Agenda and minutes

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

http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=284&MId=4049&Ver=4

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 three requests for planning permission.

Councillor Milne, as Chairperson, gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken.  He indicated that the Local Review Body would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mrs Lynsey McBain, as regards the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by
Mr Andrew Miller, who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the first case under consideration this day.

The Chairperson stated that although Mr Miller 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 Mrs McBain 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.

Mr Miller explained that the application which was the subject of the review was for the alteration, partial demolition and change of use of the former trades club, to form 5 flats which would consist of two 2 bedroom, and three 3 bedroom properties.  Mr Miller explained that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Mr Miller advised that all flats would be of maisonette style, with accommodation over two levels (ground and basement).  All of the flats would be single aspect, with two flats in the original part of the building towards the Adelphi, and three towards the lane to the rear.  The first and second fllors of the property are already in use as 6 flatted properties, which are accessed from a doorway on Adelphi Lane.

Mr Miller explained that the two storey flat roofed extension at the rear of the building would be remodelled and drawn back by 1.8 metres, from the 1.2 metre wide lane and this would therefore create a separation of 3 metres from the blank rear gable of the building onto Market Street beyond.  It would also cater for the provision of a tapered strip of defensible space with low landscaped cover, ranging from 1.5 to 1.8 metres in width and no direct access would be available to this space from the flats.

Mr Miller also advised that it was proposed to replace the existing windows to the front elevation with double glazed timber framed sash and case units painted white.  One of the existing doorways to the Adelphi elevation would also be partially blocked, to form a window with solid panel below.  On the side/north elevation, two blocked up windows would be re-opened, with timber framed windows  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

The Local Review Body then considered the second request for a review.  The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Mr Paul Williamson and reminded members that Mr Williamson 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 Williamson would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

Mr Williamson explained that the application which was the subject of the review was the retrospective change of use of the property at 243 North Deeside Road, Peterculter to a house of multiple occupation (HMO).  Mr Williamson explained that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Mr Williamson explained that the site comprised a seven bedroom first floor flat on the southern side of North Deeside Road, Peterculter, and formed part of a two storey building accessed via steps at the rear of the building.  The ground floor of the building was occupied by a bank.  Retrospective detailed planning permission was sought for the change of use of the flat to an HMO.

Mr Williamson advised that the applicant had requested that a site visit be undertaken to afford Members further insight into the site specific circumstances which were defined as the availability of bicycle parking to the rear of the property, and the availability of spaces to the rear of a nearby pub which was also owned by the applicant.  Mr Williamson explained that it was however for members of the LRB to determine the requirement for further procedures, if they deemed them necessary.

The part of North Deeside Road where the property was situated was predominantly residential in nature, although there were a number of small shops and other facilities within walking distance.  As such, the site formed part of the Peterculter District Centre designation within the Adopted Local Development Plan.

Mr Williamson advised that the application had been refused on the grounds that the proposal would fail to provide any parking as part of the development in an area where on street parking was at a premium, and would therefore result in an exacerbation of parking problems in the local area and would have an adverse impact on the amenity of established residential uses as well as road safety.  The reason for refusal also stated that the HMO would fail to provide sufficient useable amenity space and therefore had been considered to be non-compliant with the requirements of the Council’s Supplementary Guidance on Householder Development.

Mr Williamson then drew Members’ attention to the matters raised in the Notice of Review and supporting statement, before highlighting the relevant planning policies which had been taken into consideration in determination of the application:-

Development Plan – Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2012)

Policy RT3 (Town, District and Neighbourhood Centres) – sets out the criteria for proposals which changed the use of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Finally, the Local Review Body then considered the third request for a review.  The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Mr Robert Forbes and again reminded members that Mr Forbes 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 Forbes 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 the existing flat roof on the front porch of the property at 8 Turnberry Gardens (151183) with a pitched roof which would extend the full width of the dwelling.  The application site was located in a small residential cul-de-sac off Braehead Way.  The property in question was a modern semi-detached two storey dwelling located on the east side of Turnberry Gardens.  The south side of the property had been extended with a two storey extension and to the front of the property was a small flat roof front porch finished in red brick.  Planning permission was sought to replace the existing flat roof on the front porch with a new lean-to tiled roof which would extend the full width of the front elevation to form a canopy. 

Mr Forbes explained that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.  He advised the appellant did not consider that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the street scene.

In relation to documents which the members of the Body should consider, Mr Forbes 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

Policy D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design – all development must ensure high standards of design and have a strong and distinctive sense of place which was the result of context appraisal, detailed planning, quality architecture, craftsmanship and materials.

Policy H1 – Residential Areas – within existing residential areas and within new residential developments, proposals for new development and householder development would be approved in principle if it:

·         Did not constitute over-development;

·         Did not have an unacceptable impact on the character or amenity of the surrounding area

·         Did not result in the loss of valuable and valued areas of open space; and

·         Complied with Supplementary Guidance.

Mr Forbes added that the Supplementary Guidance on Householder Development should also be considered.

Mr Forbes advised that the stated reason for refusal of planning permission was as follows:-

The proposed pitched roof and extended canopy did not comply with Aberdeen Local Development Plan Policy D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and H1 (Residential Areas) and with the related Householder Development Guide as the design and appearance would not make a positive contribution to the setting and would have an unacceptable impact on the character or amenity of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.