9 Belvidere Crescent - Formation of Dormer to Rear - Planning Ref:190339
Minutes:
With reference to article 2 of the minute of meeting of the Local Review Body (LRB) of Aberdeen City Council of 21 August 2019, the LRB conducted a site visit then reconvened at the Town House to review the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request for planning permission for the formation of a dormer to the rear of the property at 9 Belvidere Crescent, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 190339/DPP.
Councillor Boulton, as Chairperson, advised that the procedures previously outlined by the Clerk at the meeting of on 21 August 2019 would apply and indicated that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Gavin Evans, who acted as Planning Adviser to the LRB in the case under consideration. The Chairperson reiterated that although the Planning Adviser 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 LRB only. She emphasised that the officer would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.
Mr Evans then outlined the application site advising that the property was located on the west side of Belvidere Crescent, which itself joins Rosemount Place and Craigie Loanings. The site comprised an upper flat within a 2-storey detached granite building, the door for which was located down the side of the building. Number 9 extended to the first floor and attic.
The site was located within an area zoned as residential within the Aberdeen City Local Development Plan, where policy H1 applies and was also within the Rosemount & Westburn Conservation Area.
Mr Evans intimated that permission was previously granted in January 2015, prior to the adoption of the current Aberdeen Local Development Plan for the formation of a box dormer to the rear which appeared to be identical to the current proposal.
He explained that the Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal which were stated in full in the decision notice, makes reference to the following factors:-
· Rear dormer did not accord with Householder Development Guide - Supplementary Guidance in that it is not architecturally compatible in design and scale with original house or surrounding area;
· Would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Rosemount and Westburn Conservation Area;
· Masked and overwhelmed the original design concept, resulting in an unacceptable impact on visual appearance of the dwelling and wider area;
· Contrary to the aims of Scottish Planning Policy, Historic Environment Policy for Scotland and Historic Environment Scotland ‘Roofs’ guidance;
· Conflict with policy D4 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan; and
· No material considerations that outweighed non-compliance with the development plan.
Mr Evans outlined the appellant’s case within the Notice of Review, along with a Statement both of which were included in the agenda pack for members’ consideration.
The applicants’ submission included the following points:-
9 Belvidere Crescent - Formation of Dormer to Rear - Planning Ref:190339
Minutes:
The Local Review Body (LRB) of Aberdeen City Council met at the Town House to review the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request for planning permission for the formation of a dormer to the rear of the property at 9 Belvidere Crescent, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 190339/DPP.
Councillor Boulton as Chairperson gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken. She indicated that the LRB would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mr Mark Masson as regards the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Mr Gavin Evans who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the case under consideration.
The Chairperson highlighted that although the Planning Adviser 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 LRB only. She emphasised that the officer would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.
The Local Review Body was then addressed by Mr Masson, Assistant Clerk regarding the procedure to be followed, at which time reference was made to the procedure note circulated with the papers calling the meeting and to certain more general aspects relating to the procedure.
In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Sheila Robertson, Planning Technician; (2) the decision notice dated 2 May 2019; (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning notices referred to in the delegated report; and (4) the application and Notice of Review submitted by the applicant.
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 and there were no new matters, which were not before the appointed officer at the time of the original decision, have been raised in the review submission.
Mr Evans also indicated that in terms of the procedure by which the review will be conducted, the applicant had requested that a site visit be undertaken.
Mr Evans then outlined the application site advising that the property was located on the west side of Belvidere Crescent, which itself joins Rosemount Place and Craigie Loanings. The site comprised an upper flat within a 2-storey detached granite building, the door for which was located down the side of the building. Number 9 extended to the first floor and attic.
The site was located within an area zoned as residential within the Aberdeen City Local Development Plan, where policy H1 applies and was also within the Rosemount & Westburn Conservation Area.
Mr Evans intimated that permission was previously granted in January 2015, prior to the adoption of the current Aberdeen Local Development Plan for the formation of a box dormer to the rear which appeared to be identical to the current proposal.
He explained that the Appointed Officer’s reasons for ... view the full minutes text for item 2