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 220891.

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 Detailed Planning Permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension, porch to the front and first floor side extension over garage, at 30 Cruickshank Crescent Aberdeen planning reference 220891.

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 13 July 2022; (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (4) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant; and (5) letter of representation from the Aberdeen City Council’s Roads Department.

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.  The application site comprised a two-storey end-terrace dwelling in a residential area, sharing a boundary with 32 Cruickshank Crescent to the southwest. The dwelling had a south-east principal elevation that fronted onto Cruickshank Crescent and to the northwest sat the rear garden of the site that adjoined the rear gardens of other properties. There was an existing driveway to the northeast of the site that adjoined the driveway at 28 Cruickshank. The existing dwelling was finished in a mix of stone chip render and brick, fitted with a white PVC door and windows and a slate roof.

In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene advised that planning permission was sought for proposed works, which consisted of two extensions to the side and front of the dwelling. To the front or south east, a porch extension had been proposed. This would measure 2.5m in width and 1.88m in length. The porch would have a door and glazed panel with a width of 1.59m on the front elevation with windows on the southwest and northeast elevations measuring 950mm in width and 1.3m in height.  To the side  ...  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 220358.

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 Detailed Planning Permission for the erection of first floor extension over existing garage to the front at 1 West Craigbank Crescent Aberdeen, planning reference 220358.

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 and decision notice by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 23 March 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 application site and noted the application site comprised a large, modern, two-storey detached dwelling and its front, side and rear curtilage. The dwelling sat within a large corner plot fronting onto West Craigbank Crescent.  A detached double garage sat to the south of the dwelling and was accessed via West Craigbank Crescent.

In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene indicated that Detailed Planning Permission was sought to alter the existing detached double garage to accommodate a deeper floor plan and provide upper floor accommodation including a store, hallway, staircase, shower room, kitchen and multi-functional room, including the existing garage space.  The altered structure would have a rectangular floor plan measuring c. 8.9m by 6m and a gable roof measuring c.4.1m to the eaves and 7m to the proposed ridge, thus becoming a 1¾-2 storey structure. Finishing materials would match those of the existing garage, including concrete roof tiles, dry dash render, pre-cast stone blockwork and door surrounds, black PVCu rainwater goods and white PVCu windows, doors and fascia.

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

The proposed garage extension/alterations by reason of its layout, composition, size and scale in combination with its location and exposure to the public road would cause harm to the visual amenity and character of the streetscape. The proposed extension is not considered to be suitably secondary to the host building owing to its size, scale and form. The proposal is therefore considered to have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the building and, owing to its exposed nature, the surrounding area. The proposed extension therefore conflicts with the relevant provisions of Policy H1 (Residential Areas) and Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017, including the Council’s Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide. On the basis of the above, it is considered that  ...  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 220667.

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 Detailed Planning Permission for the installation of solar panels to the roof at 1 Westerton Road Aberdeen, planning reference 220667.

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 and decision notice by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 25 May 2022 (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (4) a response from one statutory consultee and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the agent. 

Ms Greene then described the application site and noted the site consisted of a two-storey semi-detached dwelling with a one and three-quarter storey extension on the east elevation, located in a residential area and the Pitfodels Conservation Area. The dwelling adjoined 2 Westerton Place to the west and a detached dwelling to the east with a south-facing principal elevation that fronts onto Westerton Place; a cul-de-sac that also serves 1 to 5 Westerton Place. The rear elevation bounded a public lane to the north that formed part of the Green Space Network and Urban Green Space that sat parallel to Deeside Way, used as a public footpath. In terms of the roof space, there was an existing rooflight on the roof on the front elevation.

In regards to the proposal, Ms Greene advised that planning permission was sought for the installation of 13 solar panels on the south-facing roof of the existing dwelling and extension. The proposed panels would each have a width of 1.13m, a length of 1.72m and sit 213mm in height above the existing roof plane and would be finished with black frames

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

The proposal had not sufficiently justified the requirement for solar panels and alternative thermal efficiency improvements had not been adequately explored. The proposed panels were not considered to be in a discreet location or in their design as they sit on the principal elevation of a historic building, protruding from the roof slope and would therefore have a negative and adverse impact on the character and appearance of the historic building, as well as the Pitfodels Conservation Area.

The overall proposal was therefore not considered appropriate in the context of the site. As such, the proposal was not considered to comply with Policy H1: Residential Areas, Policy D1: Quality Placemaking by Design, Policy D4: Historic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.