Issue - meetings

With reference to article 2 of the minute of meeting of the Local Review Body (LRB) of 30 September 2020, the 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 to refuse the application for the change of use from amenity land to garden ground at 34 Seaview Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 200162. 

Councillor Boulton as Chair, gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken, advising that the LRB would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mr Mark Masson with regards to 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 following case under consideration this day.

The Chairperson stated 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 Body 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 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 Roy Brown, Planning Trainee; (2) the application dated 6 February 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 11 May 2020; (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying 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.

Mr Evans then described the site advising that it was a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling which lay at the very north-eastern corner of the ‘Seaview’ development. The house fronted onto Seaview Place, with a public footpath running down the eastern side of the property before turning along the back boundary before connecting with a wider network of paths in the Dubford development to the north. That footpath had open space/grass verges to either side, with a children’s playpark located on its eastern side. The side and rear of 34 Seaview Place was enclosed by hedging of more than 2m in height, though it is understood from the appellants’ submission that there was a boundary wall concealed behind that hedging. Some photographs were included in the presentation to assist members in familiarising themselves with the site.

This application concerned the area of open space between 34 Seaview Place’s boundary and the footpath (both at the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1

The Local Review Body (LRB) 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 change of use from amenity land to garden ground at 34 Seaview Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 200162. 

At this juncture, Mr Evans advised that that there was a discrepancy in the submission of the location plan for the application site. He explained that two versions had been submitted by the applicant’s agent. The original version outlined the location in red where planning permission was being sought with a blue outline depicting other land which was controlled by the applicant. Sometime later a revised plan had been received which swapped those around, so the red line was now enclosing the house and garden with the area of adjoining space shown in a blue outline. The effect of this means that there was a discrepancy in the description of the proposal and the submitted site plan, such that if permission had been granted by the appointed officer, or if the LRB today opted to reverse the appointed officer’s decision to refuse, the applicant would still technically not have planning permission for the change of use for this area of ground adjacent to the house.

He intimated that the LRB did have powers to request further information in certain circumstances, but ultimately must consider the same proposal which was before the appointed officer in their earlier decision.

The LRB received legal advice, thereafter they decided unanimously to defer consideration of the review and to request that a corrected version of the location plan be submitted by the applicant’s agent.