Agenda and minutes

The Chairperson advised that it had come to light prior to the meeting that the application at item 2.1 (Wynford Farm) was incorrectly listed in the delegated report as being in the Kingswells, Sheddocksley, Summerhill ward, when in fact it should have been listed as the Dyce, Bucksburn, Danestone ward.  As Councillor Crockett was a local member in the latter ward, he would be unable to sit on the Local Review Body for consideration of the Wynford Farm application.  The Chairperson therefore proposed that the Local Review Body consider items 3.1 (7 St John’s Terrace) and 4.1 (18 Esslemont Avenue) prior to consideration of the Wynford Farm application, in order that Councillor Crockett could assist in the determination of those applications before withdrawing from the meeting.

The Local Review Body of Aberdeen City Council met this day to review the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse planning permission for the erection of a two storey rear extension, the proposed increase of the existing roof pitch and the extension of the front dormer at 7 St John’s Terrace (P140226).

Councillor Milne, as Chairperson gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken.  The Chairperson indicated that the Local Review Body would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mrs Dunsmuir, 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 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.  He emphasised that the officer would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

The Local Review Body was then addressed by 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.

The Planning Adviser explained that the application which was the subject of the review was for the erection of a two storey rear extension, the proposed increase of the existing roof pitch and the extension of the front dormer at 7 St John’s Terrace.  Mr Evans addressed the Body and explained that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

He explained that the applicant had asked that the LRB undertake a site inspection.

Mr Evans explained that the application related to 7 St John’s Terrace, a 1 ½ storey detached granite dwelling house with a hipped slate roof with chimneys at either gable, and a flat roof dormer to the front elevation.  The application site was located to the north-west on St John’s Terrace, and was situated across from the Mannofield Water Treatment Works.

In relation to the proposals Mr Evans outlined that planning permission was sought to extend the property, including a two storey mansard type extension to the rear; alterations to the existing hipped roof which included increasing the pitch to 60 degrees, with an area of flat surface on top; partial straightening of the hipped roof to the rear to accommodate the extension with a wall height of 6000mm; and an increase to the front dormer window.  The proposed rear extension measured 9600mm wide and projected 6000mm into the rear garden to serve a new kitchen and family room on the ground floor of the property and a new master bedroom with en-suite and a further bedroom at the first floor.  The side  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

The Local Review Body of Aberdeen City Council then reviewed the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse planning permission for the replacement of two windows at 18 Esslemont Avenue, Rosemount (P140065).

The Chairperson indicated that the Local Review Body would be addressed by Mr Robert Forbes, who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the case under consideration this day.

The Chairperson stated that although Mr Forbes 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.  He emphasised that the officer would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

Mr Forbes explained that the application which was the subject of the review was for the replacement of two windows at the property at 18 Esslemont Avenue, Rosemount.  Mr Forbes addressed the Body and explained that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Mr Forbes advised that the application related to 18 Esslemont Avenue, Rosemount,  a second floor flatted property within a traditional four storey granite tenement block on the corner of Esslemont Avenue and Northfield Place.  The block of flats formed part of a terrace of similar tenement blocks on the eastern side of Esslemont Avenue.  There were a variety of different window designs and fenestration patterns on Esslemont Avenue, although it was noted that the corner block to which the application property belonged had a uniformity of window design, and all the windows were white-framed 1 over 1 casement units with central horizontal transom bars which mimicked the appearance of a traditional sash and case window, with the exception of the upper sash being stepped out above the lower sash.  Mr Forbes advised that the application site was within the Rosemount and Westburn Conservation Area.

In relation to the proposals Mr Forbes explained that planning permission was sought for the installation of replacement windows at the application site.  It was proposed to replace the two existing units which had central transom bars with two modern uPVC window with an offset, lower transom.  The windows would have a lower, 450mm high fixed pane, and a larger 1.6m high tilt and turn unit above.

In relation to documents which the members of the Body should consider, Mr Evans outlined that all the following documents were accessible via web links, and available as set out in the papers:-

Development Plan – Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2012);  D1 – Architecture and Placemaking: to ensure that high standards of design were achieved through a number of considerations, including context, to ensure that the setting of the proposed development and its design was acceptable;  D5 – Built Heritage: proposals affecting Listed Buildings or Conservation Areas would only be permitted if they complied with Scottish Planning Policy;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

In terms of the legislation and regulations governing Local Review Bodies, Councillor Crockett declared an interest in the following article as local member and withdrew from the meeting.

The Local Review Body of Aberdeen City Council then reviewed the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse planning permission for the proposed extension to the existing playbarn at Wynford Farm, Kingswells (P130002).

The Chairperson indicated that the Local Review Body would now be addressed by Mr Gareth Allison, who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the case under consideration this day.

The Chairperson stated that although Mr Allison 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.  He emphasised that the officer would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

Mr Allison explained that the application which was the subject of the review was for the extension to the existing playbarn at Wynford Farm, Kingswells.  Mr Allison addressed the Body and explained that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

He explained that the applicant had asked that the LRB ask for further written submissions; and undertake a site inspection.

Mr Allison advised that the application related to Wynford Farm and Playbarn, Kingswells, which was located on the C93C (Borrowstone Road – Clinterty to Kingsford) to the west of Brimmond Hill.  The farm complex comprised a 2 storey farmhouse and a converted and extended steading which formed the farm shop, café and playbarn.  On the opposite side of the road were large modern agricultural storage buildings, associated to the operation of the farm.  The BP Forties (Cruden Bay to Kinneil) pipeline crossed through the south eastern corner of the site, and the proposed works were within the inner notification zone of the pipeline, for the purposes of Health and Safety Executive consultations.  The development area was also within the inner zone of the Shell Natural Gas Liquids pipeline.

In relation to the proposals Mr Allison explained that planning permission was sought to extend the existing playbarn by a further 312 sqm.  The extension would be to the front southern elevation of the converted and extended steading and would result in the loss of 13 existing car parking spaces.  The proposal also covered replacement of the lost parking via an extension to the existing parking area to the south east.  Part of this was the subject of a separate pending application (P120696).  The proposed extension would continue the modern range which had been approved in 2010 and would match its scale, form and finishes.  The extension would measure 16.8m x 18m x 7.8m.  It was also proposed to create a projecting tower on the existing extension, west of the roof apex, which would have glazing to all four elevations and a pitched and double hipped dark grey clad roof.  The tower would measure approximately  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.