Agenda and minutes

The agenda and reports associated with this minute can be found at:-

https://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=284&MId=6034&Ver=4

The Local Review Body 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 request for planning permission for the proposed erection of two detached dwellings, the formation of associated private garden ground and car parking at Burnside Poultry Unit, Little Clinterty, Aberdeen, AB21 0TL (P170395).

Councillor Boulton, as Chairperson, gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken.  She indicated that the Local Review Body would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mrs Swanson, as regards the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Mr Miller, who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the 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 Mrs Swanson, the Assistant Clerk as regards 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 Local Review Body had before it (1) a report of handling by Mr Robert Forbes, Senior Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 26 July 2017; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement, documents and initial planning application; and (6) letters of representation and consultation responses.

In respect of the Review, Mr Miller advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes. 

Mr Miller advised that the site subject to the review formed a 1.3 hectare site formed of agricultural land. The site included a disused poultry shed (10 x 35 metres), the foundations of a demolished agricultural building and various other farming paraphernalia. There was also a mix of mature and immature trees. The site was located within the Green Belt of Aberdeen, as zoned within the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017.

In terms of the proposal, Mr Miller advised that the application sought consent for the erection of two houses on the site, utilising the existing access track. Both houses would be identical and would be one and half storey and would have a single integral garage.

Mr Miller explained that the reasons for refusal of the application was that the proposal would be contrary to policy NE2 – Green Belt, on the basis that the proposal would not fall within any of the specified exceptions for development within the green belt. The proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

The Local Review Body then considered the second request for a review of the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request for planning permission for the erection of an 1.5 storey extension to the side, front porch and dormers to the front and rear at Pomona, 38 Cameron Street, Aberdeen, AB23 8QB (P170755).

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would be addressed by Mr Andrew Miller and reminded members that Mr Miller 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.  Mr Miller would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

In relation to the application, the Local Review Body had before it (1) a report of handling by Mr Roy Brown, Planning Technician; (2) the decision notice dated 6 September 2017; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) links to planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant along with an accompanying statement and the initial planning application; and (6) two public representations and consultation responses from Flooding and Coastal Protection and Roads Development Management.

In respect of the Review, Mr Miller advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes. 

Mr Miller advised that the site subject to the review formed a 1.5 storey semi-detached house dating from the 1970s. The surrounding area was formed of similar housing. Mr Miller showed photos of the site.

He explained that the application sought consent for the erection of a 1½ storey extension to the side of the dwelling, a front porch, and box dormers to the front and rear of the dwelling.

The reasons for refusal stated by the appointed Planning Officer were that the proposals were contrary to policies Quality Placemaking by Design and H1 – Residential Areas of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan; and the Supplementary Guidance: ‘The Householder Development Guide’ on the following basis:

• The proposed porch would be substantial and failed to incorporate sufficient glazing which was contrary to Supplementary Guidance;
• The proposed dormers would fail to comply with the Supplementary Guidance, as they would not have glazing to their extremities and would be less than 600 mm from the ridge of the house;
• Overlooking from rear dormer window into garden ground of 11 Gordon Place; and
• Finally, it was considered there was a potential for a precedent to be set for further porches of this scale in the area.

With regards to the applicant’s statement, Mr Miller advised that the applicant’s agent had highlighted the following matters from their perspective:

• The only location a door could be created was to the front, given that a garage would be on the site (maintaining a car parking space);
• The design reflected the character of the surrounding area;
• Whilst the dormer windows  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

The Local Review Body then considered the final request for a review of 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 garage dormer and roof lights at 21 Hamilton Place, Aberdeen, AB15 4AX (P170591).

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would be addressed by Mr Andrew Miller and reminded members that Mr Miller 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.  Mr Miller would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

In relation to the application, the Local Review Body had before it (1) a report of handling by Ms Sheila Robertson, Planning Technician; (2) the decision notice dated 26 July 2017; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) links to planning policies referred to in the report of handling; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant along with an accompanying statement and the initial planning application; and (6) one public objection.

In respect of the Review, Mr Miller advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes. 

Mr Miller advised that the site subject to the review formed a garage at the rear of traditional granite built house on Hamilton Place that had been divided into two flats.  The garage fronts on to the lane to the rear of Hamilton Place. Mr Miller showed photos of the site.

Mr Miller explained that the application sought consent for the installation of a dormer window on the roof the existing garage. At present, the garage had roof lights. The dormer window would be PVCu framed and the dormer would have weather boarding cheeks.

He went on to advise that the appointed Planning Officer had refused the application as the proposals were contrary to policies D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design and H1 – Residential Areas: Householder Development and the Householder Supplementary Guidance on the basis that the dormer window would be an obtrusive structure on the roof of the garage due to its massing and design, and would be out of keeping with the street scene of the lane and the conservation area, therefore failing to comply with H1, D1, D4 (Historic Environment – which ensures compliance with Scottish Planning Policy /Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement).

With regards to the applicant’s statement, Mr Miller advised that the applicant’s agent had highlighted from their perspective there were many examples of flat roof extensions to the rear elevations of the lane, and they felt that this one should also be supported. Mr Miller advised that no details of precedents had been provided.

With regards to consultation responses and objections, Mr Miller advised that no consultee responses had been received and one letter of public objection. The public objection raised the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.