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 change of use from Class 2 (Financial, Professional and other services) to Class 10 (Public Worship) at 41 Regent Quay (First Floor), Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 210464/DPP. 

Councillor Boulton as Chair for this review, 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 the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 1 April 2021; (3) the decision notice dated 27 May 2021; (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; and (6) consultee responses from the Roads and Environmental Health Teams, Aberdeen City Council.

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 located to the north of Regent Quay, to the south of the city centre, within close proximity to Aberdeen Harbour. It was accessed via a small pend from Regent Quay, the two-storey attic and basement building was of a granite construction with a pitched and slated roof. The application related to the first-floor accommodation only, which currently fell under a Class 2 (Financial, professional and other services) use. The premises benefited from four parking spaces located to the rear (north). The site was located within a ‘Mixed-Use Area’ as identified in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan proposals map.

Mr Evans outlined the proposal for Detailed Planning Permission (DPP) which was sought for a change of use to the first floor of the premises from Class 2 (Financial, professional and other services) to Class 10 (Public worship), for use as a church. No physical alterations were proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

At this juncture, Councillor Boulton left the meeting and Councillor Stewart chaired 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 erection of a new 17.5m high 5G telecommunication mast and installation of associated meter cabinets with associated works at North Deeside Road, Pitfodels, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 201501/DPP. 

Councillor Stewart as Chair advised that Mr Gavin Evans would again be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the following case under consideration this day and reiterated 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.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 1 December 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 12 March 2021; (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; and (6) a letter of representation and a consultee response from the Roads Team, Aberdeen City Council.

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 in a small area within the pedestrian footway on the southern side of North Deeside Road in Pitfodels. It was located within the Pitfodels Conservation Area. The site of the proposed works was immediately to the north of a large residential curtilage (West Haven). The dwelling within that curtilage was set back some 65m from North Deeside Road and sits at a much lower level, with hedging and mature trees in the intervening front garden area. The boundary to North Deeside Road was enclosed by a stone wall of roughly 1.5m in height, with hedging within the garden protruding a further 0.3m or so above the wall when seen from the public road. This section of North Deeside Road featured 10m high streetlight poles which flank the southern footway of North Deeside Road, either side of the application site, with the existing trees in the curtilage of West Haven providing the backdrop for the proposed area of works. A denser area of mature woodland at the front of the International School sat on the northern side of North Deeside Road, opposite the site area.

Mr Evans outlined the proposal for Detailed Planning Permission (DPP) which was sought for the erection of a new 17.5m high 5G telecommunication masts with associated cabinet. The proposed mast and cabinet would be set 1.75m apart. The cabinets would have a height of 2m,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.