Issue - meetings

Members, please note that all plans and supporting documents relevant to the review can be viewed online here and by entering the application reference number 231380.

The LRB then considered the second request to review the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation for the refusal of the application for the change of use from class 10 (non-residential institutions) to class 4 (business); erection of replacement extension, alterations to door and associated works at Kingswells House, Skene Road, Aberdeen AB15 8PJ.

The Chairperson advised that Ms Lucy Greene would again be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the following case under consideration this day and reiterated that although the Planning Adviser was employed by the planning authority, she 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 the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 24 October 2023; (3) the decision notice dated 27 June 2024; (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 applicant’s agent; and (6) correspondence from Aberdeen City Council’s Roads Development Management Team, Waste and Recycling Team, Scottish Water and Historic Environment Scotland.

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.

Ms Greene indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal outlined in the report of handling was as follows:-

·       Change of Use was acceptable in principle;

·       Not accepted that granite structure needed to be demolished – contrary to Policy D7 – Our Granite Heritage in LDP and HEPS;

·       Proposed extension located on principal elevation, projected 10m, not subordinate, nor sufficiently high quality design, not exemplary and harmonious  – contrary to D1 & D6, Policy 7 & 14, HEPS & Managing Change: Extensions;

·       Accorded in part with Policy 9 – Empty Buildings. Due to demo & lack of biodiversity enhancement, contrary to Policy 1, 2, 3 and 12 – Zero Waste. Conflict with Managing Change – Adaptation of LBs; and

·       Road safety, due to poor visibility and no separate pedestrian route. Contrary to T2 – Sustainable Transport. Although parking provided, it could not be safely accessed.

Ms Greene outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review as follows:-

·       Compliance in terms of tree and natural heritage; principle of use; waste;

·       LBC 231347/LBC was refused and had been appealed to DPEA (site visit taken place, decision target 18 December);

·       Application for Class 10 (A6/0170) involved small meetings, with maximum of 12. Max people residing – 8, plus caretaker. Applicant equated this to 20 comings and goings from site, possibly more;

·       9m by 120m was required. Exiting junction could continue use. Due to sale by previous owner, ownership extended to only width of junction. Alternatives explored;

·       Heritage and Design statements covered history and background in detail;

·       Extensive justification had been given for demolition;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2

Members, please note that all plans and supporting documents relevant to the review can be viewed online here and by entering the application reference number 240296.