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=5622&ver=4

Members, please note that you are reviewing the decision of the case officer to refuse the above application.

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 permission for the change of use from general industrial (Class 5) to an indoor trampoline centre (Class 11) at Craigshaw Road, Tullos, Aberdeen, AB12 3AP (P161212).

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 Williamson, 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 report of handling by Ms Dineke Brasier, Planning Officer; (2) the decision notice dated 23 December 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, documents and initial planning application; and (6) thirty letters of representation and consultation responses.

In respect of the Review, Mr Williamson advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.  Mr Williamson highlighted that the applicant had asked that the review procedure include one or more hearing sessions, combined with further written submissions.  prior to the Local Review Body 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 Williamson referred to the delegated report wherein a description of the site was provided, along with detail of the proposal, relevant planning policies, the history of the site and reason for refusal. He highlighted that the proposals sought to obtain permission to change the use of the property which had been vacant for 5 years, to use as a trampoline centre.  Physical alterations to the host property would be relatively minimal, apart from the provision of an oversheet of new goosewing grey cladding, and the internal provision of the trampoline equipment.

He then advised that thirty letters of representation had been received, and those along with consultation responses received were  ...  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 erection of an upper storey extension to the flat above the single storey rear extension of the hot food takeaway at 495 Great Northern Road, Aberdeen (P160882).

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would be addressed by Mr Nicholas Lawrence and reminded members that Mr Lawrence 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 Lawrence 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 report of handling by Mr Brown, Planning Officer; (2) the decision notice dated 23 December 2016; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) links to planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant along with an accompanying statement and the initial planning application; and (6) one public representation and a consultation response from Environmental Health.

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

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

Mr Lawrence advised that one public representation had been received and explained that it and the consultation response from Environmental Health were contained in the agenda and referred to in the report of handling.

Mr Lawrence then took Members through the plans showing the existing and proposed floor plans and elevations for the development, in particular the proposed window on the west elevation of the proposed extension.

Mr Lawrence then advised, as detailed in the report of handling, that the stated reason for refusal of planning permission was as follows:-

By way of scale, size, materials and massing in the context of 495 Great Northern Road and the surrounding area, the proposed extension would be unacceptable. The proposal would result in the loss of neighbouring privacy. It would therefore fail to accord with Policy D1 – Architecture and Placemaking and Policy H1 – Residential Areas of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan; the Supplementary Guidance: ‘The Householder Development Guide’; and the relevant policies of the proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

The statement from the applicant which accompanied the Notice of Review advised of the rationale for the design approach and advised of the applicant’s response to the reasons for refusal.

Specifically regarding the issue of loss of privacy which formed a second reason for refusal,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Members, please note that you are reviewing the decision of the case

officer to refuse the above application.

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 for planning permission for the erection of a box dormer roof extension on the rear elevation of the dwelling and three rooflights on the principal elevation of the dwelling at 40 Whitehall Road, Aberdeen (P161476).

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would 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 report of handling by Mr Brown, Planning Officer; (2) the decision notice dated 23 December 2016; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) links to planning policies referred to in the report of handling; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant along with an accompanying statement and the initial planning application; and (6) a consultation response from the Roads Development Management Team.

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 report of handling wherein a description of the site was provided, along with detail of the relevant planning policies, and reasons for refusal.

Mr Easton advised that no public representations had been received and that one consultation response from the Roads Development Management Team had been received and copy was contained in the agenda and referred to in the report of handling.

Mr Easton then took Members through the plans showing the existing building and the proposed development, in particular showing the location of the proposed dormer window and how this would be viewed from Craigie Park and Whitehall Terrace.

Mr Easton then advised, as detailed in the report of handling, that the stated reason for refusal of planning permission was as follows:-

Due to its non-traditional design, its scale, size, massing, materials and location, the proposed dormer extension would be unacceptable in the context of 40 Whitehall Road and the surrounding area. Further information was required to assess whether the proposed rooflights would be acceptable.  This information was requested, but not forthcoming. Overall, the proposal would negatively affect the character of the Albyn Place/Rubislaw conservation area. The proposed extension and dormer would thus fail to comply with Scottish Planning Policy; Historic Environment Policy Statement and its associated document, ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Roofs’; Policy D1 – Architecture and Placemaking, Policy D5 – Built Heritage and Policy H1 – Residential Areas  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.