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 230595.

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 installation of a replacement roof to an existing sun room and formation of raised decking with an external stairs and balustrade to rear at First Floor Right, 13 Fraser Road, 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, 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 10 May 2023; (3) the Decision Notice dated 25 September 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/agent; and (6) a letter of representation from Councillor Marie Boulton and Councillor Duncan Massey.

As a preliminary matter, the LRB heard from the Council’s Legal Adviser, Fiona Closs who explained that the letter of representation at (6) above was not before the Appointed Officer when determination of the planning application was made. She explained that new matters could not be raised unless that party could demonstrate:-

(a)      that the matter could not have been raised before that time; or

(b)      that it was not being raised before that time was a consequence of exceptional circumstances.

She indicated that the LRB required to consider whether the new matter raised should be taken into account in this review.

The Chairperson and Councillors Bouse and Copland unanimously agreed in turn, not to accept the additional information/correspondence into the proceedings.

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal for detailed planning permission to replace a section of roof associated with the sunroom, located to the south west of the dwelling, measuring approximately 8.5 sqm. The replacement roof would be Cure-IT roofing resin. In addition, a raised decking was proposed which would extend from the rear elevation of the property  ...  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 231176.

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 installation of replacement 1.5 storey rear extension with raised decking, fencing, steps and balustrade and alterations to existing rear dormer at 10 Woodhill Place, 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 22 September 2023; (3) the decision notice dated 20 December 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) one letter of representation including additional correspondence.

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:-

·       Materials – change to rendered finish did not reflect character of area;

·       Overbearing and incongruous addition in area, out of keeping with scale and character;

·       Overlooking and loss of privacy – raised deck, increased intensity of use at elevated level – impact on residential amenity; and

·       Contrary to policies on design, residential areas and amenity in local plan and NPF4.

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

·       Described previous application (230143) and debate at LRB – Body was minded to approve except for change to materials timber to cladding. However, refusal was on same grounds as previous application;

·       Did not consider the proposals to be overdevelopment of the plot, or out of keeping with scale, material or character of the area;

·       The proposed extension was, in part, a replacement of an existing extension to the rear of the property;

·       The footprint of the dwelling would be increased by only 17sqm. The resultant plot ratio would be 25% developed;.

·       Proposals were to the rear of the property and not visible from street frontage;

·       The proposed extension tied in with the existing roof profile; eaves and ridges levels, pitch and hipped gable end;

·       The proposed extension matched existing dwelling roof finish of natural slate;

·       Open to discussing and amending external finishes of the proposals to where there were concerns over external wall materials and extent of cladding proposed;

·       Majority of dwellings in vicinity were 1 and half storey and a number of these had storey and half, full property width extensions to  ...  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 230946.

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 formation of a driveway and alterations to the boundary wall at 27 Cromwell 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 2 August 2023; (3) the decision notice dated 16 October 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) three letters of representation all objecting to the proposal and a letter of representation 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:-

·       Loss of granite wall which was historic boundary feature and unified street;

·       Rear parking was used for houses on this stretch of road; and

·       Negative feature in terms of character of area.

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

·       Proposal maintained granite heritage of neighbourhood – minimal length of wall removed (less than 3.5m); part of garden would remain;

·       Needed for charging of electric car;

·       Similar Car parking spaces existed in area, inc no 21, 23, 25, 56, 58 and others;

·       No objection from Roads Team;

·       Representations were unrelated to proposal;

·       Using rear access would necessitate widening gates and other difficulties;

·       Raspberry bushes and apple tree, sheds within rear garden either sides of gate;

·       Proposal helped towards climate crisis and mitigation by providing charging for electric car and retaining plants/trees to rear;

·       Property to rear with 3 cars renders access and was congested – car had been damaged in rear lane; van often parks blocking access; and

·       Details of numbers of vehicles associated with no.29 and difficulties for appellant to park.

Ms Greene made reference to the three letters of objection. There were no objections from the Roads Development Management Team or the Community Council.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that no further procedure was required, however it was for members to consider whether they consider it necessary.

At this point in the proceedings, the LRB considered whether they had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review.

The  ...  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 230596.

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 demolition of an existing guesthouse and the erection of a dwellinghouse at 1B Skene Place, Dyce, 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 16 May 2023; (3) the decision notice dated 26 October 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) letters of representation from the Council’s Roads Development Management Team, Waste and Recycling Team, The Environmental Health Team, Aberdeen International Airport and Dyce and Stoneywood Community Council.

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:-

·       The application has been assessed against the relevant policies of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023 (ALDP) and National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and overall is considered to be unacceptable. In respect of Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the ALDP, the proposal would result in over development of the site and does impact on the character of the area owing to the disruption to the pattern of development. Furthermore, there would be an impact on the amenity of 1A Skene Place due to the reduction in private garden ground and also an impact on the amenity of any future occupants of the proposed dwelling owing to an insufficiently sized private garden area and unacceptable external noise levels. As such, the proposal not only fails to comply with the criteria of Policy H1, its also fails to comply with Policy B3 (Aberdeen International Airport and Perwinnes Radar), Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking) and Policy D2 (Amenity) of the ALDP. The proposal is also not considered to be consistent with Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) of NPF4, in that it fails to meet the six qualities of successful places.

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

·       Contained number of photos of surrounding area including flats on Farburn Place;

·       Existing house at 1B would lose 21m2 of garden but would retain 183m2 outside space, equating to more than two thirds;

·       House was consistent with neighbour and open to discuss  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.