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 241012.

The Local Review Body (LRB) of Aberdeen City Council met on this day to consider a review of the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation for the erection of detached dwellinghouse at South View, Granitehill Terrace, Aberdeen AB22 8AQ, Planning Reference 241012/DPP.

The Chairperson 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 29 August 2024; (3)  the Decision Notice dated 22 May 2025; (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 responses from the Roads, Waste Recycling and Environmental Health Teams.

Ms Greene then described the site, outlined the appellant’s proposal for detailed planning permission and provided information on planning history.

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

·       Within Green Belt and unsustainable location1- Climate and Nature Crisis, 8 Green Belt, 9- Brownfield Vacant and Derelict Land and 13 – Sustainable Transport;

·       Large scale and massing, building would be overbearing and incongruous, with design, scale and massing not reflecting character of green belt, Development would harm landscape character of area and would prejudice the retention of previously approved landscaping and amenity land, to detriment of landscape setting of site;

·       Loss of approved landscaping would be loss to biodiversity with no environmental enhancements proposed to offset. Contrary to NE1 – GB, D1 – Design, D4 – Landscape, 1, 3 – Biodiversity, 8 – GB, 20 – Blue and Green Infrastructure; and

·       Not sustainable in transport terms – contrary to T2, T3, 13 and 14 - Design

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

·       Proposed house would provide supported living accommodation for family member;

·       Proposal was a well-considered design that completed a cluster of housing with high quality streetscape;

·       Reuse of brownfield site;  ...  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 250140.

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 installation of replacement dormer windows to the front (retrospective) at 18C Golden Square, Aberdeen, AB10 1RH. Planning Reference Number 250140.

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.  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 draft delegated report by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 11 February 2025; (3)  the Decision Notice dated 9 April 2025; (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) a letter of representation from Aberdeen Civic Society.

Ms Greene then described the site, provided information on planning history 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:-

·       Impact on listed building – would not preserve special character;

·       Impact on character and appearance of conservation area;

·       Modern upvc windows did not match design, form and fenestration pattern of previous traditional windows or majority of windows in Golden Square, ie material, split of sashes and sub-division;

·       Adverse impact on special character and interest of listed building;

·       Adverse impact on character of Conservation Area;

·       Was therefore, contrary to Policy 7; Historic Assets and Places and 14: Design of NPF4, Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS) and Policy D1: Quality Placemaking, D6: Historic Environment and D8: Windows and Doors of LDP 2023; and

·       Contrary to Aberdeen Planning Guidance: Repair and Replacement of Windows and Doors and Historic Environment Scotland: Managing Change: Windows.

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

·       Previous timber windows were in poor state and needed replacing. Windows were not original – 12 years old;

·       Approved replacement windows under previous application in 2013;

·       UPVC used was due to height and difficult to maintain;

·       At height above ground, difficult to differentiate between uPVC and timber – no negative impact on listed building or Conservation Area; and

·       No uniformity of windows in Golden Square in terms of the split of sashes – photographs were submitted as part of the review documentation.

Ms Greene provided information in relation to the consultee responses and the letter of representation, noting that Aberdeen Civic Society objected to the application in relation to the design of windows; Golden  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Councillor Cooke took no part in the proceedings for the following review, for the reason that the property was located within his Electoral Ward.

TRANSPARENCY STATEMENT

Prior to the following item, Councillor Macdonald advised that she had a connection by virtue of her residing in near proximity to the property concerned. Having applied the objective test, she did not consider that she had an interest and would not be withdrawing from the meeting.

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 241146.

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 formation of a car park at The James Hutton Institute, Countesswells Road, Aberdeen AB15 8QH. Planning Reference Number 241146.

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.  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 draft delegated report by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 29 September 2024; (3)  the Decision Notice dated 27 May 2025; (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 responses from the Council’s Roads Development Management Team and Craigiebuckler and Seafield Community Council and two letters of representation objecting to the application.

Ms Greene then described the site including planning history 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:-

·       Tackling climate crisis, giving significant weight – Policy 1;

·       Forming car park with no new development – increasing use of cars and not public transport, walking, cycling etc;

·       Principle of a development that supported the Institute and Just Transition Hub;

·       Impact on open space & biodiversity and character and visual amenity of area

·       Car park on open space and not associated with new development was contrary to giving significant weight to climate and nature crisis and conflicted with Policy 2 on Climate Mitigation which required siting and design to minimise emissions;

·       Insufficient evidence car park was needed to address existing or future requirements. Encouraged car travel and not sustainable options T3, T2 & 13

·       Car park resulted in loss of open space, as amenity, biodiversity and landscape – conflicted with Policy 20 on Green & Blue infrastructure, and NE2 on same;

·       Although not prominent, hardcore with no soft & hard landscaping conflicted with policies on Design and Landscape Design; and

·       Biodiversity enhancements in wider area, car park was permanent loss of open space – conflict with Policy 3 of NPF4.

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

·       Application of policies on Climate and Nature Crises and Mitigation was disproportionate. NPF4 should be considered as whole;

·       Rigid stance on sustainable travel and parking policies;

·       Limited consideration of benefits – parking for dog walkers, nursery and scout hut as well as over flow for events  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.