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 240093.

The Local Review Body (LRB) of Aberdeen City Council met on this day to consider review of 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 from dwellinghouse to short term let accommodation with maximum occupancy of 12 people at 57 Spital, Aberdeen, AB24 3HX.

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 draft delegated report by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 27 January 2024; (3)  the Decision Notice dated 6 June 2024; (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the draft delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant/agent; and (6) consultee correspondence from the Council’s Environmental Health, Waste and Recycling and Roads Development Management Teams; and two letters of representation.

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 draft report of handling was as follows:-

·       The change of use to short term let accommodation with a maximum occupancy of twelve people would have a significant adverse impact on the amenity afforded to the neighbouring residential occupants in the area in terms of noise and their actual or perceived impact on safety and security and would have a direct conflict with the adjacent land uses. The proposal conflicts with Policies14 (Design, Quality and Place) of National Planning Framework 4, as well as H2 (Mixed Use Areas), D1 (Quality Placemaking) and D2 (Amenity) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023. There are no material considerations that would justify approval.

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

·       Property had been managed by company on behalf of applicant since 2018;

·       Previously operated as HMO for 6;

·       It was large with 3 bathrooms/WC, large communal areas and garden;

·       Queries whether  ...  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 231380.

The LRB then considered the second request 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 from class 10 (non-residential institutions) to class 4 (business); erection of replacement extension, alterations to door and associated works at Kingswells House, Skene Road, Aberdeen AB15 8PJ.

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 24 October 2023; (3) the decision notice dated 27 June 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, Waste and Recycling Team, Scottish Water and Historic Environment Scotland.

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

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

·       Change of Use was acceptable in principle;

·       Not accepted that granite structure needed to be demolished – contrary to Policy D7 – Our Granite Heritage in LDP and HEPS;

·       Proposed extension located on principal elevation, projected 10m, not subordinate, nor sufficiently high quality design, not exemplary and harmonious  – contrary to D1 & D6, Policy 7 & 14, HEPS & Managing Change: Extensions;

·       Accorded in part with Policy 9 – Empty Buildings. Due to demo & lack of biodiversity enhancement, contrary to Policy 1, 2, 3 and 12 – Zero Waste. Conflict with Managing Change – Adaptation of LBs; and

·       Road safety, due to poor visibility and no separate pedestrian route. Contrary to T2 – Sustainable Transport. Although parking provided, it could not be safely accessed.

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

·       Compliance in terms of tree and natural heritage; principle of use; waste;

·       LBC 231347/LBC was refused and had been appealed to DPEA (site visit taken place, decision target 18 December);

·       Application for Class 10 (A6/0170) involved small meetings, with maximum of 12. Max people residing – 8, plus caretaker. Applicant equated this to 20 comings and goings from site, possibly more;

·       9m by 120m was required. Exiting junction could continue use. Due to sale by previous owner, ownership extended to only width of junction. Alternatives explored;

·       Heritage and Design statements covered history and background in detail;

·       Extensive justification had been given for demolition;  ...  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 240798.

The LRB then considered the third request to review the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation for the refusal of the application for the installation of a replacement single storey extension to rear at 81 Gray Street, Aberdeen, AB10 6JD.

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 26 June 2024; (3) the decision notice dated 22 August 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) two letter of representation.

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

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

·       The proposed single storey extension, due to its projection on the north-west elevation, would far exceed the criteria outlined in the Council's Householder Development Guide Aberdeen Planning Guidance for the projection of extensions along mutual boundaries in terraced properties;

·       The projection of the extension would result in an overbearing impact and unacceptable tunnelling effect on the neighbouring property at 79 Gray Street, whilst also creating further overshadowing of that property, therefore the works did not comply with the criteria set out in Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and Policy 16 (Quality Homes) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4); and

·       Due to the significant adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property, the proposal also conflicted with the criteria detailed within Policy H1 (Residential Areas), Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking) and Policy D2 (Amenity) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023.

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

·       Summarised the issue of disagreement as whether proposal would be overbearing and would have tunnelling impact on number 79;

·       Noted recent application at number 79;

·       Extension on north side, to number 79, was not considered excessive and would improve daylight;

·       Neighbours at 79 had written in support, however, this was received after the decision was issued, therefore not considered; and

·       Approved extension at number 79 would remove the gap between properties, however, this was disregarded by Planning, as it had not been constructed.

In terms of consultation there was no comments submitted by the Community Council.

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

Prior to consideration of the fourth review, Councillor Boulton left the meeting, for the reason that the property was located within her Electoral Ward, therefore she took no part in the proceedings.

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 240463.

The LRB then considered the fourth request 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 two-storey detached dwelling house with integral garage and associated works at land adjacent to Oldfold Farmhouse, Milltimber, Aberdeen AB13 0HQ.

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 12 April 2024; (3) the decision notice dated 25 September 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) consultee responses from the Council’s Environmental Health Team, Contaminated Land Team, Roads Development Management Team and Waste and Recycling Team; Scottish Water and a letter of representation.

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

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

·       The proposed development would by virtue of its design and layout have a harmful impact in the following ways: It would visually intrude upon the existing Oldfold Farmhouse, to the detriment of its historic character and that of the wider setting of the area; by erecting a dwellinghouse where the majority of habitable rooms were excessively overshadowed by neighbouring woodland, it would provide inadequate amenity to the residential development and thereby place undue pressure on woodland, in particular to the south-west of the site; and

·       Was contrary to Policy 7 (Historic Assets and Places) & Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) of NPF4, Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking), Policy D5 (Landscape Design) and Policy D6 (& Historic Environment), Policy D2 (Amenity), NPF4 Policy 6 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees) and ALDP Policy NE5 (Trees and Woodland).

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

·       Oldfold Farmhouse was not listed, its significance was overstated. Surroundings heavily influenced by housing estate;

·       Quality architecture – dispute that the house would not be distinctive and pleasant;

·       House would occupy 15% of plot, plenty of space for landscaping and plan was not requested;

·       Materials - Aberdeen Planning Guidance did not contain preference against white / off-white render;

·       No healthy trees would be felled. Trees were deciduous; and

·       Planning Permission in Principle existed on the site, including plot within Zone of Influence.

In terms of consultee responses, there were no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.