Agenda and minutes

The agenda, reports and recording 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 220604.

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 for the refusal of the application for the erection of a single storey extension; formation of dormer; installation of replacement windows and door to the rear and formation of roof lights to the front at 125 Blenheim Place Aberdeen, planning reference 220604. 

Councillor Henrickson as Chair for the meeting, gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken, advising that the LRB would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mrs Lynsey McBain with regards to the procedure to be followed and 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.  He emphasised that the officer would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

The Local Review Body was then addressed by Mrs McBain, 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 12 May 2922 (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (4) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent.

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.   The application site was located on the western side of Blenheim Place and related to a traditional granite, 2 storey, terraced dwellinghouse and its associated front and rear curtilage. The dwelling had an east facing principal elevation fronting Blenheim Place. 127/129 Blenheim Place and 123 Blenheim Place were located to the north and south respectively. The property backs on to a rear lane that runs between, and parallel to, Blenheim Place and Fountainhall Road.

To the rear of the property, windows and doors were framed in white uPVC with the exception of one window which was a timber framed sash and case. There was an existing single/one-and-a-half storey annex which projects from the rear elevation of the dwellinghouse, along the mutual boundary with 123 Blenheim Place. It measured approximately 8.5m in length, 2.7m in width and 4-5.2m in height.

The surrounding area was characterised by properties of a similar architectural character. With the exception of the adjoining property (123 Blenheim Place) which contained a modern box dormer, the vast majority of the roofs of these properties – notably on the western side of Blenheim Place – contained either piended dormers or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

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 220673

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 first floor extension over the existing garage to the front at 131 Grandholm Drive Aberdeen, planning reference 220673.

The Chairperson stated that although the Planning Adviser for the LRB 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.  He 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 29 August 2022 (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (4) the Notice of Review submitted by the agent. 

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.    The application site was located within the Grandholm Development in Danestone, north of the River Don. The house was a large, 2 storey detached property with an attached single storey garage to the north west of the site, built forward of the building line. The house was located on a corner plot and was the last house on Grandholm Drive, heading west. It was located at the edge of a larger development with a well-used area of public open space with a footpath to its west. The site was enclosed by a circa 1.8m Fyfestone boundary wall.

In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene advised that the proposal was for the erection of a first floor extension above the existing garage, located to the front of the house, to form a home office. The resulting form would be 2 storeys in height with the roof designed in the same pyramid form as existing, with a linking section of roof to join into the main roof of the house.

Ms Greene indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal outlined in the report of handling was as follows:-

·       The proposal had an inappropriate design for the house and its context, with the scale, siting and roof design;

·       The massing and scale would result in over development;

·       There would be an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area, especially the rear elevation from the open space;

·       The proposal overwhelms and dominates the original form and appearance of the dwelling and was not subservient in terms of height, mass or scale.

·       It was contrary to Policy H1 and D1 and the Householder Design Guide.

Ms Greene outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review as follows:-

• The house was two storeys and fronts Grandholm Drive but had a garage extending forward of the house, which was the prominent element;
• The garage provided termination at the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

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 220021.

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 partial change of use of agricultural field to residential curtilage, erection of garage, and formation of new access with associated works at Kingshills House, C128c from junction With Countesswells Park Rd and north Countesswells Rd to Kingswells Roundabout, Kingswells Aberdeen, planning reference 220021.

The Chairperson stated that although the Planning Adviser for the LRB 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.  He 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 11 January 2022 (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (4) consultee comments from Roads Development Management and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the agent. 

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.    The application site

The application site was an irregular area measuring c.2200m2 and included part of the residential curtilage of Kingshill House and part of the agricultural fields to its north and south, which fell within the same ownership. Kingshill House was a substantial detached dwelling set in a residential curtilage extending to c.1600m2, which contained a detached double garage building granted planning permission following application 190967/DPP. To its west was a stables block, which was located outwith the residential curtilage; to the north and south were agricultural fields, some falling within the same ownership; and to its east was a dead-end road, which previously linked the Kingswells roundabout and Countesswells prior to the opening of the new Western link road to Countesswells. Beyond that were more agricultural fields. The plot has two vehicular accesses, both providing access and egress onto the road.

In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene advised that the application could be split into three distinct parts:

1.    Change of use of an area extending to c.1850m2 from agricultural land to residential curtilage to the north and south of the existing residential garden ground;

2.    Construction of a new vehicular access into the plot. The vehicular access would be located; and

3.    Construction of a detached double garage. The building would measure c.8.3m by c.5.8m, would have a flat roof and an overall height of c.2.8m. Proposed finishes included smooth white render, a dark grey sarnafill roof, timber eaves and fascias, segmented metal garage doors, and a timber pass door in the west side elevation.

Ms Greene indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal outlined in the report of handling was as follows:-

·       The application was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.