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=4113&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 Ms Lucy Greene, who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the case under consideration this day.

At this juncture, the Local Review Body had a short adjournment.

Thereafter, Mrs Swanson, Assistant Clerk, raised a preliminary matter that it been brought to officers’ attention that additional documents had been submitted directly to today’s three Local Review Body Members in respect of the review. 

She advised Members that in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Planning series Circular 5/2013: Schemes of Delegation and Local Reviews, all matters that the applicant intended to raise in the review should be set out in, or, accompany the notice of review, as should all documents, material and evidence on which the applicant intended to rely.  The applicant on this occasion had not submitted a statement along with the notice of review.

Also, Regulation 9(5) of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013,  made it clear that, apart from information in the notice of review and accompanying documents, the applicant would only be able to raise matters or submit further documents to the extent permitted by the Regulations.  That was either where the Local Review Body request further written evidence or where requested as part of a hearing session.  These requirements were intended to ensure that the relevant matters and items of information were provided efficiently at the start of the review process, rather than at varying points throughout the process and also provided all parties with fair notice of the documents/information lodged.

Should the Local Review Body today determine that it required further written evidence, or a hearing, in order to determine the application, Regulation 15 allowed them to request information from the applicant or any other body or person by sending a written notice. Mrs Swanson emphasised that Members would require to be specific about the nature of the information/representations sought and by whom it should be provided and thereafter adjourn to enable the clerk to contact all parties to advise of the position and request the required information.

At this point, the Chairperson advised that he required a written submission, by way of a statement from the applicant / agent setting out the applicant’s reasons for requiring the review and all matters they considered should be taken into account in determining the review. He emphasised that the applicant’s statement should not however, raise any new material which was not before the appointed person at the time the application was decided (or at the time of expiry  ...  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 Robert Forbes and 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 formation proposed conversion and extension of the former Police Station at Midstocket Road to form a one, two bedroom dwellinghouse.  Mr Forbes explained that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes. 

Mr Forbes explained that the site referred to comprised a single storey flat roofed building covering 51 square metres, which was formerly used as a Police Station.  The existing walls were of granite block construction, with white Upvc windows, and cast iron rainwater goods (painted grey).  The property was located within the Rosemount Conservation Area towards the eastern end of Midstocket Road, near its junctions with Beechgrove Terrace, Argyll Place, Craigie Loanings, and Rosemount Place. In respect of neighbouring property, there was a small area of unused ground to the east, with 1 ½ storey properties beyond containing a mix of retail and residential flats.  To the south was a bank at ground floor level, with two storeys of residential accommodation above.  To the west was the four storey flatted development of Midstocket Mews, while to the north were the rear gardens and garages associated with Argyll Place.

Mr Forbes explained that planning permission was sought for the change of use of this former Police Station to form a two bedroomed residential unit.  The submitted plans showed the premise would comprise a living room, bathroom, and a kitchen at ground floor level, with two bedrooms (covering approximately 28 square metres) at first floor level, leading out onto a small roof terrace. As an amendment to the previously approved developments, the accommodation at first floor level would now be enclosed by a hipped slated roof covering the majority of the current roof area, apart from the roof terrace of approximately 8.3 square metres at the western end towards Midstocket Mews.

The proposal would also include a total of 3 conservation style rooflights, 2 of which would be located on the south facing roof plane, and 1 to the east facing roof plane.  The new gable to the roof terrace would be clad with vertical timber linings, and would also include a white Upvc door.

The submitted plans also showed a further external change which would see the cill level of the windows at the frontage to Midstocket Road dropped.  To the north elevation, the level of the windows would also be dropped to accommodate the additional accommodation at first floor level.  On the west elevation,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

The Local Review Body then considered the third request for a review.  The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now 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.

Mr Miller indicated that the application that was the subject of the review was for retrospective planning permission for the erection of a sun house and decking at 16 Cruickshank Crescent Blackburn.  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 explained that the application site was located on the west side of Cruickshank Crescent on a corner plot adjacent to the junction with Marischal Gardens and the site consisted of a 2-storey end terrace dwelling house which has been extended from its south-facing gable.  The property had front and rear gardens, both of which were finished with a hard surface.  The rear garden was a narrow, ‘V’ shaped and enclosed with a timber fence of circa 1500mm high.  It included a timber shed and drying area.  A small area at the front of the house was paved while the remainder of the area to the front and side was formed as a driveway.  The site was sloping and falls to the north.  The east boundary fronting the road was enclosed with a privet hedge of 1600-1700mm high, while the north and west was bound by a wall of circa 1100mm.  The current plot coverage was 7% of the total 368sqm plot.

Mr Miller advised that the stated reasons for the application being refused were as follows:-

(1)          The proposed sun house and raised deck do not comply with Aberdeen Local Development Plan Policy D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and H1 (Residential Areas), nor with the related Household Development Guide, as the unduly prominent position of the structure relative to the existing house and its conspicuous presence in the wider streetscape was inconsistent with the existing character of the area; 

(2)          The proposal did not demonstrate due regard for that existing context, and would not make a positive contribution to its setting, resulting in an unacceptable impact on the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area; and

(3)          The application did not comply with policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and H1 (Residential Areas) in the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

Mr Miller also explained that no objections had been received from Environmental Health or the Roads department.

The Local Review Body then asked a number of questions of Mr Miller who showed members a power point presentation with photographs of the property, surrounding area and the sun house and decking.  The Chairperson confirmed that Members had taken into consideration all of the documents which were before  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.