for the design and context of the streetscape, particularly when viewed in the context of the neighbouring properties of a similar design, which retain their original roof profile;

·         The scale and dimensions of the proposed dormers would create a top heavy and bulky roof elevation, which would introduce a visually disruptive feature into a streetscape that otherwise retains its original form, character and pattern of development;

·         The proposed development would appear out of context and would impose a negative design feature on the surrounding area; and

·         As a result, failure to comply with Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and the associated 'Householder Development Guide' Supplementary Guidance.

In relation to the appellants case, Mr Evans highlighted the following:-

·         Contended that the appointed officer’s decision focuses heavily on the relationship with the other half of the semi, and gave insufficient regard to the wider context;

·         Stated that the dormer windows were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2