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 application for the replacement of a boundary hedge with a timber fent to the front of 94 Wallacebrae Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 200895. 

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 following 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 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 Jemma Tasker, Planning Trainee; (2) the application dated 5 August 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 6 October 2020; (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 applicant.

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.

He explained that the applicant had indicated on the Notice of Review that no new matters, which were not before the appointed officer at the time of the original decision, had been raised in the review submission and in terms of the procedure by which the review would be conducted, the applicant had expressed the view that no further procedure was required.

Mr Evans then described the site advising that it was in a residential plot, located on the northern side of Wallacebrae Road, Danestone, which was accessed via Laurel Drive. The site comprised a single storey, detached dwellinghouse of modern design, occupying a corner plot. The property had south and west elevations fronting Wallacebrae Road. A driveway ran down the eastern side of the property, providing off-street parking and access to the property’s front door. The garden to the western side of the property was enclosed by a substantial Leylandii hedge (of c. 2.3m in height).

The site was located in an area the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (ALDP) identified as an H1 Residential Area.

Mr Evans outlined the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

With reference to the minute of meeting of the Local Review Body (LRB) of 16 December 2020, the LRB 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 extension of dormers to the rear and installation of replacement windows to the rear and side at 57 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 200660.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Jemma Tasker, Trainee Planner; (2) the application dated 14 June 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 14 August 2020 (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.

At this juncture, Mr Evans referred to the meeting of the LRB on 16 December 2020, at which time, it was resolved that an inaccuracy in the application description should be corrected and neighbours re-notified before the LRB would determine the review. He intimated that re-notification had been undertaken and no further representation was received as a result.

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

He explained that the applicant had indicated on the Notice of Review that no new matters, which were not before the appointed officer at the time of the original decision, had been raised in the review submission and in terms of the procedure by which the review would be conducted, the applicant had expressed the view that a site visit would allow members to understand the surrounding context.

Mr Evans then described the site advising that it was an upper flat in a 2 storey building with ‘piended’ (hipped) dormer windows to the rear and rooflights to the front . The upper flat occupied the first floor and roof of the building. The property was situated on the western side of Blenheim Place, directly opposite its junction with Osborne Place. The property was of a traditional granite construction with slate roof and was served by a rear lane, off which there was garage access. The windows in the upper flat were of a non-traditional ‘sash and case lookalike’ style, formed in coated aluminium. A centrally positioned door gave access to the lower flat at number 59, with access for number 57 obtained from a door set off to the left hand side of the building’s frontage, with a stair enclosure positioned on the gable. The windows of the lower flat were mixed, with white UPVC frames on the front elevation and a brown wood-effect frame present on the rear. He indicated that whilst the rear dormers had a traditional appearance, with a piended, slated roof, they were not original features of the building, being of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.