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=6383&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 replacement windows to the front and rear of 77 Whitehall Road, 171507/DPP.

Councillor Boulton 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 Sheila Robertson, Planning Technician; (2) the decision notice dated 23 February 2018; (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 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 three storey traditional granite tenement building comprising 6 flats on Whitehall Road, close to its junction with Hamilton Place. The review related to the ground floor right flat, which had a tripartite timber sash and case window to the front and a casement aluminium framed window to the rear. Both were finished in white. The surrounding area was largely residential with traditional tenements and houses and was located within the Albyn Place/Rubislaw Conservation Area.

Mr Miller indicated that the application sought permission for a replacement of the windows, and noted that to the front, the three windows would be replaced by PVCu framed windows with a sash and case opening mechanism, and to the rear, the window would be replaced by a single paned PVCu window.

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:-  

Although the proposed uPVC window to the rear elevation would be acceptable, as there would be no adverse impact on  ...  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 the proposed erection of four flats with associated car parking and landscaping at 44-46 Bedford Road Aberdeen, P171410/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 Gavin Clark, Senior Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 26 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 formed part of the rear garden of an end-terrace 2.5 storey tenement building with corner shop, adjacent to Bedford Place, and the surrounding area was largely residential with a retail park to the north west. 

Planning permission was sought for the erection of a 3¾ storey block of four 2-bedroom flats at the rear of the site, with the remainder of the site incorporating 4 off-street parking spaces. The proposals highlighted that the flats would front to Bedford Place, with the new access also to Bedford Place. There would be landscaped areas to the rear and side of the proposed block of flats, with another area of landscaping to the rear of the existing flats at 44-46 Bedford Road.

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:-  

1. The development has not been designed with due consideration for its

context, with a roof design that does not complement the character and

appearance of the surrounding area, and the use of materials which are not readily found in the surrounding area. The proposal would also provide

inadequate amenity space for proposed residents and would have an adverse

impact on the amenity afforded to properties in the surrounding area. As a

result the proposal fails to accord with Policies H1 (Residential Areas) and D1

(Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan

and its associated Supplementary Guidance: The Sub-Division and

Redevelopment of Residential Curtilages;

2. Insufficient information has been submitted with regards to the provision of

visibility splays, the width of parking bays and to indicate that vehicles could

enter and exit the site safely in a forward gear. As a result the proposal fails to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.