Agenda and minutes

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

The applicant and the members of the Local Review Body were previously advised that this item had been deferred until 25 March 2021. This was to allow one of the members to attend and take part in the proceedings.

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 erection or replacement of a single storey extension to the rear of 81 Abergeldie Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 201167/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 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 29 September 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 8 January 2021; (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’s agent.

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 a site inspection should be undertaken, highlighting their view that location and context were very important in consideration of this case, and that visual impact had been cited as an issue. In the applicant’s view, visual impact had been overestimated.

Mr Evans then described the site advising that it was located on the western side of Abergeldie Road, at its junction with Broomhill Road. The property comprised a 2 storey, end-terrace dwellinghouse of traditional style, constructed in granite, with a slated roof. The dwelling fronts onto Abergeldie Road and adjoins No. 79 Abergeldie Road to the southeast. Broomhill Road was situated to the north-west,  with the boundary wall separating the property’s rear garden and the adjoining public pavement. To the rear of the dwelling there were existing 2 storey and single storey off-shoots extending along the south-east mutual boundary with number 79. These projected a total of 10.2m from the rear of the dwelling and measure 3.5m in width. These were also constructed in granite, with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

At this juncture, Councillor Duncan replaced Councillor Mackenzie to consider the following review.

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 installation of raised timber decking with external steps and boundary wall to the rear of 24 Goodhope Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 201035/DPP.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Jamie Leadbeater, Planner; (2) the application dated 1 September 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 2 February 2021 (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 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, however they had appended a set of plans which show proposals for additional boundary fencing to assist in mitigating any concerns over loss of privacy for reference. These plans were submitted during the course of the application, however the applicant ultimately decided to proceed with the original proposal.

He indicated that the LRB’s role was to review the same proposal which was refused by the appointed officer, so the plans showing additional fencing were included for reference only. He intimated that the applicant had requested that a site inspection be undertaken, highlighting that the appointed officer’s decision was made without visiting the site, therefore they had not determined the minimal impact this proposal would have on the neighbouring properties.

Mr Evans then described the site advising that it was a residential curtilage of a modern two storey semi-detached dwellinghouse on Goodhope Road in Bucksburn, to the north of Auchmill Road and the Aerden-Inverness railway line. To the rear of the property, its 15m deep back garden sloped down to the north east (towards back fence). The last 3m of the garden was much more steeply sloping that the preceding 12m, which was on a more gradual slope.  The rear garden was enclosed by 1.8m high timber fencing along its north-western and north-eastern boundary (to neighbour at 26 and rear boundary respectively).  The boundary to the adjoining semi at number 22 was demarked by a combination of wall and fencing of approx. 3m in height. The rear garden of this neighbouring plot sat at a higher level than the application site. There was a rear access lane (footpath only) beyond the rear boundary, providing rear garden access for neighbouring properties. Neighbouring plots to the north-east sat at a lower level than the upper portion of the application site,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.