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=4519&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 extension of the existing residential building to form two additional flats at Bleachfield House, Grandholm Drive, Aberdeen, AB22 8AA (P160813).

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 Easton, 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 Mr Andrew Miller, Planning Officer; (2) the decision notice dated 19 August 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) letter of representation and consultation responses.

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 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 Easton 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, and it along with consultation responses received were detailed in the report and copies contained in the agenda. Mr Easton then took Members through the plans showing the existing building and the proposed development.

The statement from the applicant’s agent which accompanied the Notice of Review expressed the following points:

• The refusal notice stated that the proposed development would result in an unjustified and unsustainable urban sprawl, however the statement explained why they believed that the proposed development did not constitute urban sprawl  ...  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 for the change of use from offices (class 2) to 14 flats and associated alterations at 18/19 Bon Accord Crescent, Aberdeen, AB11 6XY (P160105).

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would be addressed by Ms Lucy Greene and reminded members that Ms Greene 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.  Ms Greene 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 Ng’ambwa, Planning Officer; (2) the decision notice dated 19 October 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) consultation responses.

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

Thereafter, Ms Greene referred to the delegated report wherein a description of the site was provided, along with detail of the relevant planning policies, and reasons for refusal.

Ms Greene advised that no public representations had been received and explained that copies of the consultation responses from the Roads Development Management, Developer Obligations Team and Waste Team which had been received were contained in the agenda and referred to in the delegated report.

Ms Greene then took Members through the plans showing the existing building and the proposed development.

The statement from the applicant’s agent which accompanied the Notice of Review made the following points from the applicant’s perspective:

• The policies in the current Local Development Plan, or how they were interpreted, were no longer consistent with what the Council wanted to achieve in City Centre Master Plan;
• The levels of amenity proposed was entirely consistent with the levels of amenity in other city centre flats and on the basis of precedent, the level of amenity proposed, could not be deemed to be sub standard;
• The appraisal of residential amenity was purely subjective as there were no clearly stated criteria or guidance in any planning policies;
• In all cases the head of the windows sat above the level of the pavement level beyond and in all, or most, cases they either had a reasonable distance to any wall which formed the lightwell where they were located, namely 2.7m to the front (south west orientation) and 1-2m to the rear where rooms overlooked an enclosed private garden;
• The property would have been in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Members, please note that this review has not yet been determined and this is an appeal on grounds of non-determination. A decision has to be made by members of the Local Review Body.

The Local Review Body then considered the third request for a review on the grounds of non-determination for planning permission for the change of use of the existing building to form 20 serviced apartments with associated car parking at 116 Rosemount Place, Rosemount, Aberdeen, AB25 2YW (P160408).

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Ms Lucy Greene and reminded members that Ms Greene had not been involved in any way with the consideration of the application under review and was present to provide factual information and guidance to the Body only.  Ms Greene 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 draft delegated report by Mr Lawrence, Planning Officer; (2) plans showing the proposal; (3) planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (4) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement; and (5) four letters of representation and consultation responses.

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

Thereafter, Ms Greene referred to the draft delegated report wherein a description of the site was provided, along with detail of the relevant planning policies, and the reason why the application would have been refused. She advised that there had been some confusion regarding the description of the proposal, specifically the use of the term “services apartments”. She explained, as detailed in the draft delegated report that the description on the Council’s web site referred to serviced apartments. However; the description of the proposed development on the application form read “Change of use, alterations and extension of existing building to form 20 No apartments with associated parking with associated internal alterations to adjoining building”. She confirmed that the assessment of the Planning Officer had been based upon the description of the development on the application form as it governed the extent of the permission sought and ancillary documents such as plans and drawings could not extend the description.

Ms Greene provided a detailed description of the application, referring members to the plans available.

Ms Greene advised that four letters of public representation had been received and those along with the consultation responses from the Roads Development Management and Environmental Health were contained in the agenda and referred to in the delegated report.

The draft delegated report advised that the planning permission for the application would have refused on the following grounds:-

1.     The proposed development by reason of its design, form, design, height, scale, mass, and roof treatment would harm the character and appearance of the area, the Conservation Area and setting of the listed building was contrary to policies D1 (Architecture and Placemaking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.