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=4290&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 change of use from class 9 (residential) to class 5 (general industrial), the erection of a workshop measuring approximately 31m in length, 19m in width, 6m to eaves height and 7m to ridge height, erection of a 1.8m high palisade fence to the perimeter of the site, widening of existing access, installation of security gates and the conversion of the existing garage to form an office at Moss-side Croft, Charleston (P160131).

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 Swanson, as regards the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Mr Allison, 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 Swanson, 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 Readman, Planning Officer, dated 17 February 2016; (2) the decision notice dated 31 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.

In respect of the Review, Mr Allison advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.  Mr Allison highlighted that the applicant had asked that a site visit be undertaken by the Local Review Body prior to it determining the Review and explained that the Local Review Body was required to consider whether it had sufficient information before them to determine the review today.

Thereafter, Mr Allison referred to the delegated report wherein a description of the site was provided, along with detail of the proposal, relevant planning policies, previous planning history of the site and reason for refusal.

He advised that one letter of representation had been received which and consultation responses were detailed in the report.

Mr Allison advised that the site was designated as part of the green belt and therefore the proposal had to comply with policy NE2 of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

The Local Review Body then considered the second request for a review of the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request for planning permission to form a new garage at the far end of the rear garden at 47 Cranford Road, Mannofield (P151897).

The Chairperson advised that the Local Review Body would again be addressed by Mr Gareth Allison and reminded members that Mr Allison 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 Allison 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 Thain, Planning Officer, dated 15 March 2016; (2) the decision notice dated 22 March 2016; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) 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) a letter of representation.

In respect of the Review, Mr Allison advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.  Mr Allison explained that the Local Review Body was required to consider whether it had sufficient information before them to determine the review today.

Thereafter, Mr Allison referred to the delegated report wherein a description of the site was provided, along with detail of the relevant planning policies, and reason for refusal.  He advised that the proposed garage would measure approximately 6.6m long x 5.6m wide, with a mono-pitch roof would reach a height of 3.2m/3.8m.  The building would project 1.7m/1.2m beyond the existing garages to either side.  The materials proposed were roughcast to match the main dwelling, larch timber linings, slate blue roof cladding and a grey Fyfestone base course.

Mr Allison advised that one letter of representation had been received and a consultation response from Roads Development Management had been received and this recommended refusal on the basis that the proposed garage would project forward of the garages at either side and obstruct visibility along the lane.  The letter of representation and the full consultation response were included with the agenda.

At this point, the Local Review Body considered whether they had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review.  The Local Review Body thereupon agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.

Members asked questions of Mr Allison regarding the proposed development, namely: previous planning history and the potential for the proposed garage to be located further back.

All Members advised that they concurred with the concerns raised by Roads Development Management.

Following discussion, Members unanimously agreed that the planning application be refused due to the proposed garage being a potential road safety hazard due to lack of visibility.  Vehicles emerging from the garage would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

The Local Review Body then considered the third request for a review of the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request for planning permission for the construction of a two storey four bedroom dwelling in the northern part of the site at Mossbrodiepark, Peterculter (P160180).

The Chairperson advised that the Local Review Body would again 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.

In relation to the application, the Local Review Body had before it (1) a delegated report by Ms Brasier, Planning Officer, dated 21 March 2016; (2) the decision notice dated 23 March 2016; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) 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) a letter of representation.

In respect of the Review, Mr Miller advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.  Mr Miller highlighted that the applicant had asked that a site visit be undertaken by the Local Review Body prior to it determining the Review and explained that the Local Review Body was required to consider whether it had sufficient information before them to determine the review today.

Thereafter, Mr Miller referred to the delegated report wherein a description of the site was provided, along with detail of the proposal, relevant planning policies and reason for refusal.

Mr Miller advised the site was covered in predominantly rough grass and a cleared area where the footings of a former steading complex have recently been excavated.  He confirmed that there was no building on the site at present.

He then advised as detailed in the delegated report that the application had been refused as the site was designated as green belt, and therefore policy NE2 (Green Belt) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (ADLP) applied.  This policy did not permit development for purposes other than those essential for agriculture, woodland and forestry, recreational uses compatible with an agricultural or natural setting, mineral extraction or restoration, or landscape renewal.  In this case, the proposal would be for the construction of an additional, new dwelling on what was promoted as a vacant site.  The planning officer had concluded that the dwelling would not be related to any existing activities within the green belt.  As such, the proposal would introduce a further, additional dweling in the green belt, increasing the amount of residential activity within this sensitive area, which was contrary to the principle of policy NE2 (Green Belt).

He went on to highlight the planning officer’s (a) response to the applicant’s view, as contained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The Local Review Body then considered the final request for a review. The Local Review Body then considered the final request for a review of the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request to replace all windows/glazing, to the front and rear elevations with double glazed units in white PVC at 14 Caledonian Court, Ferryhill Terrace, Ferryhill (P151844).

The Chairperson advised that the Local Review Body would again be addressed by Mr Matthew Easton and reminded members that Mr Easton 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 Easton 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 Robertson, Planning Officer, dated 15 April 2016; (2) the decision notice dated 5 May 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.

In respect of the Review, Mr Easton advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.  Mr Easton explained that the Local Review Body was required to consider whether it had sufficient information before them to determine the review today.

Thereafter, Mr Easton referred to the delegated report wherein a description of the site was provided, along with detail of the proposal, relevant planning policies and reason for refusal was provided.

Mr Easton advised, as detailed within the delegated report, that the design and opening mechanism of the windows and fixed glazing to the front elevation would generally replicate existing windows, but with planted on astragals rather than true astragals. The lower windows would be converted to French doors. To the rear the replacement windows would fully replicate existing in terms of design and dimensions. The entrance door would be replaced by a composite door with a vertical glazed panel and letterbox at low level. He also explained that the property was located within the Marine Terrace Conservation Area and referred to the relevant planning policies, namely: Policy D5 – Built Heritage and Policy H1 - Residential Areas of the current Aberdeen Local Development Plan, Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP); Technical Advice Note: The Repair and Replacement of Windows and Doors; ‘Windows’ guidance note from Historic Scotland’s ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment’ series; Marine Terrace Conservation Area Appraisal and the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

Mr Easton advised that no letters of representation or consultation responses had been received.

At this point, the Local Review Body considered whether they had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review. The Local Review Body thereupon agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.