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 231479.

The LRB then considered the fourth and final 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 formation of a driveway, removal of hedge and boundary stones to front of 216 Westburn Road, Aberdeen, AB25 2LT

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 22 November 2023; (3) the decision notice dated 26 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) a consultee response from the Council’s Roads Development Management Team.

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:-

·       Did not comply with Roads standards as it had not been demonstrated that vehicles could enter and exit site in forward gear without convoluted manoeuvres – likely to result in reversing;

·       Class A busy road;

·       Likely result in accidents;

·       Contrary to Transport and Accessibility Aberdeen Planning Guidance (APG);

·       Adverse impact on visual amenity of street and character of surrounding area; and

·       Contrary to Policies H1 – Residential Areas, D1 – Placemaking, 16 – Quality Homes and 14 – Design.

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

·       Forward entry and exit for two 2 cars was possible and had not been demonstrated by Planning that it was not;

·       Applicant stated that signs could be erected prohibiting reverse entry or exit;

·       Images showed how a car could turn within the site;

·       Unclear why overhanging footway was a problem (this may be confusion over wording);

·       Appeared that photos were not considered (these were on website showing tyre movements);

·       Suggested conditions: confirming turns were correct, prior to permanent drive;

·       Only 50% of hedge would be removed;

·       Lowered plinth barely changed streetscene;

·       Cars parked on street were no different in terms of streetscene;

·       Convoluted movements no different to reverse parking; and

·       Queried about swept path software.

In relation to consultation, Ms Greene advised that the Council’s Roads Development Management Team had objected and recommended refusal of the planning application due to failure to show vehicles could turn on site and the road was Class A and busy. There were no comments from Rosemount and Mile End Community Council  an no representations submitted.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had 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 Boulton, Greig and Macdonald 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 National Planning Framework 4, the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023.

Ms Greene responded to a question relating to the ‘Transport and Accessibility’ APG, specifically regarding parking in garden areas in front of tenement flats.

Members each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to uphold the appointed officer’s earlier decision to refuse the planning permission.

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 are as follows:-

The proposed development does not comply with relevant roads requirements/standards, as specified in the 'Transport and Accessibility' Aberdeen Planning Guidance, as it has not been adequately demonstrated that vehicles can enter the site in forward gear, turn around and then exit the site in forward gear without making convoluted manoeuvres resulting in repeat and excessive overhanging of the footway during internal turning movements, which would likely result in vehicles reserving out of the site on to a heavily trafficked A-class road, resulting in a road safety hazard. The proposal therefore fails to comply with the 'Transport and Accessibility' Aberdeen Planning Guidance. In addition, the proposal would adversely and unacceptably affect the specific characteristics of the existing property, the visual amenity of streetscene and character of surrounding area, thus the proposal fails to comply with criteria of Policies H1 (Residential Areas); and D1 (Quality Placemaking) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023 (ALDP); and with Policies 14 (Design Quality and Place) and 16 (Quality Homes) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4).

-       COUNCILLOR CIARAN MCRAE, Chairperson