Agenda item

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 240503.

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 Detailed Planning Permission for the change of use of house in multiple occupation (HMO) to short term let accommodation with maximum occupancy of 6 people at 568 Holburn Street, panning reference 240503.

The Chairperson stated that although the Planning Adviser for the LRB 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 delegated report and decision notice by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 23 April 2024 (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (4) general responses from Roads Development Management Committee and the Waste and Recycling Service and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the agent. 

Ms Greene then described the application site and noted that it comprised a flat used as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) in the first and second floors of a granite-built 2½ storey residential building containing two residential flats. The property had six bedrooms, two bathrooms, a lounge/dining room, a kitchen and a roof terrace. The building fronts Holburn Street to the southeast and the property had its own entrance door which fronted the road. There was a garden to the rear. The application supporting information indicated that this garden belongs to the downstairs neighbour, albeit there was direct access from the property to this garden and it was used for the storage of bins for the application property.

In regards to the proposal, Ms Greene advised that Detailed Planning Permission was sought for the change of use of the property from a House in Multiple Occupation to short term let accommodation with a maximum occupancy of six people at any given time. The application stated that guests would stay for a minimum of one week and a maximum of three weeks and that it would be let to single groups at a time. The property would be cleaned after each stay or upon request during stays and waste would be collected by staff on a weekly basis.

Ms Greene indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal outlined in the report of handling was as follows:-

The change of use of this House in Multiple Occupation to short term let accommodation with a maximum occupancy of six people would have an adverse impact on the amenity afforded to the neighbouring residential occupants in the area in terms of noise and their actual or perceived impact on safety and security. The proposal conflicted with Policies 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and 30 (Tourism) of National Planning Framework 4, as well as H1 (Residential Areas), D1 (Quality Placemaking) and D2 (Amenity) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023. There were no material considerations that would justify approval.

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

•       The flat had a twenty year history of being a Short Term Let;

•       The property had been let most recently as a House in Multiple Occupation to students with no complaints;

•       The previous owner obtained permission for the decking, and was unfair to refuse due to its use by guests; and

•       The students had used decking without issue.

In terms of Consultations, no letters of representation were received and  general comments were received from Waste and Recycling Service. 

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that no further procedure should take place before determination. 

In terms of the further procedure, the Chairperson and Councillors Boulton, Clark, Greig and Lawrence all indicated in turn that they each had enough information before them and therefore agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without any further procedure.

In terms of relevant policy considerations, Ms Greene referred to the National Planning Framework 4 and the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023.

Ms Greene responded to various questions from members.

Members each advised in turn and by majority they agreed to uphold the officers earlier decision and refuse the planning permission.   The Chairperson and Councillors Boulton and Clark voted to refuse the application and Councillors Greig and Lawrence voted to approve the application.

In coming to their decision, the Local Review Body had regard to the provisions of the development plan as required by Sections 25 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) and other material considerations in so far as these were pertinent to the determination of the application.

More specifically, the reasons on which the Local Review Body based this decision were as follows:-

The change of use of this House in Multiple Occupation to short term let accommodation with a maximum occupancy of six people would have an adverse impact on the amenity afforded to the neighbouring residential occupants in the area in terms of noise and their actual or perceived impact on safety and security. The proposal conflicted with Policies 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and 30 (Tourism) of National Planning Framework 4, as well as H1 (Residential Areas), D1 (Quality Placemaking) and D2 (Amenity) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023 (LDP). The proposal would result in a tourist facility that would not be in the city centre and although the site is relatively close to a bus stop, there are tensions with Policy VC2 - Tourism and Culture, in the LDP, which sought to direct visitor facilities to the city centre. There were no material considerations that would justify approval.