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 extension, replacement dormer and formation of door to the rear, formation of two openings in side boundary wall to form gated entrances and driveway to the rear at 59 Desswood Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 190884/DPP.

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, 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 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 Mr Masson, 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 Roy Brown, Planning Trainee; (2) the application dated 31 May 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 23 August 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) letters 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 then described the site advising that it was a traditional 1½ storey granite semi-detached property on the southern side of Desswood Place, facing onto that street and located at its junction with a rear lane which served properties on Blenheim Place and Fountainhall Road.

He indicated that the property spans 1½ storeys advising the upstairs accommodation was in the roof space, with significant alteration and extension evident to the rear. There was a more recent rendered extension added on to a traditional granite and slate offshoot, which may have been an original feature of the property. There were two dormers located on the front elevation and one on the rear, with a further dormer on the existing rear extension facing the site onto the lane.

He advised that the site was situated within the Albyn Place & Rubislaw Conservation Area.  ...  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 formation of a driveway and installation of a handrail to the front of the property at 14 Hilton Walk, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 190487/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 Roy Brown, Planning Trainee; (2) the application dated 16 April 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 5 September 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 along with an accompanying statement with further information relating to the application; and (6) a letter of representation from the Council’s Roads Team.

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 then described the site advising that it was a residential plot containing a 1½ storey mid-terraced dwelling , set in a predominantly residential area. The dwelling faced onto Hilton Walk, and due to a change in ground levels across the site, the house was located approximately 2 metres higher than street level, with steps leading up to the house and raised gardens having been present prior to the unauthorised works to form this off-street parking.

He indicated that the front garden of both number 14 (application site) and the neighbour at number 15 Hilton Walk had been excavated to form a level surface for the formation of lock-blocked driveway, along with a 2-metre-high retaining wall and safety barriers above. Planning permission was required for these works and was not obtained prior to the works being undertaken. An application seeking permission retrospectively for number 14 Hilton Walk only had been refused, and it was the appointed officer’s decision to refuse that application which was now before members of the LRB. It would be for the planning authority to decide what further action may be required in terms of the works at 15 Hilton Walk. The appointed officer’s report highlighted that the plans indicated a Fyfestone wall, however the works undertaken included a rendered finish.

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

• the works would visually dominate the street elevation of the property, and are incongruous in the context of this terrace due to their significant height and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.