Agenda and minutes

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

Members, please note that all plans and supporting documents relevant to the review can be viewed online here and by entering the application reference number 211012.

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 formation of dormer to rear of 1 Bishop’s Court, Bishopdams Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 211012/DPP. 

Councillor Stewart as Chair for the first review only, 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 Greene 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 the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 13 July 2021; (3) the decision notice dated 3 November 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) two letters of representaion.

The LRB was then addressed by Ms Greene 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 Greene then described the site advising that it comprised a dwellinghouse which occupied the north-western wing of ‘Bishop’s Court’, a converted steading building situated on the eastern side of Bishopdams Road, just to the south-east of Westhill and the Aberdeen City Council / Aberdeenshire Council boundary. This was a single storey granite built building with concrete tiles pitch roof, dating from around the late 19th century and the steading was sub-divided some time in the late 20th century. This part of the steading had a very small (10m2) lean to extension to the north side.

In terms of the appellant’s proposal, Ms Greene indicated that planning permission was sought for the formation of a dormer on the dwelling’s rear (northern) roof slope. The dormer would be of a ‘box’ design, with horizontal proportions and a flat roof. The dormer would measure 2.4m in height by 7.7m long and 2.7m deep. The dormer would incorporate four windows on its front face, with an apron below and a narrow solid infill panel in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

At this point in the proceedings, Councillor Stewart left the meeting and Councillor Boulton chaired the following three reviews.

Members, please note that all plans and supporting documents relevant to the review can be viewed online here and by entering the application reference number 200463.

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 detached 1.5 storey dwellinghouse at Glendale, Kirkton of Skene, Tyrebagger Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 200463/DPP. 

Councillor Boulton, as Chairperson advised that Ms Lucy Greene 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, 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.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council (ACC); (2) the original application dated 10 April 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 5 November 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’s agent; and (6) consultee responses submitted by the Environmental Policy Team, Flooding and Coastal Team, Roads Development Management Team and Waste Services Team (ACC); Forestry and Land, Scottish Government; Scottish Environment Protection Agency; Shell UK Ltd; and INEOS FPS Ltd

The LRB was then addressed by Ms Greene 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 Greene then described the site advising that it was located in the relatively remote Clinterty Woods and was accessed via a forest track from the B979, approximately 1km to the north-west of the site, at a point close to the public car park provided for recreational users of the forest. The main part of the site included the ruined remains of a small cottage which appeared to be of 19th century origin and various associated outbuildings and ancillary abandoned garden ground. The cottage was last occupied in 2008 when it was fire damaged. The walls of the cottage were constructed of locally sourced granite. No part of the roof of the cottage remained. The outbuildings were constructed of various materials, including, granite rubble, timber, concrete blockwork and corrugated iron, with sections of roofing remaining. The majority of the historic house site was undeveloped land, and the boundaries were somewhat unclear. Mature trees of amenity value lie to the north and east of the site beyond a burn.

Most of the site was level, there was a steep north facing slope to the south and it was surrounded by mature conifer forest / trees. This resulted in considerable shading of the site, particularly during the winter. Core path 36 (Clinterty Woods to Brimmond Hill) runs along the eastern site boundary.

In terms  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

At this point in the proceedings, Councillor Bell replaced Councillor Macdonald to consider the following two reviews.

Members, please note that all plans and supporting documents relevant to the review can be viewed online here and by entering the application reference number 201307.

The LRB 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 change of use from amenity land to garden ground

At 25 Seaview Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 211307/DPP. 

The Chairperson advised that Ms Lucy Greene 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, 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.

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 7 September 2021; (3) the decision notice dated 9 December 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’s agent; and (6) a consultee response submitted by the Environmental Policy Team.

The LRB was then addressed by Ms Greene 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 Greene then described the site advising that it was part of a wider area of open space that was laid out as part of a large residential development in 1995. It included a small section of an informal footpath which was described as being little used by people, and overgrown. To the south was the garden of 25 Seaview Place, which was bounded by timber fencing. There was a two storey house in a row of similar houses. With the exception of number 34, none of these houses had been extended into the open space. The north boundary of the site was formed by a dry stone dyke and to the east and west of the area in question there were shrubs, natural grassland and vegetation.

Ms Greene provided details in terms of the planning history of the site and indicated that the application before members today was for change of use of the area from amenity space to garden, associated with 25 Seaview Place.

She indicated that the Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal stated in the decision notice was as follows:-

·       There would be an adverse impact on biodiversity – Open Space Audit showed site to be of value;

·       There would be a loss of public open space causing loss of amenity and character;

·       There would be an adverse effect on wider space, creating irregular boundary and constraining maintenance to stone dyke;

·       A precedent may be set which could cause cumulative erosion of open space;

·       The proposal would be therefore contrary to policy on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Members, please note that all plans and supporting documents relevant to the review can be viewed online here and by entering the application reference number 211766.

The LRB then considered the fourth 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 bi-fold doors and formation of side door opening (retrospective) at 35 Carden Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 211766/DPP. 

The Chairperson advised that Ms Lucy Greene 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, 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.

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 14 December 2021; (3) the decision notice dated 11 February 2022; (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 Ms Greene 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 Greene then described the site advising that it was a Category B listed building within the Albyn Place and Rubislaw conservation area.

Ms Greene made reference to the planning history of the site and in terms of the appellant’s proposal, she advised that consent was granted in August 2020 for the erection of a replacement single storey rear extension, as well as a number of other works and alterations, which had since been completed. The extension projected 3.3m from the rear of the existing 1½ storey extension and measured 5.2m in width, as per the approved plans. Consent was granted for glazing to be located on the south and west elevations, comprising c.3.2m wide sliding doors and a c.1m wide full height window, respectively. Windows within the proposal were stated to be timber framed and no details were provided regarding the framing material of the bi-fold door. Thus, the consent was granted subject to these conditions, one of which stated ‘that no development shall take place unless details of the material for the proposed bi-folding doors had been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority and thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed’. No such details were submitted to, or approved by, the Planning Authority. Currently installed are c.3.8m wide bi-fold doors framed in uPVC on the south elevation and a c.1m wide single entrance door framed in uPVC on the west elevation. Therefore, Detailed Planning Permission was sought retrospectively for the installation of the uPVC bi-folding doors on the south elevation, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.