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 240798.

The LRB then considered the third 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 installation of a replacement single storey extension to rear at 81 Gray Street, Aberdeen, AB10 6JD.

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 26 June 2024; (3) the decision notice dated 22 August 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) two letter of representation.

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:-

·       The proposed single storey extension, due to its projection on the north-west elevation, would far exceed the criteria outlined in the Council's Householder Development Guide Aberdeen Planning Guidance for the projection of extensions along mutual boundaries in terraced properties;

·       The projection of the extension would result in an overbearing impact and unacceptable tunnelling effect on the neighbouring property at 79 Gray Street, whilst also creating further overshadowing of that property, therefore the works did not comply with the criteria set out in Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and Policy 16 (Quality Homes) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4); and

·       Due to the significant adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property, the proposal also conflicted with the criteria detailed within Policy H1 (Residential Areas), Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking) and Policy D2 (Amenity) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023.

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

·       Summarised the issue of disagreement as whether proposal would be overbearing and would have tunnelling impact on number 79;

·       Noted recent application at number 79;

·       Extension on north side, to number 79, was not considered excessive and would improve daylight;

·       Neighbours at 79 had written in support, however, this was received after the decision was issued, therefore not considered; and

·       Approved extension at number 79 would remove the gap between properties, however, this was disregarded by Planning, as it had not been constructed.

In terms of consultation there was no comments submitted by the Community Council.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that a site visit should take place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3

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 240294.

The LRB then considered the sixth 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 Detailed Planning Permission for the replacement of external doors with flood mitigation doors at 24 Virginia Street Aberdeen, planning reference number 240294.

The Chairperson stated that although the Planning Adviser for the LRB 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.  He 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 and decision notice by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 8 March 2024 (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (4) and the Notice of Review submitted by the agent. 

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.   The application site related to a 3½ storey 19th century warehouse set within a terrace of traditional warehouse buildings on the southern side of Virginia Street, between James Street and Shore Lane. The building was constructed with grey granite blockwork walls and a slate pitched roof. It was visually split into two frontages, each with a front half dormer window. The application building lay within, and formed part of the eastern edge of, the City Centre Conservation Area, comprising the end warehouse building in the row, adjoining 22 Virginia Street to the west. The proposal related to two timber pedestrian access doors on the northwest elevation of the building.

In terms of the proposal, Detailed planning permission was sought for the installation of replacement doors for the two existing timber doors on the front (northwest) elevation. The proposed doors would be steel-reinforced uPVC flood doors finished in RAL 5000 Violet Blue. The new doors would incorporate lever handles, rather than door knobs as existing. The works were proposed by Scottish Water in order to provide mitigation against sewer flooding on Virginia Street, which they advise occurred on an increasingly frequent basis due to climate change, and had seen the building’s interior flooded in recent years.

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

The use of PVC for the replacement of the existing timber doors would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the City Centre Conservation Area. The proposed doors were not of a high quality design that would be sympathetic to the historic character of the building, and they would be located on the prominently visible principal elevation, thus adversely impacting on the distinctive appearance and setting of the building within the wider street scene. The proposal would also not preserve the setting of the nearby listed building  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6