Issue - meetings

The Local Review Body then considered the third 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 of the property at 85 Hamilton Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 181328DPP.

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 submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Mr Evans described the site,advising that it was a semi-detached 1.5 storey dwelling, situated on the southern side of Whitehall Terrace, at its junction with Craigie Park. The building was understood to date from the 1920s/30s and was constructed in granite with a slated roof and ‘catslide’ dormer at first floor level and a 3-part bay window below. Existing windows were formed in timber with a brown stained finish, and were of a casement opening type. The site was within the Rosemount and Westburn Conservation Area.

He explained that the application proposed the replacement of all windows on the front elevation of the property. The proposed windows were ‘rosewood’ brown coloured uPVC frames, which were of a casement opening type. Besides the introduction of uPVC, the central window in the ground floor bay would be slightly different, with a single fixed pane instead of the two fixed panes presently. The lower sections of the left and right-hand-bays would open, with fixed panes above.

Mr Evans indicated that the Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal make reference to the following factors:-

• The replacement of timber with uPVC on the principal elevation failed to demonstrate due regard for its context, and therefore failed to accord with policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design), D4 (Historic Environment) and H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan;
• The retention and reinstatement of traditional window forms and materials, or suitably sympathetic alternatives, was necessary to maintain and enhance the character of the conservation area;
• The replacement of existing timber framed windows with modern frames, formed in uPVC and the presence of visible surface mounted trickle vents to the front faces, would have a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3

The Local Review Body then considered the third 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 two storey dwelling house and erection of a separate double garage at Balgranach, 269 North Deeside Road Aberdeen, planning reference 180974/DPP.

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 Jamie Leadbeater, Planner; (2) the application dated 2 July 2018; (3) the decision notice dated 3 October 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) copies of letters of representations. 

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 site and explained that the site comprised a shared driveway and an area of extended garden ground within the curtilage of a large detached dwellinghouse on the southern side of North Deeside Road at Milltimber. Access onto the shared driveway was taken directly off North Deeside Road, with the driveway dissecting large detached 269A to the east and 271 to the west.

In regards to the proposal, Mr Evans explained that planning permission was sought for the subdivision of residential curtilage and the erection of a new two storey detached sheltered dwellinghouse with integrated garage at first floor level, the erection of a detached garage, extension of existing shared driveway and associated landscaping.  The proposed dwellinghouse would incorporate a highly contemporary design built into the existing garden slope and finished with a flat green roof.  The principal elevation would be largely glazed at both floor levels with a large wraparound first floor outdoor terrace finished with glass balustrade facing southwards over the Deeside Way and beyond.  The main exterior would be finished in a natural timber cladding with black Alu Clad windows and doors. 

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

·         The principle of a third house within the original feu of 269 North Deeside Road was not considered acceptable, and was seen to conflict with the established pattern of development. Associated conflict with policy D1 and the Supplementary Guidance on Sub-division and redevelopment of residential curtilages;

·         Considered to be overdevelopment of the site. The additional garage was seen as being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3