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 class 3 (Food and Drink) unit with associated car parking and works at undeveloped land to the east of 1 Mounthooly Way, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 191103/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 Ms Lucy Green who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the following case under consideration this day.

The Chairperson stated that although the Planning Adviser was employed by the planning authority, she 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 Robert Forbes, Senior Planning Enforcement Officer; (2) the application dated 10 July 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 22 October 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 submitted by consultees.

The LRB was then addressed by Ms Green 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.

Ms Green then described the site advising that it was situated approximately 1 kilometre to the north of the city centre and comprised the vehicular access to an adjacent vacant office building, part of its parking area appears to be an emergency access to the adjacent bus depot and adjacent undeveloped land at the east end of the site.

She indicated that the site was relatively level but there was a significant change in levels at the east end of its frontage, with the undeveloped part of the site elevated about 1m to 1.5m above the public road to the south, with intervening grass slope. There was no footpath on the north side of Mounthooly Way adjacent to the east part of the site and the site levels were such that formation of a footway within the site would not be feasible.

She advised that  ...  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 two storey extension to the side gable at 5 Devenick Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 191183/DPP.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would be addressed by Mr Matthew Easton and advised Members that although Mr Easton 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 Jane Forbes, Planner; (2) the application dated 29 July 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 17 October 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 Easton 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 Easton then described the site advising that it was located on the west side of Devenick Place. It comprised a two storey, end-of-terrace dwellinghouse, situated on a wedge-shaped plot extending to an area of some 205m².  The property had an enclosed rear garden, accessed along a 1m wide path which extended the length of the mutual boundary with 5 Devenick Place, which lay to the east. To the front (south), there was an area of garden ground and a dropped kerb which allowed access to an unsurfaced area of hardstanding utilised for parking.  On-street parking within the neighbourhood was controlled by permit.

He indicated that detailed planning permission was sought for the erection of a two-storey pitched roofed extension to the eastern gable of the house, to provide internal garage accommodation with bedroom accommodation above at first floor level.  The extension would extend to a width of some 4.5 metres along the front building line, reducing to a width of 2.4 metres at the rear, which would result in an angled side elevation which fits with the ‘wedge’ shaped site.

Mr Easton outlined the appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal advising that planning officers found that it would result in a scale of development which would be deemed excessive for the application site and which would not be in-keeping with the established pattern of development in the surrounding residential area. Whilst the general principle of residential development within this area was acceptable, the impact of the proposed development in this instance would be considered unacceptable for its context,  ...  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 formation of a driveway and alterations to the boundary wall to the front of 25 Braemar Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 191665/DPP.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Matthew Easton and reminded Members that although Mr Easton 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 Jamie Leadbeater, Planner; (2) the application dated 1 November 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 20 December 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) letters of representation submitted by the Council’s Roads Team, the Aberdeen Civic Society and two residents living in the neighbourhood of the proposed application.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Easton 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 Easton then described the site advising that was located on the south side of Braemar Place. It comprised a two storey, end-of-terrace building comprising a ground and first floor flat. The front garden featured an area of gravel with soft landscaping borders and paths. The flat to which the application related was on the first floor whereas as a separate flat known as 23 Braemar Place was on the ground floor.

He explained that Braemar Place was characterised with predominantly soft landscaped gardens set in front of two storey granite terraced flatted buildings and semi-detached houses and low-rise granite walls with gaps for gates and footpaths along front boundaries. Of the 45 homes on this stretch of Braemar Place, five had driveways.

He indicated that detailed planning permission was sought for the formation of a double driveway measuring 6m by 6m within a shared front garden space, including the removal of 5.5m of the front boundary granite wall. The existing gravel area would be used for parking.

Mr Easton outlined the appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal advising that in considering the application he found that the proposal would adversely harm the prevailing visual character of the Braemar Place street scene and neighbouring properties residential amenity, specifically as the proposed arrangement would result in increased noise disturbance to number 21, 23 and 27 Braemar Place. He indicated that residents of the street would have further to park their vehicles as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.