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 231558.

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 2.5 storey extension to side/rear and formation of dormers to front and rear at 21 Balgownie Crescent, Aberdeen, AB23 8EJ.

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, Mr Mark Masson 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 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 8 December 2023; (3) the Decision Notice dated 14 February 2024; (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/agent; and (6) consultee correspondence from the Council’s Roads Development Management Team.

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal for detailed planning permission.

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

·       Overdevelopment, with footprint was proposed 3 times original;

·       Scale and design of rear extension not subordinate;

·       Projection did not accord with Householder Guidance (4m rule) resulting in overshadowing of neighbouring site;

·       2.5 storey extension to 1.5 storey dwelling, had appearance of 3 storey;

·       Second floor was overbearing, with extension of roof adding to this; and

·       Contrary to policy D1 - Quality Placemaking,  14 – Design, 16 - Quality Homes, H1 – Residential Areas and Aberdeen Planning Guidance (APG) – Householder Guide

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

·       Area has mix of house types, many extended – much variety (not in Conservation Area);

·       Proposal reflected scale and design of house and made best use of sites garden;

·       As part of streetscape proposal would fit as part of the mix and not detract from character of area;

·       Proposal to front was consistent with design of original house;

·       Rear would be unseen from public view, made use  ...  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 231489.

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 relating to a condition for the installation of replacement floodlights at Football Ground, Denmore Road, Aberdeen.

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 23 November 2023; (3) the decision notice dated 4 April 2024; (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) correspondence from Aberdeen City Council’s Roads Development Management Team and Environmental Health Protective Services.

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

She intimated that planning permission had been approved conditionally and explained that the Council’s Environmental Health Team advised that the lighting impact assessment did meet the requirements of the service, although a condition for the operational hours of the lighting had been applied to the permission, which was as follows:-

Restriction on hours – Floodlights to be used 1500 – 2100, only during darkness.

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

·       Wish to extend time for use of floodlights until 10pm due to game starts at 8pm for Scottish Highland League – 18s. Also youth football past 9pm;

·       Replacement floodlight’s, purpose was to continue to foster youth football;

·       Did not realise hours would be conditioned and had no submitted details of use of pitch previously;

·       Details provided of three sets of training sessions for different age groups, covering times between 6pm and 9.55pm; and

·       Points out that Council has extended till 10pm for Banks of Dee, Hermes Juniors and Dyce.

Ms Greene advised that Environmental Health had clarified that there was  only one property likely to be affected by the noise and light overspill and explained that Environmental Health had been using these hours for some time now to stream line the hours flood lit pitches were being used across the City to protect the amenity of people living nearby.  She explained that in this particular location, if the applicant wanted to operate until 10pm, then this would be acceptable.

No comments were submitted by the Community Council and no representations were received.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that no further procedure was required.

At this point in the proceedings,  ...  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 230675.

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 installation of air/water/vacuum upstand and replacement of three parking spaces with three additional EV charging bays, erection of associated infrastructure including enclosure and upstands (retrospective) at Esplanade Filling Station, North Esplanade West, Aberdeen, AB11 5RN.

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 1 June 2023; (3) the decision notice dated 15 February 2024; (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 from the Council’s Roads Development Management Team.

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

She indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal outlined in the decision notice was as follows:-

·       Road safety grounds:-

-     water/air/vacuum stand block visibility; and

-     removal of all standard spaces created hesitation at entrance and could cause queuing onto busy road;

·       Benefits of EV charging for climate change mitigations were considered;

·       Proposal would not provide electric charging points in a safe location – contrary to Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport in NPF4; and

·       Although it complied with Policy 1 and 2 – on Tackling and mitigating climate change, principles of sustainable transport in T2 and Policy 13 – both on sustainable transport.

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

·       Site had functioned well for years without serious incident – including since water/air/vacuum installed;

·       Increased EV had resulted in less general parking, often cars use EV spaces for parking to no road safety danger;

·       Increase in EV would contribute to reducing emissions – there would be a lack of charging locally and nationally;

·       Only minimal loss of visibility and no incidents, the 5 spaces could be safely accessed by vehicles entering site;

·       Signage could inform drivers of dual use of charging spaces; and

·       Entrance was 15m from roundabout.

In terms of consultation, Ms Greene advised that the Council’s Roads Development Management Team had objected to the proposal on road safety grounds. There was no response from Ferryhill and Ruthrieston Community Council and no representations received.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that a site visit should be undertaken by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Prior to consideration of the following review, Councillor Farquhar left the meeting by virtue of her being an elected member in the Ward where this review was located.

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 231479.

The LRB then considered the fourth and final 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 a driveway, removal of hedge and boundary stones to front of 216 Westburn Road, Aberdeen, AB25 2LT

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 22 November 2023; (3) the decision notice dated 26 February 2024; (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 from the Council’s Roads Development Management Team.

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

She indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal outlined in the decision notice was as follows:-

·       Did not comply with Roads standards as it had not been demonstrated that vehicles could enter and exit site in forward gear without convoluted manoeuvres – likely to result in reversing;

·       Class A busy road;

·       Likely result in accidents;

·       Contrary to Transport and Accessibility Aberdeen Planning Guidance (APG);

·       Adverse impact on visual amenity of street and character of surrounding area; and

·       Contrary to Policies H1 – Residential Areas, D1 – Placemaking, 16 – Quality Homes and 14 – Design.

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

·       Forward entry and exit for two 2 cars was possible and had not been demonstrated by Planning that it was not;

·       Applicant stated that signs could be erected prohibiting reverse entry or exit;

·       Images showed how a car could turn within the site;

·       Unclear why overhanging footway was a problem (this may be confusion over wording);

·       Appeared that photos were not considered (these were on website showing tyre movements);

·       Suggested conditions: confirming turns were correct, prior to permanent drive;

·       Only 50% of hedge would be removed;

·       Lowered plinth barely changed streetscene;

·       Cars parked on street were no different in terms of streetscene;

·       Convoluted movements no different to reverse parking; and

·       Queried about swept path software.

In relation to consultation, Ms Greene advised that the Council’s Roads Development Management Team had objected and recommended refusal of the planning application due to failure to show vehicles could turn on site and the road was Class A and busy. There were no comments from Rosemount and Mile End  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.