Agenda and minutes

The agenda and reports associated with this minute can be found at:-

https://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=284&MId=6311&Ver=4

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 construction of an additional external chimney on the north west elevation, at Inchgarth House, Aberdeen, 170929/DPP.

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, Mrs Lynsey McBain as regards 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 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.  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 Mrs McBain, 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 certain more general aspects relating to the procedure.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Ms Sepideh Hajisoltani, Trainee Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 15 November 2017; (3) copies of the plans showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) and the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement.

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.

Mr Miller explained that the site subject to the review was a large detached granite built house set within 1.9 ha wooded grounds. The house was category C listed and lies within the Pitfodels Conservation Area. It was noted that whilst it previously comprised one house and two flats, Inchgarth House had been significantly altered, extended and converted back into one house in recent years.

Mr Miller indicated that the application sought retrospective planning consent for the installation of a chimney on the north west elevation of the house, on the gable end of a recently completed two storey extension. The chimney was a dummy, with works implemented and completed following submission of the application. It is finished in Rannoch granite to match the existing house.

Mr Miller outlined thatthe request sought the review of the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application under delegated powers and the stated reasons for refusal were as follows:-  

The proposed dummy chimney fails to comply with Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design), D4 (Historic Environment) and NE2 (Green Belt) in that the design and  ...  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 a proposed erection of a single storey extension on the rear (south east) elevation at Murtle Den House, 171007/DPP.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Andrew Miller and reminded members that although Mr Miller 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 LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Mr Roy Brown, Planning Technician; (2) the decision notice dated 14 November 2017; (3) copies of the plans showing the proposal; (4) links to the 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 Miller explained that the site subject to the review was for a replacement single storey conservatory to the rear of the dwelling house. The projection of the proposed conservatory would be double that of the existing conservatory, as it would project approximately 6m from the southeast elevation of the dwelling and it would have a length of approximately 12.4m.  Mr Miller advised that the finishing details of the existing conservatory would broadly be replicated in the proposed conservatory, as it would have similar timber columns, timber windows and doors, and the existing slates would be reused and new slates would match the existing tiles. The patterned cast iron rainwater goods on the existing conservatory would be re-used on the proposed extension and similar rainwater goods which have been salvaged from previous works on the property would be incorporated in the proposed extension.

Mr Miller outlined thatthe request sought the review of the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application under delegated powers and the stated reasons for refusal were as follows:-  

Whilst there are aspects of this proposal which would comply with the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide' and Policy D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan in terms of materials, the 6m projection from the southeast elevation would be significant in terms of its scale and massing and would serve to dominate the original form and appearance of the southeast elevation. The proposed extension would therefore not be architecturally compatible with the design and scale of the original building in its setting. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the principles of Scottish Planning Policy; Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement; Policies D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design and D4 - Historic Environment of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan; the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide'; and 'Managing Change in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

At this juncture, Councillor Jennifer Stewart departed the chair and the meeting and was replaced by Councillor Boulton. 

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 approve the application conditionally and wished to request the variation of condition 1 (Low and zero carbon buildings) for the erection of an office development with associated car parking and landscaping at Laurie’s Motel, Hareness Road Aberdeen, 170950/DPP.

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 LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Mr Matthew Easton, Senior Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 1 December 2017; (3) copies of the plans showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report and (6) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement.

Mr Miller explained that the site under review comprised a vacant area of ground but had consent for the erection of an office building with associated car parking.  As way of background, Mr Miller advised that section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) , provides a time limit of three years for planning permission to be implemented. It was noted that the planning authority may choose to vary this using a direction under section 58. In regards to this application that was approved conditionally, the application was approved with a direction that limited consent to 6 months rather than 3 years.

Mr Miller outlined that the request sought the review of the decision in regards to variation 1 of the planning permission, and the decision of the planning officer stated:-

A reasonable amount of time needs to be given for the applicant to implement the consent before it again expires.  This time period should not be unreasonably long however, as the opportunity for a full review of the consent through a new planning application still needs to be maintained.  Should the applicant wish to proceed with implementation, it is considered that a period of six months would be a reasonable time period for implementation of the consent.

In regards to the consultees and objections, Mr Miller advised that no letters of objection were received and also made reference to the relevant planning considerations.

In relation to the Notice of Review, the applicant highlighted that the time frame for implementation was insufficient in the current economic climate, there was a lack of demand and oversupply in the market at present and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.