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=4263&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 permissions for the proposed conversion and extension of existing bothy to create one dwelling at Borrowstone Bothy, Borrowstone Farm (160109).

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, Mr Mark Masson 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 hehad 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 Mr Masson, 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 Ms Dineke Brasier, Planning Officer, dated 1 March 2016; (2) the decision notice dated 3 March 2016; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement.

Mr Evans advised that the building in question was a small granite bothy, which forms part of the existing Borrowstone Farm. The site was located to the west of the City, mid-way between Kingswells and Westhill, approximately 100m m from the City Boundary. There is a small lean-to style extension adjoining the eastern gable of the building. Borrowstone Farm is accessed via a short private road, which connects to a minor road running North/South, giving access to the A944 Aberdeen/Westhill Road (to the south) and the B979 (north) which connects to the A96 beyond.

He indicated that detailed planning permission was sought for the conversion and extension of the existing bothy in order to provide a single dwelling house for residential use.  The existing bothy has a footprint of roughly 45sqm, and the proposal involved the addition of an extension that would increase its floor space by a further 90sqm.

Mr Evans referred to the delegated report which advised that external alterations to the existing Bothy would include: the creation of three small windows in the rear elevation and the replacement of an existing door with a window, whilst retaining the door frame. The existing side extension would form part of a low level link, leading to a large,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

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 replacement windows at 103B Rosemount Place, Aberdeen (160141).

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Mr Matthew Easton 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 Ms Linda Speers, Planning Officer, dated 23 February 2016; (2) the decision notice; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent.

Mr Easton advised that the application refused under delegated powers by officers relates to a proposal for window replacements at a first floor flat within a development dating from the early 1990’s which is located within the Rosemount and Westburn Conservation Area.

He indicated that the existing windows have the appearance of timber sash and case with multi-pane upper sashes and traditional astragal detailing but open in the manner of a casement window. Detailed planning permission has been sought to replace these with new rosewood coloured PVC windows which would be casement style with tilt and turn opening mechanism and planted-on astragals.

Mr Easton explained that although the principle of replacing the windows was considered acceptable, due to the uniform appearance of the block the only suitable replacement was considered to be replicas of the existing windows. This option was rejected by the appellants.

Mr Easton advised that the application was therefore refused by officers as it was considered that the replacement window arrangement would impact significantly on the uniform appearance of the windows in the building and therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area. This was considered to be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Historic Environment Policy, Policy D5 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and the Council’s supplementary guidance on the replacement of windows and doors.

Mr Easton intimated that in the Notice of Review, the appellants argue that the proposal varies only slightly from what is already in place and that there is already a variety of window styles in the street and that this does not detract from the visual appearance of the area.

Mr Easton advised that relevant considerations were as follows:-

Local Development Plan

Policy H1 - on residential area states that, householder development will be approved in principle if it does not have an unacceptable impact on the character or amenity of the surrounding area.

Policy D5 - on Built Heritage states that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

The Local Review Body then considered the third 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 erection of two storey rear extension, replacement garage, raised platform and driveway to the rear of ‘Kimberley’ 97 North Deeside Road, Aberdeen (160097).

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Mr Paul Williamson and again 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 Tom Walsh, Planning Officer, dated 31 March 2016; (2) the decision notice; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent.

Mr Williamson advised that the submitted Notice of review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Mr Williamson indicated that the appeal related to the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a two storey rear extension, replacement garage, raised platform and driveway at 97 North Deeside Road, Bieldside, which was a detached dwelling with two storeys of accommodation, and an existing rear wing.  The existing property was of granite construction with a slate roof.  It has a floor area of approximately 121 square metres and the overall site area was approximately 610 square metres.

Mr Williamson advised that the proposals sought to erect an extension across the full width of the dwelling, sitting perpendicular to that of the existing roof form.  The extension would also be sited on a raised platform to maintain a consistent floor level throughout the living area.  The roof would also incorporate projecting eaves, at the southern gable.  The floor area of the proposal would be approximately 72 square metres.  Materials would include the use of zinc external cladding for side elevations and the roof, with glazing to the south elevation.  The decking area would be formed by timber and granite.  The proposed garage would be a granite façade towards Marchbank Road, timber cladding to the remaining walls, and a slate roof.

In respect of neighbouring extensions, number 19 to the west has an extension which projects 3m, from the rear boundary.  There is no extension at No. 15, which is the end terrace property to the east.

The report advised that the application was refused on the grounds that the proposal fails to comply with Policies D1 and H1 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, in addition to the Supplementary Guidance relating to the Householder Development Guide as elements of the proposal relating to scale, massing and prominence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.