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 231244.

The Local Review Body (LRB) of Aberdeen City Council met on this day to consider a review of the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation for the refusal of the application for the erection of Class 1A (shops) retail unit, installation of fencing with associated car parking, access, landscaping and associated works at 152 Don Street, Old Aberdeen, 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 6 October 2023; (3)  the Decision Notice dated 1 November 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/agent; and (6) consultee correspondence from the Council’s Environmental Health Teams, Roads Development Management Team, Flooding Team, Contaminated Land Team, Developer Obligations Team, Waste Planning Team, Aberdeen International Airport, Old Aberdeen Community Council and eleven letters of representation.

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:-

·       It has not been demonstrated that the proposed vehicular access and service access arrangements were acceptable, resulting in an objection by the Roads Development Management Team;

·       The information submitted indicated that there were potential conflicts with the proposed vehicular access, service access and pedestrian crossing, with significant concerns relating to the HGV movements, which would be required to use reversing movements to manoeuvre into the service area and it was anticipated that this would result in obstructions to customer’s movements, as well as impacting the flow of vehicles on Don Street itself, as vehicles wishing to enter the site would need to stop and wait on Don Street;

·       Furthermore, an HGV would be required to cross the centre line of the junction with the public road and thus could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

Councillor Alphonse took no part in the proceedings for the following review, for the reason that the property was located within her Electoral Ward.

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 240808.

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 erection of a 1.5 storey dwelling house with detached double garage; associated access including splitting of an existing curtilage at South Smithy Cottage, Ellon 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.  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 draft delegated report by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 28 June 2024; (3)  the Decision Notice dated 11 December 2024; (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the draft delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant/agent; and (6) consultee correspondence from the Council’s Environmental Health, Waste and Recycling and Roads Development Management Teams; and four letters of representation.

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:-

·       Although location, layout, siting and design were acceptable, proposed access would result in loss of open space for Cloverhill. Therefore contrary to Policy 20: Blue and Green Infrastructure and NE2: Green and Blue Infrastructure in Local Development Plan; and

·       Would result in loss of tree on south western boundary of site and a convoluted road access, not designed to satisfaction of Roads Team and close to residential properties. Contrary to Policy 6: Trees and 13: Sustainable Transport of National Planning Framework 4 and NE5: Trees, T2: Sustainable Transport of Local Development Plan 2023.

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

·       Noted that the right of access formed part of the Cloverhill (Bancon) application 210884/MSC. But had not been honoured by developer and Council with fence forming a barrier;

·       Route was the safest access;

·       Loss of trees could be mitigated with replacement planting; and

·       Proposed development complied with all other planning requirements.

Ms Greene provided information in relation to the consultee responses and the letters of representation, noting that the Roads Team had objected as the drive was to long with no passing places and was up a steep hill across a burn. Exiting access was on a road with reduced speed, inset large enough for passing and with visibility.

In terms of procedure by which the review would be conducted, Ms Greene advised that the applicant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Councillor Lawrence took no part in the proceedings for the following review, for the reason that the property was located within his Electoral Ward.

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 240388.

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 installation of replacement single storey extension at Hillhead of Clinterty, Kirkton of Skene, Tyrebagger 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.  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 draft delegated report by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 27 March 2024; (3)  the Decision Notice dated 14 January 2025; (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the draft delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant/agent.

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:-

·       Combined impact of proposed and existing extensions would nearly double the footprint of the traditional cottage;

·       Proposals would result in two of the original walls being wholly or partially obscured – more than half of the eastern elevation (ground floor);

·       Extensions would dominate and overwhelm the original cottage, fail to respect character and appearance of the historic dwelling and surrounding area;

·       Negative visual impact on character of the Green Belt; and

·       Contrary to Policy 7 (Historic Assets), 8 (Green Belt), 14 (Design), 16 (Quality Homes) of National Planning Framework 4 and NE1 (GB), D1 (Design), D6 (Historic Env) of Local Development Plan 2023.

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

·       Footprint of the original house being nearly doubled: Household Developer Guidance advised “built footprint of a dwellinghouse should not exceed twice that of original dwelling” therefore as the extension would not result in this being breached, this was not a valid reason;

·       On Small-scale re GB policy – GB policy deals with all sorts of developments in the GB (hotels, gold courses, quarries etc) therefore extension to house would always be considered small scale; and

·       Length of elevation is 21m, proposal would replace a modern extension of 3.5m wide with more useable and energy efficient extension. WouldlLook into applicant’s private garden. Would be 6m wide, less than 1/3 of elevation and the length was reduced from 9m to 7.1m, with width having been reduced from 6.7 to 6m.

Ms Greene advised that there were no consultee responses or letters of representation submitted.

In terms of procedure by which the review  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.