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 221357.

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 an application for Detailed Planning Permission for the change of use from offices to form residential flat including installation of replacement windows and doors; installation of roof lights and formation of patio doors from window opening with associated works, at Wallace Whittle Ltd, 166 Great Western Road Aberdeen, planning reference 221357.

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 and decision letter by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 10 November 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 agent; and (5) letters of representation from the Aberdeen City Council’s Roads Development Management Team, and Environmental Health as well as one neutral letter from a member of the public. 

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.   The application site consisted of a traditional two storey granite building with a later single storey flat roof rear extension with additional accommodation in the roof space and an enclosed rear garden. The ground floor was covered in cladding panels and incorporates modern, full height windows. The building was located on the corner of Chattan Place and Great Western Road. The ground floor and extension were currently occupied by offices, with residential flats on the upper floors, which were accessed through a door in the side elevation reached through a gate and narrow lane along the side of the building. The application related to the single storey rear extension part of the building (166A Great Western Road). The site fell within the Great Western Road Conservation Area and the Chattan Place neighbourhood centre.

In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene explained that  it was for a change of  ...  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 221331.

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 formation of a dormer to the rear at 56 Hilton Place Aberdeen, planning reference 221331.

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.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report and decision letter by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 4 November 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 comprised a first floor residential flat within a two-storey granite-built terraced building of two flats in a residential area. The dwelling had a southwest facing principal elevation that fronts Hilton Place; adjoined 58-60 Hilton Place to the northwest and 52-54 Hilton Place to the southeast. The rear curtilage of the property bounds Hilton Lane to the northeast (rear). The rear roofslope of the property had not been extended and excluding the dwellings of a different building type in the terrace to the southeast of the site, the vast majority of the rear roofslopes along the terrace had also not been extended, except for three existing substantial dormers, one of which was located on 58-60 Hilton Place to the northwest.

In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene explained Planning permission was sought for the erection of a horizontally proportioned dormer roof extension on the rear of the dwelling. The dormer would rise a total of c.2.2m above the roof and would be c.5.9m in width. It would be set c.500mm to the southeast of the northwest tabling; set c.400mm in from the southeast tabling; c.70mm below the roof ridge; and it would be set c.590mm back from the wallhead. It would have a c.560mm high apron, white uPVC framed windows and its solid walls would be finished in slate.

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

The proposal was in direct conflict with the Supplementary Guidance: The Householder Development Guide, the proposed dormer would be of scale, massing and design, whereby it would dominate and overwhelm the original roof. Relative to its overall size and projection, it would not be located a reasonable distance below the roof ridge, it would have an excessively large apron and it would have an insufficient proportion of glazing. The proposal would therefore result in the loss of 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 221096.

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 erection of a fence and gate to the front (retrospective) at 13 Powis Crescent Aberdeen, planning reference 221096.

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.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report and decision letter by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 5 September 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 agent and (5) two letters of objection. 

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.   The application site comprised a ground floor flatted property within a traditional 2 storey granite block of 4 flats where the front and side curtilage is grass with mature shrubs and trees and shared between the application property and neighbouring Flat C. The remaining shared curtilage of the block of flats was enclosed along the length of its boundary by 1m high metal fencing. Timber fencing rising to a height of between 0.6m and 1.9m and incorporating 2 x 1.9m high gates had been erected along the front and side boundaries of the application site, fully enclosing the garden ground shared with Flat C. The fencing had been erected without planning permission and was therefore unauthorised in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended.

In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene explained Planning permission was sought retrospectively for the erection of timber fencing along the front and side boundary of the application site. The 1.9m high fencing and associated gates fully enclosed the front garden area along the eastern boundary which fronts onto Powis Crescent and along the southern boundary which extends the length of the shared path serving the main entrance to the property. Along the northern boundary of the site the fencing had been fixed to an existing boundary wall resulting in a combined height of between 1.9 to 2.25m as it extends east to west with the exception of a 1.8m long section where it drops to a height of some 0.8m then links with the 1.9m high fencing which has been erected along the front of the site. A rise in ground level from south to north between the application site and the neighbouring garden ground to the north was such that the metal fencing which delineates the southern boundary of the neighbouring site rose some 0.5 to 1m above the top  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.