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=4215&Ver=4

Members, please access all relevant plans at the following link:-

http://planning.aberdeencity.gov.uk/PlanningDetail.asp?ref=151391

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 retrospective planning permission for the proposed erection of a tree house to the rear of the existing dwelling.

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,in regard to 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 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 Mrs McBain, 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 delegated report by Ross McMahon, Planning Officer, dated 3 December 2015; (2) the decision notice dated 4 December 2015; (3) links to online plans showing the proposal; (4) links to online planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant along with an accompanying statement; and (6) representationsreceived in respect of the proposal.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Miller who explained that the application was for retrospective consent for the erection of an elevated wooden structure, referred to as a tree house, and an associated area of decking to the south-east of the site.  The overall height of the erected structure measured approximately 4.8m from ground level and approximately 2.5m to the timber deck, forming a large timber lined screen which sat on the existing granite boundary wall and measured 4.5m in overall height, with an overall width of 6.7m along the east boundary facing onto the side lane.  Mr Miller advised that the structure was constructed primarily in timber, with stained timber linings/cladding used to form screening to the side lane.

It was noted that two letters of representation were received in connection with the application, and the points raised related to the following:-

(1)  That the east wall should be stained/treated in its entirety;

(2)  That the proposal was out of character with the area and adversely affected the privacy of adjacent properties; and

(3)  That the application would set a precedent for similar types of development.

Mr Miller advised that the stated reason for refusal of planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

Members, please access all relevant plans at the following link:-

http://planning.aberdeencity.gov.uk/PlanningDetail.asp?ref=151376

The Local Review Body then considered the second request for a review, to evaluate the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request for planning permission for the proposed demolition of the existing dwellinghouse and erection of three dwellinghouses at Brookfield, Land at Murtle Den Road Aberdeen, 151376.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Mr Robert Forbes and 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.

In relation to the application, the Local Review Body had before it (1) a delegated report by Mr Paul Williamson, Planning Officer, dated 9 September 2015; (2) the decision notice (3) online links to plans showing the proposal; (4) online links to planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement; and (6) representationsreceived in respect of the proposal.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Forbes, who explained that the application was for planning permission in principle for the demolition of the existing house and the construction of three new detached houses within the existing curtilage using the existing access point.  Mr Forbes outlined that the site extended to 1Hectare and comprised a detached house and associated garden ground located on the eastern side of Murtle Den Road within the green belt between Milltimber and Bieldside.  Mr Forbes advised that Murtle Den Road was a privately maintained road which offered no through route, with access and egress via a single point on North Deeside Road, which gave access to 13 substantial detached dwellings, most of which were set within extensive plots in a mature woodland setting.  The site was enclosed by mature coniferous tree belts which cast considerable shade, and the tree belt at the southern edge of the site was visible from the A93 on approaching the site from Bieldside.

Mr Forbes explained that the applicant considered that the application site no longer warranted green belt designation.  However Mr Forbes highlighted that rezoning of the land in question was not a matter which is within the remit of the LRB as it is a matter for the local plan review to consider revision of green belt boundaries.

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

(1)   That the site lay within the Green Belt which was defined to protect and enhance the landscape setting and identity of urban areas and in which there was a presumption against most kinds of development with only limited exceptions. The proposed development did not comply with any of the specified exceptions to the presumption against development within the Green  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.