Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the second request for a review.  The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Mr Paul Williamson and reminded members that Mr Williamson 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.  Mr Williamson would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

Mr Williamson explained that the application which was the subject of the review was the retrospective change of use of the property at 243 North Deeside Road, Peterculter to a house of multiple occupation (HMO).  Mr Williamson explained that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Mr Williamson explained that the site comprised a seven bedroom first floor flat on the southern side of North Deeside Road, Peterculter, and formed part of a two storey building accessed via steps at the rear of the building.  The ground floor of the building was occupied by a bank.  Retrospective detailed planning permission was sought for the change of use of the flat to an HMO.

Mr Williamson advised that the applicant had requested that a site visit be undertaken to afford Members further insight into the site specific circumstances which were defined as the availability of bicycle parking to the rear of the property, and the availability of spaces to the rear of a nearby pub which was also owned by the applicant.  Mr Williamson explained that it was however for members of the LRB to determine the requirement for further procedures, if they deemed them necessary.

The part of North Deeside Road where the property was situated was predominantly residential in nature, although there were a number of small shops and other facilities within walking distance.  As such, the site formed part of the Peterculter District Centre designation within the Adopted Local Development Plan.

Mr Williamson advised that the application had been refused on the grounds that the proposal would fail to provide any parking as part of the development in an area where on street parking was at a premium, and would therefore result in an exacerbation of parking problems in the local area and would have an adverse impact on the amenity of established residential uses as well as road safety.  The reason for refusal also stated that the HMO would fail to provide sufficient useable amenity space and therefore had been considered to be non-compliant with the requirements of the Council’s Supplementary Guidance on Householder Development.

Mr Williamson then drew Members’ attention to the matters raised in the Notice of Review and supporting statement, before highlighting the relevant planning policies which had been taken into consideration in determination of the application:-

Development Plan – Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2012)

Policy RT3 (Town, District and Neighbourhood Centres) – sets out the criteria for proposals which changed the use of a premises from retail to non-retail use.  As the property was not in retail use, Mr Williamson advised that this Policy was not particularly applicable.

Supplementary Guidance relating to Householder Developments:- In considering an application to change the use of a property to form a House in Multiple Occupation, the factors taken into consideration included:-

·         Any adverse impact upon pedestrian or road safety as a result of any increased pressure on parking

·         Significant adverse impact upon residential amenity, which could relate to appropriate provision of garden ground / amenity space;  and

·         Whether or not there was an excessive concentration of HMOs in a given locality

Mr Williamson then referred to the comments from consultees, highlighting the comment from the Roads Engineer which recommended refusal of the application due to the shortfall of parking available in an area where on street parking was at a premium.

Mr Williamson concluded by advising that the Local Review Body needed to assess whether the proposal would have any adverse impact upon pedestrian or road safety; or whether there would be a detriment to residential amenity through the lack of provision of amenity space for residents, as per the requirements of the identified Supplementary Guidance.

The stated reason for refusal of planning permission was as follows:-

Notwithstanding its retrospective nature, the change of use of the flat to a House of Multiple Occupation failed to provide any parking as part of the development in an area where on street parking was at a premium and would result in an exacerbation of parking problems in the local area and would have an adverse impact on the amenity of established residential uses as well as road safety.  In addition, the HMO failed to provide sufficient useable amenity space.  Accordingly, the change of use to a House of Multiple Occupation would therefore fail to comply with the requirements of the Council’s Supplementary Guidance – Householder Development Guide.

The Local Review Body then asked a number of questions of Mr Williamson.

At this point, the Local Review Body considered whether they had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review.  The Local Review Body thereupon agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure, as members were familiar with the site in question.

During discussion of the application, the Local Review Body required some clarification in response to a query around the ownership of the site.  Rather than having to adjourn, as the applicants were in attendance to observe the meeting, the LRB agreed, with the consent of the planning officer, to receive clarification from the applicants in respect of the site and the amenity space which could be provided.

The Local Review Body agreed that the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application be reversed and agreed a willingness to approve the application, subject to the following conditions:-

1) That within two months of the date of this decision notice a scheme detailing car parking provision (and associated delineation) for three cars on land in the applicants control has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the planning authority, and thereafter implemented in complete accordance with said scheme and retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority - in the interests of public safety and the free flow of traffic.

2) That within two months of the date of this decision notice a scheme detailing cycle storage provision for two bicycles has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the planning authority, and thereafter implemented in full accordance with said scheme - in the interests of encouraging more sustainable modes of travel.

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(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) which required that where, in making any determination under the planning acts, regard was to be had to the provisions of the development plan and that determination should be made in accordance with the plan, so far as material to the application, unless material considerations indicated otherwise.

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

The Local Review Body considered that the change of use of the flat to a House of Multiple Occupation would not result in an exacerbation of parking problems in the local area and would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of established residential uses as well as road safety. They did not consider that the HMO failed to provide sufficient useable amenity space. Accordingly,they did not consider that the change of use to a House of Multiple Occupation would fail to comply with the requirements of the Council's Supplementary Guidance - Householder Development Guide.