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 230996.

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 change of use of flat to Short Term Let (STL) accommodation (sui generis) with maximum occupancy of two people at 93 Ash-hill Drive, Aberdeen, AB16 5YR.

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 13 August 2023; (3) the Decision Notice dated 29 November 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) consultee correspondence from the Council’s Environmental Health Team, the Roads Development Management Team and Waste Planning 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:-

·       Impact on amenity of flat below at first floor level (no. 89), due to STL at no. 85 at ground floor level. Approval would result in flats above and below being in STL use;

·       Cumulatively would result in significant noise impact, disturbance and decline in real or perceived security and privacy – to the detriment of residential amenity of no. 89;

·       Adverse impact on residential amenity of area around the application flat;

·       Conflict with Policies 14 – Design of National Planning Framework (NPF) 4, H1 – Residential Areas, D1 - Quality Placemaking, D2 – Amenity of the Local Development Plan 2023; and

·       Adverse impact on amenity would outweigh the economic benefits from the STL and therefore proposal would be contrary to Policy 30 – Tourism of NPF4

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

·       There would be little difference between the use as a STL  ...  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 231288.

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 change of use of flat to Short Term Let accommodation (sui generis) with maximum occupancy of four people (Retrospective) at 16 Bright Street, Aberdeen, AB11 7TE.

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 13 October 2023; (3) the decision notice dated 27 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) correspondence from consultee Aberdeen City Council’s Roads Development Management Team and Waste Planning Team; and (7) a letter of representation.

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:-

·       Location of access door on rear elevation, bringing transient guests into private area, passing rear window to use external stairs, detriment to privacy and sense of security;

·       Walking past rear garden to access property and to access the rear garden in upper section of rear curtilage;

·       Overall harm to amenity – privacy, security and enjoyment of garden;

·       Despite likely local economic benefits, impact on local amenity would outweigh this; and

·       Contrary to LDP policy H1 (Residential Areas), Policy 30 (Tourism) in NPF4.

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

·       Policy was incorrectly interpreted;

·       Inconsistency of determination of STLs across city, 11 of 178 refused – tenements;

·       Failure to account for material considerations – cases;

·       Arguable there was no change of use as no STL control zone;

·       Amenity was not adversely affected – no enforcement and good ratings;

·       No impact on local housing need;

·       Property used to be one house (1999) and approved with the rear access steps;

·       Property could be HMO – higher risk for amenity;

·       STL had provided accommodation for families whilst they care for relatives;

·       Submission included a letter from the resident of lower flat – citing contentment with situation and management of the flat;

·       Public transport and nearby facilities – complied with policies on transport;

·       Tourism Policy VC2 supported visitor facilities and offered different accommodation;

·       Request clarification over privacy issue regarding the rear door and passageway;

·       Permanent residents would create more comings and goings;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Prior to consideration of the following review, Councillor Greig left the meeting by virtue of him 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 240015.

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 erection of single storey extension; formation of dormer; installation of replacement windows and door to rear; and formation of roof lights to front at 125 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen, AB25 2DL.

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 9 January 2024; (3) the decision notice dated 8 March 2024; (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report;  and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent.

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:-

·       Proposed dormer conflicted with Policy D6-Historic Environment and D8 – Windows & Doors and HES Managing Change Guidance on Roofs, due to loss of historic dormer and erection of dormer that would create significant mass on rear roof;

·       Roof was prominently visible from rear lane which was public;

·       With exception of neighbour, other rear elevations designed with due consideration for context of area; and

·       Detriment to character of Conservation Area, would not comply with Historic Environment Policy for Scotland, Policy H1- Residential Areas, D1-Quality Placemaking, D6, D8, Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places, 14 – Design etc, 16-Quality Homes and Historic Environment S’s Managing Change – Roofs, Aberdeen Planning Guidance (APG) – Householder Guide on dormers.

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

·       Revisions – first floor timber s/c windows to remain; rooflight to front altered, dormer has peaked slated roof, with linking panel set back;

·       Heritage Statement – dormer not original and dormer had upvc window and projecting fascia – complied with APG;

·       Single storey extension and rooflight – deemed acceptable – dormer was only reason for refusal;

·       Proposal was sympathetic, improved appearance of exterior of building and was in keeping with surroundings;

·       Enhanced function of upper floor for family use;

·       Significantly improved thermal properties and heat loss; and

·       Examples of recent approvals: 56 Fountainhall Road (dormer on roof), 59 Desswood Place (box dormer on rear extension) and contained photos of other dormers.

Ms Greene advised that there was no response from Queens Cross and Harlaw Community Council in relation to consultation.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.