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=6543

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 erection of a 1.5 storey extension to the rear of 20 West Mount Street, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 180129DPP.

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, Mr Mark Masson with regards to the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Mr Gavin Evans 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.  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 Jacqui Thain, Planning Technician; (2) the planning application dated1 February 2018; (3) the decision notice dated 5 June 2018 (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant along with an accompanying statement with further information relating to the application; and (6) two letters of representation.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Evans who advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Mr Evans described the site, advising that it is that of a 1.5 storey (meaning single masonry storey with accommodation in the roof) mid-terrace dwelling, constructed in grey granite, with a slated roof, and situated on the northern side of West North Street, which runs between View Terrace and Mount Street in Rosemount. Its rear garden extends approximately 20m from the rear of the dwelling (as extended). The building lay within the Rosemount & Westburn Conservation Area and was not listed. There was an existing single-storey, flat-roofed extension to the rear of the building, which projected circa 4.7m along the western boundary (with no.22).

Mr Evans indicated that the application proposed an extension to the rear of the building, providing accommodation across two floors. The extension would project 4.7m from the rear face of the original building, matching the projection of the existing flat-roofed structure, but with a larger footprint. The first-floor accommodation would be set back, projecting 4m from the rear face, and would be positioned along the  ...  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 application for the installation of replacement windows to the front and rear of the property at 68 Burns Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 181046DPP.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Gavin Evans and reminded members that although Mr Evans 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 Roy Brown, Planning Technician; (2) the planning application dated 25 June 2018; (3) the decision notice dated 31 August 2018; (4) links to the planning policies and plans referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent.

Mr Evans described the site, advising that it was an early twentieth century mid-terraced two storey granite dwelling in a residential area, and its associated front and rear curtilage. The dwelling has a southwest facing principal elevation fronting Burns Road and the northeast (rear) boundary of the site bounds Forbesfield Lane. The dwelling had a three-bay window at ground floor level which has one-over-one timber framed sash and case windows which had modern framed secondary glazing fixed to the outer frames of these windows. There was no glazing in the lower sash of the central window of the bay and it was currently boarded up.

In terms of the proposal, Mr Evans indicated that there was three sash and case windows in the front bay with uPVC sash and case replicas and at the time of the case officer’s visit, the lower pane in the central part of the bay was boarded up. The proposal sought the replacement of existing uPVC window in rear extension with a uPVC window of different colour and fenestration pattern and the replacement of a traditional rooflight in rear slope of roof with a conservation-style rooflight with central glazing bar.

Mr Evans referred to the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal which outlined the following factors:-

•          That no justification had been provided to demonstrate that the timber sash and case windows on the front elevation had deteriorated beyond practicable economic repair;

•          That the proposed modern uPVC windows on the front elevation would adversely affect the historic architectural integrity of the building and the character and appearance of the wider Great Western Road Conservation Area;

•          That it could set an unwelcome precedent for similar development, resulting in cumulative erosion of the character of the Conservation Area;

•          For the above reasons, the proposal was concluded to conflict with the principles of Scottish Planning Policy, Historic Environment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.