Agenda and draft 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 230570.

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 change of use of flat to Short Term Let accommodation (sui generis) with maximum occupancy of 4 people at 16 Urquhart Street Aberdeen, planning reference 230570.

Councillor McRae 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 10 May 2023 (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, Environmental Health Team and Waste and Recycling Team.

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.   The application site comprised a flatted property situated at first-floor level within a traditional granite and slate mid-terraced 2½ storey residential tenement containing a total of six properties situated on the eastern side of Urquhart Street.  The application property, originally designed and used as a mainstream residential flat, had recently been refurbished and was currently untenanted with the intention to bring it into use as a as Short Term Let (STL). The property had two double bedrooms and was double-aspect, with two windows on the building’s front elevation, facing west over Urquhart Street, and two windows looking east over communal rear garden area. The property was accessed by a communal ground-floor front entrance door centrally positioned on the front elevation of the building facing onto Urquhart Street. It was not clear if other properties in the building were being used as an STL and it was assumed that the remaining five properties were in mainstream residential use.

In relation to the proposal, detailed planning permission was sought, for the change of use of the property from a residential flat  ...  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 230683.

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 formation of first floor extension over the existing garage and extensions to the front and rear at 6 Morningside Avenue Aberdeen, planning reference 230683.

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 5 June 2023 (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 to the south-west of the city in the established residential neighbourhood of Mannofield. The application dwelling was circa 1950s, 1.5 storey in height and semidetached.  The principal elevation faced south-east onto Morningside Avenue, its rear garden was to the north-west, which abuts the Mannofield Water Treatment Works, and bounded with neighbouring residential properties to both sides. To the north-east and south-west of the site lie other sets of semi-detached dwellings.

The application dwelling comprises a 2-bedroom property with a single-storey garage extension to the north-east side. There were existing dormers on both the front and rear of the dwelling, a large single pitched roof dormer to front and flat roofed dormer to rear. The property had been previously extended to the rear by means of a single storey rear extension which occupies the whole feu width, with pitched/hip and flat roof elements. The dwelling was of an architectural style typical of the street and is finished in grey granite, with pink granite quoin, cill and basecourse detailing, white windows, light grey door and slate roof. The side garage was finished in stone, flat roof and light grey door. The ground level of the road noticeably slopes upwards towards the front elevation of the dwelling (south-east) and gave the property a more elevated positioning compared to the opposite side of the street. The front garden contained a single width driveway, with the majority laid as rockery shrub planting.  The site sits just outwith the boundary of the Great Western Road Conservation Area which is to the north west.

In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene explained that planning permission was sought for the erection of a first-floor extension, which proposed to extend the height of the existing garage, extending up and building over it to rearrange the upper floor layout of the dwelling, incorporating a new master bedroom with en-suite  ...  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 230767.

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 erection of first floor extension over existing garage to the side and formation of dormers to the front and rear at 31 Morningside Avenue Aberdeen, planning reference 230767.

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 7 April 2023 (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 support. 

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.    The application site comprised a 1.5-storey semi-detached dwelling in Mannofield which shared a mutual boundary with 29 Morningside Avenue to the north. The dwelling had a west-facing principal elevation that fronts onto Morningside Avenue and a rear garden to the east which is bounded by residential sites on each side. To the north and south of the site sat another set of semi-detached properties. The application dwelling was formed of a two-bedroom property with a single-storey garage extension to the side. There was an existing single box dormer on both the front and rear of the roof, each of which shares a party wall with the dormer on the other half of the semi-detached property. The dwelling was constructed in granite, with white windows and a doors and a slate roof. The existing garage was finished with a black roller shutter door and white lining cladding on the exterior wall and the ground level of the road noticeably slopes down towards the south of Morningside Avenue.

In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene explained that detailed planning permission was sought for the erection of a first-floor extension, extending the

height of the garage extension and building over it to rearrange the top floor, incorporating three bedrooms and a bathroom.

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

The scale and design of the proposed extension was not compatible with the original dwelling, adversely unbalancing the semi-detached property due to the form of the roof and interfering with the existing chimney. The extension would also conflict with the prevalent character of the surrounding area as the majority of properties had maintained a balanced hipped roof form with a chimney in the centre or to the sides of the property. Furthermore, the proposed front dormer would  ...  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 230757.

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 extension to an existing garage to the front at Skarra-Don, Pitmedden Road, Dyce Aberdeen, planning reference number 230757.

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 21 June 2023 (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 in the north-west of the city, situated in a rural context which is circa 325m south-east of the city boundary, which followed the mid-point of the River Don. The application site formed part of the wider Dyce neighbourhood, at an area generally known as Beidleston and Pitmedden. The application site was also located circa 90m south-west from the Aberdeen-Inverness Railway Line (the route of which is designated as a Local Nature Conservation Site). The site was bounded to the north, east and west by agricultural land, with access to the site taken from the south-west corner of the plot off Pitmedden Road. The application plot was bounded to the south-east by neighbouring plot containing Beidleston Cottage (which was a traditional granite single-storey detached cottage).

In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene explained that the application sought detailed planning permission for an extension to an existing double garage by way of a further double garage on its south east elevation. The proposed new development would extend in pitched roof form to integrate with the existing garage, with its gable located on the south-east.

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

The proposed garage development was considered to be of an inappropriate scale, footprint, massing and design, which did not reflect the typical proportions of a domestic ancillary building. The scale of the garage and its presence would appear to be excessive and visually dominant in the context to the existing dwelling, the plot and surrounding area. As such, the proposed development failed to respect the sits existing context or the wider character of the Green Belt, resulting in an adverse visual impact. The proposal was therefore considered to be contrary to the requirements of Policy NE1 (Green Belt), Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking), Policy D2 (Amenity) and T3 (Parking) of the Aberdeen Local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.