Agenda and minutes

The agenda and reports associated with this meeting can be viewed here.    

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 two storey gable extension, single storey extension/decking with external steps and an extension of the dormer to the rear, alterations to the boundary wall and fence replacement at 11 Gordon Road Aberdeen, planning reference 190575.

Councillor Boulton as Chair, gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken, advising that the LRB would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mrs Lynsey McBain 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 cases 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 Mrs McBain, Assistant Clerk in regard 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 Mr Nicholas Lawrence, Senior Planner (2) the application dated 3 April 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 24 May 2019; (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’s agent along with an accompanying statement with further information relating to the application; and (6) a letter of representation.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Evans who advised that the review had been submitted with all necessary information within the time limit of three months following the decision of the appointed officer.

Mr Evans explained that the site in question was a residential plot, located on the eastern side of Gordon Road, approximately 50m south of its junction with Craigton Road.

Mr Evans then described the site and advised that the dwelling and its adjoining semi-detached neighbour, were of a hipped-roof style, and each featured a hipped-roof dormer window on the front elevation to Gordon Road, along with flat roofed dormers to the rear. A driveway ran down the side of the application property, giving access to a garage located beyond the rear wall of the house. There was also an existing flat-roofed porch to the rear. The properties were constructed in a combination of grey and pink granite, with slated roofs.  The adjoining neighbour has a flat-roofed single storey extension to the side.

Mr Evans then outlined the applicant’s proposal making reference to  ...  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 erection of a single storey extension to the rear and 1.5 storey extension to the gable at 107 Hilton Road Aberdeen, 190594/DPP.

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 Sheila Robertson, Planning Technician; (2) the application dated 9 April 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 5 June 2019 (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the agent along with an accompanying statement.

The Local Review Body then heard from Mr Evans, who explained that the review had been submitted with all necessary information within the time limit of three months following the decision of the appointed officer.

Mr Evans then described the application and explained that planning permission was sought for the erection of an extension to the side and rear, which comprised two separate elements, at 107 Hilton Road Aberdeen.  A 1.5 storey gable extension and a single storey extension to the rear.  The gable extension would be 2.2m in width and would extend along the full length of the gable to within 169mm of the frontage with a pitched roof sitting 228mm below the existing ridge.  The gable extension would be constructed with granite ashlar blocks to the front and rear elevations and roughcast to the gable wall.  To the rear the extension would be single storey, 4.47m in width and with a projection of 2.25m from the original dwelling and would extend across the new extension and part of the original rear elevation.  The roof would also be flat and 2.6m in height. 

Mr Evans outlined the appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal as follows:-

·         The gable extension would be architecturally incongruous in the context of both the original dwelling and the surrounding area;

·         The proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area;

·         There would be an architectural imbalance between the application property and the adjoining hipped roofed property and contended that this imbalance would disrupt the uniform character of the hipped roofed properties on Hilton Road and create a disruptive architectural feature within a street that otherwise retains its original form and character;

·         Identifieed direct conflict with Aberdeen City Council’s ‘Householder Development Guide’ Supplementary Guidance;

·         The lack of consideration for its context was seen as  ...  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 application for the erection of a fence to the front and rear at 7 Airyhall Terrace Aberdeen, planning reference 190128/DPP.

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 Mr Roy Brown, Planning Technician; (2) the application dated 25 January 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 8 March 2019 (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 agent along with an accompanying statement and (6) copies of letters of representations. 

The Local Review Body then heard from Mr Evans, who explained that the review had been submitted with all necessary information within the time limit of three months following the decision of the appointed officer.

Mr Evans then described the application site and explained that the site contained a 1½ storey semi-detached dwelling with associated front and rear gardens and the site was triangular and located on a corner plot at the junction of Airyhall Place and Airyhall Gardens.

Mr Evans noted that a fence varying between 2m and 2.2m in height had been erected without planning permission on the northeast, north and west boundaries. Prior to its erection, there was an original approximately 0.6m high concrete boundary wall on these boundaries and a hedge along the building line of the principal elevation to the northwest of the elevation, which divided the front curtilage with the private rear curtilage.

In regards to the proposal, Mr Evans advised that detailed planning permission was sought for the erection of a timber fence to the front and side of the dwelling enclosing the garden to the side of the house and separating it from the driveway/off-street car parking at the front.  The short section that was flush with the front wall of the house would be 1.9m in height and would sit on top of a 0.3m existing masonry wall, which would result in an overall height of 2.2m.  The remainder of the fence, which enclosed the side garden and abuts the pavement, would measure 1.5m in height.

Mr Evans outlined the appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal as follows:-

·         The fence was incongruous in design, siting, scale and height when considered in the context of the dwelling and the surrounding area;

·         There was an adverse impact on the street scene, to the detriment of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.