Agenda and minutes

The Local Review Body (LRB) 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 proposed erection of a house and garage with associated garden ground at Grounds of Dunlin, Dalmuinzie Road, Bieldside, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 170646.

Councillor Jennifer Stewart as Chairperson gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken.  She indicated that the LRB would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mr Mark Masson with regards 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 three cases 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.  She 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, Assistant Clerk in regards to the procedure to be followed, at which time reference was made to the procedure note circulated with the papers calling the meeting and to more general aspects relating to the procedure.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Ms Jane Forbes, Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 27 July 2017; (3) copies of various plans and photographs showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) letters of representation; and (6) the application and Notice of Review submitted by the applicant along with an accompanying statement and further information relating to the application.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Miller who advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes. He also indicated that the appellant had requested that the LRB undertake a site inspection as a further procedure due to site specific circumstances.

At this juncture, the Chairperson moved that a site inspection be undertaken in order to assess the area of the application fully and to better evaluate the issue in relation to the trees on site. Councillors Cameron, Copland, John and Nicoll all indicated that they each had enough information before them and therefore agreed that a site visit was not required and that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.

Mr Miller advised that the site forms an area of the grounds of Dunlin, a detached house set in extensive grounds in Bieldside. It was located within a residential area, as zoned in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017. It was also within the Green Space Network zoning. The surrounding area was typified by relatively large, detached house set in generous garden grounds, many of which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

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 change of use from public amenity space to domestic garden ground (retrospective) and erection of timber fence at 12 Seaview Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 170693.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Andrew Miller and reminded members 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.  She 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 Robert Forbes, Senior Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 21 July 2017; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) letters of representation; and (6) the application and Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement.

Mr. Miller advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes. He also indicated that the appellant had requested that the LRB undertake a site inspection as a further procedure.

Mr. Miller advised that the site was an area of amenity ground that formed a buffer between the garden fence and public road. It had since been enclosed and incorporated into garden ground (retrospective) but the proposed position would be 1.5 metres inward.

He explained that consent was sought for the change of use of the amenity land to residential and the erection of a 1.8m high fence with a 1.5m buffer strip of landscaping/planting.

Mr Miller indicated that the request sought the review of the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application under delegated powers. In refusing the application, the reasons given were as follows:-

•           Visually dominant, loss of buffer strip of amenity space;

•           Blocks visibility splay; and

•           Creation of precedent for similar proposals.

It was therefore considered to be contrary to policy H1, NE3, D1, NE5.

Mr Miller made reference to the appellant’s case advising that the Notice of Review Statement outlined the following:-

•           that the fence was at lower level than the public road, and therefore was not so dominant;

•           that the visibility splay required for the junction was not impacted on (2.4 x 70 metres);

•           that the area was an unkempt mess by the factor; and

•           that there was examples of precedent.

Mr Miller intimated that the appellant’s future plans for extending their property was not a consideration for the LRB.

In relation to consultations and objections, Mr Miller advised that one letter of objection was received, which raised concerns on  ...  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 replacement windows at Attic Floor Flat, 69 Hardgate, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 170683.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Andrew Miller and reminded members 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.  She 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 Roy Brown, Planning Technician; (2) the decision notice dated 8 September 2017; (3) plans and photos showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) the application and Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent.

Mr. Miller advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes. He also indicated that the appellant had requested that the LRB undertake a site inspection and consider further written submissions and a hearing session as further procedures.

Mr Miller indicated that the site subject to this review was an attic floor flat in a 2.5 storey traditional granite built terrace that backs on to Hardgate, fronting towards Bon Accord Terrace Gardens, to the north of Union Glen. He explained that it was within the Bon-Accord Crescent/Crown Street Conservation Area.

Mr Miller advised that the application sought consent for the replacement of all timber sash-and-case windows at attic floor level with white PVCu sash and case windows. The proposed windows would have plant on astragals and trickle vents.

Mr Miller intimated that the request sought the review of the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application under delegated powers. In refusing the application, the reasons given were as follows:-

•           Insufficient information provided with the application (no window condition survey provided that demonstrates the existing windows are beyond economical/practical repair).

•           Inappropriate features (plated astragals and trickle vents).

•           Creation of precedent for similar proposals.

It was therefore considered to be contrary to policy H1, D1, D4, Windows and Doors Supplementary Guidance, Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement (HESPS) and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP).

Mr Miller made reference to the appellant’s case advising that the Notice of Review Statement outlined that the replacement windows would match the existing windows and there were other examples of precedent (PVCu) windows at ground floor level at 65 Hardgate, Aberdeen in the past six months.

In relation to consultations and objections, Mr Miller advised that no letters of objection had been received. Environmental Health had requested that a Noise Impact Assessment be undertaken, Roads Development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.