How can we help you...

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Room 2 - Town House. View directions

Contact: Mark Masson on Email: mmasson@aberdeencity.gov.uk / tel 01224 522989 or  Lynsey McBain on Email: lymcbain@aberdeencity.gov.uk / tel 01224 522123

Items
No. Item

The agenda and reports associated with this minute can be found at:-

https://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=284&MId=5795&Ver=4

 

 

 

1.

3 Bunstane Terrace, Cove - Erection of Single Storey Extension to Rear - 170100

Minutes:

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 request for planning permission for the proposed erection of a single storey extension to the rear of the property at 3 Bunstane Terrace, Cove, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 170100.

 

Councillor Boulton as Chairperson gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken.  She indicated that the LRB would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mr Mark Masson with regards to the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Mr Andrew Miller who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the two cases under consideration this day.

 

The Chairperson stated that although the Planning Adviser was employed by the planning authority hehad 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.

 

The Local Review Body was then addressed by Mr Masson, Assistant Clerk in regards 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 Ms Sheila Robertson, Planning Technician; (2) the decision notice dated 19 May 2017; (3) copies of the plans and photographs showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) letters of representation; and (6) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant along with an accompanying statement.

 

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Miller who advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes. He also indicated that the appellant had requested that the LRB undertake a site inspection and assess the information submitted as part of the appeal.

 

Mr Miller advised that the site in question related to a mid-terraced bungalow on Bunstane Terrace in the Cove Bay Conservation Area. The surrounding area was residential and fronts to Bunstane Terrace, sloping up towards Stoneyhill Terrace to the rear. There was once a mono-pitched roof extension to the rear of the house in common with other properties in the area which has recently been demolished and the rear wall of the property has been removed.

 

Mr Miller indicated that consent for a smaller extension was approved in 2015 (150212) and it could be assumed that the works were implemented. The proposed extension would span the full width of the rear of the house and would project 5.3 metres along the boundaries of the neighbouring houses. Mr Miller pointed out that whilst it stated in the delegated report of handling that this would be 6.6 metres, this was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

2.

108 Bonnymuir Place - Formation of Two Storey Extension to Form Three New Additional Dwellings to Existing Residence - 161363

Minutes:

The Local Review Body 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 request for planning permission for the proposed formation of a two storey extension to form three new additional dwellings at 108 Bonnymuir Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 161363.

 

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Andrew Miller and reminded members that although the Planning Adviser was employed by the planning authority he 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 Local Review Body had before it (1) a delegated report by Ms Sepideh Hajisoltani, Trainee Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 2 March 2017; (3) plans and photographs showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) letters of representation; and (6) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement.

 

Mr. Miller advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes. He also indicated that the appellant had not requested that the LRB undertake a site inspection.

 

Mr. Miller advised that the site in question formed a traditional granite built detached house on the corner of Bonnymuir Place with Westburn Road. A Garage to the rear is accessed from a lane to Westburn Road. The property is situated within a residential area comprising generally older granite built dwellings and flats. Mr Miller explained that detailed planning permission was sought for the erection of a two storey extension to the building and a change of use to form 4 flats. Parking for four cars would be provided to the rear of the site accessed from the lane.

 

Mr Miller made reference to the Notice of Review submitted by the appellant, in which, it outlined the following:-

  • the site coverage in the report was inaccurate (37% rather than 35% as is correct, marginally over the 33% general coverage rule in Supplementary Guidance). Some properties at 50%;
  • the flats at Bonnymuir Court have no external amenity;
  • that there was economic considerations;
  • the house was in neglect; and
  • the proposal would provide flats close to hospital and a bus route.

 

Mr Miller explained that the circumstances of the appellant outlined in page 100 of the agenda were not for the LRB to consider as the information was not a material consideration.

 

Mr Miller indicated that there were two objections received, which made reference to (1) the impact on trees; (2) the impact on a stone wall boundary to the south of the site (lane); and (3) concerns relating to the gable end wall and the proposed car parking that might create a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.