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 221545.

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 to refuse the application for the formation of a first floor extension over existing garage to the side and erection of single storey extension to the side and rear of 18 Laurel Park Aberdeen. 

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 20 December 2022; (3) the decision notice dated 13 April 2023 ; (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 response submitted by the Roads Development Management Team.

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal which sought planning permission for the erection of an upper storey extension above the garage at the northern side of the dwelling and for the erection of a single storey extension to the south side and rear of the dwellinghouse. The proposal would result in the removal of the existing conservatory as well as coniferous hedging to the rear. The upper storey extension above the garage would extend c.5.1m to align with the north elevation and would be c.7.8m in length, aligning with the principal elevation of the dwelling. It would result in the garage having a two-storey hipped roof of the same 7m high ridge and c.5.8m high eaves as the original dwelling. The roof would be finished in concrete roofing tiles to match the existing roof, the fascias would be finished in white uPVC panels and its walls would be finished in sand coloured cladding panels.  It would include light grey uPVC windows on its principal elevation and rear elevations.  The single storey extension to the south side and rear of the dwellinghouse would be flat roofed in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

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 230143.

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 erection of a 1.5 storey extension with raised decking and a balustrade to the rear at 10 Woodhill Place Aberdeen.

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 by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 6 February 2023; (3) the decision notice dated 8 June 2023 ; (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 letter of representation received. 

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal which sought planning permission for the erection of a part two storey, part single storey rear extension which would span the full width of the rear elevation of the property. It would project 4.0m alongside the shared boundary with 8 Woodhill Place. The development would be constructed with a fyfestone side south elevation and plinth, and a horizontal cladding which had not been specified, but would be timber or timber effect horizontal cladding as shown on the 3d visualisation. In addition, it is proposed to erect a raised deck with privacy screen to the rear of the proposed extension.

The single storey element would have a 4.0m projection and would be 3.6m wide with a sliding bifold door facing eastwards over the proposed deck. The total height of the single storey element which abuts the shared boundary would be 4.3m. The two-storey element which was located on the northern 3/5s of the rear elevation would have eaves above that of the main house at 6.1m on the

south elevation and eaves which slope down to the same level as that of the existing eaves level on the northern elevation. The ridge height of the two-storey element matches that of the host property and would be 8.1m.

The asymmetric roof would have a 1st floor Juliet balcony in the east facing gable elevation. The south facing elevation of the proposed 2 storey element would have eaves higher than that of the main house. The north elevation would have a roof profile which drops to the level of the existing eaves. The ground floor and first floor would be clad in timber or timber effect cladding as shown

on the 3D visual drawings.

The proposed deck would project a further 2.5m from the proposed 4.0m rear extension spanning the full width of the rear of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.