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 240268.

The Local Review Body (LRB) of Aberdeen City Council met on this day to consider the non-determination of the application for the change of use from commercial office space into two residential dwellings including formation of french doors from existing window opening, window enlargement to form new openings with Juliet balconies, replacement door and installation of rooflights (rear); reinstatement of railings and gate (front); formation of car parking (rear) and landscaping works with associated boundary treatment at 11 Victoria Street, Aberdeen, AB10 1XB.

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 5 March 2024; (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the draft delegated report; (4) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant/agent; and (5) consultee correspondence from the Council’s Environmental Health and Waste and Planning and Roads Development Management Teams.

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:-

• Unacceptable level of residential amenity for 1 bedroom flat to rear;
• Unacceptable level of private amenity space for 3 bedroom flat;
• Flat to rear would have single aspect, with high level of glazing – overlooking;
• Access to rear flat unlit, unadopted service lane, limited surveillance and no active street frontage – safety, women’s safety;
• Property with no public face to the street - would not fit with established pattern of street facing buildings;
• Neither dwelling had acceptable amenity – single aspect;
• Contrary to D1: Design and D2: Amenity of LDP 2023 and APG on Amenity and Space standards NPF4 – Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and 16 (Quality Homes); and
• No adverse impact on Conservation Area, climate and nature crises.

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

• The  ...  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 240350.

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 of flat to Short Term Let accommodation (sui generis) with maximum occupancy of 4 people at 155 Bon-accord Street, Aberdeen, AB11 6XE.

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 19 March 2024; (3) the decision notice dated 14 May 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 and Waste and Recycling Team.

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:-

·       Impact on amenity and security of neighbour with transient guests using otherwise private rear garden and site entrance;

·       Guests would pass rear windows of ground floor/basement flat being able to look in – privacy impact; and

·       Contrary to NPF4 Policy 30 Tourism, H1 of ALDP.

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

·       Regarding security, the main door for ground floor flat was at front, meant primary access unaffected;

·       Management of frequency and nature of guest stays, guest vetting and clear house rules meant minimal disruption;

·       Neighbour who shared garden had expressed no concern;

·       Willing to install screening and landscaping to prevent overlooking;

·       STL would align with broader aims of Policy 30 to support tourism and local economy; and

·       With mitigation, impact on residential amenity would be negligible, with high standard of maintenance and monitoring.

The Council’s Waste Team had no objection, guests could use resident bins until commercial collection had been established; The Roads Team had no concern or objection as parking was the same as mainstream residents. No comments were submitted by the Community Council and no representations were received.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant has expressed the view that the review may proceed on the basis of the information submitted.

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

The Chairperson and Councillors Copland, Clark and Lawrence all indicated in turn that they each had enough  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Prior to consideration of the third review, Councillors McLellan and Clark left the meeting, for the reason that the property was located within their Electoral Ward, therefore they took no part in the proceedings. Councillor Copland Chaired the remainder of 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 240225.

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 erection of single storey extension to front at 26 Spey Road, Aberdeen, AB16 6SE.

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 27 February 2024; (3) the decision notice dated 3 May 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, Norma Anderson (neighbour) and Mastrick Community Centre Management Committee

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:-

• Design, scale and size of extension would disrupt building line;
• Extension was not modest subordinate porch extension  and would include living accommodation, not being substantially glazed – and thereby contrary to the Householder Development Guide;
• Would set precedent for full width front extensions, resulting in loss of building line and impact on front elevations of terraces;
• Together with rear extension and outbuilding, would result in substantial development of plot (though not over 50% of front or rear area nor double original footprint);
• Contrary to NPF4 policies 14 – Design, 16 Quality Homes and LDP policies H1 – Residential Areas, D1 – Quality Placemaking;
• Solid side walls would impact negatively on neighbours, no. 28 would be impacted to front and rear within single room, due to extension; and
• Contrary to LDP Policy D2 – Amenity, in addition to above.

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

• Area contains other examples of front extensions breaking building line;
• Also examples of extending the canopies over doorways with roofs with 1m projection;
• The row of terraces was unique in area for long front gardens and small rear gardens, therefore modest front extension would not impact garden space or neighbours;
• Neighbours both sides supportive and considering similar – letter submitted by no. 24 – overshadowing would be minimal; and
• Referred to letter from Mastrick Community Centre submitted by applicant.

The Council’s Roads Team had no objection as driveway would remain over 10 metres; there were no comments submitted by the Community Council and no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.