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 Nicholas Lawrence and reminded members that Mr Lawrence 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 Lawrence 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 Hannah Readman, Planning Officer, dated 18 December 2015; (2) the decision notice dated 18 December 2015; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement; and (6) a representation received in respect of the proposal.

 

With regards to the site, the delegated report advised that the application related to a single storey building located on the south side of Seaforth Road, at its junction with Urquhart Lane to the east. The building was currently vacant but had most recently been used as a storage shed for a plumbing business. The surrounding area was designated for residential use within the Local Development Plan.

 

The report advised that the planning application sought permission for the redevelopment of the site with a block containing eight, 2 bedroom flats set over 4 floors. The building would measure approximately 15.8m in width, 12.4m in depth and 11.5m in height. It would be of a modern design, with a flat roof and ‘juliet’ balconies to all windows on the first to third floors. Finishes would include a dark grey membrane roof, grey synthetic granite to the ground floor, smooth white render to the middle floors, grey zinc effect cladding panels to the top floor and all windows would be grey uPVC framed. A boundary wall, to be finished with a smooth white render and a concrete cope stone, pillars to a height of 2.3m and the connecting wall of 0.9m with atop 0.9m black mild steel railings. Also proposed were: 8 cycle lockers, 11 car parking spaces, 1 motor cycle parking space and a communal bin store located to the east of the site off Urquhart Lane.

 

In relation to planning policies which the Members of the Local Review Body should consider, the delegated report outlined that all the following documents were accessible via web links, and available as set out in the papers:-

 

Development Plan – Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2012):

 

 

H1 - Residential Areas

Within existing residential area, proposals for new residential development will be approved in principle if it:

1. Does not constitute over development;
2. Does not have an adverse impact on the character or amenity of the surrounding area;
3. Does not result in the loss of valuable and valued areas of open space.

 

H5 – Affordable Housing

Housing developments of five units or more are required to contribute no less than 25% of the total number of units as affordable housing.

 

D1 – Architecture and Placemaking

New development must be designed with due consideration for its context and make a positive contribution to its setting.

 

D2 – Design and Amenity

In order to ensure the provision of appropriate levels of amenity the following principles would be applied:

• Privacy shall be designed into higher density housing;
• Residential development shall have a public face to a street and a private face to an enclosed garden or court;
• All residents shall have access to sitting-out areas;
• Individual flats shall be designed to make the most of opportunities offered by the site for views and sunlight.

 

D3 – Sustainable and Active Travel

New development will be designed in order to minimise travel by private car, improve access to services and promote healthy lifestyles by encouraging active travel.

 

I1 – Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions

Where development either individually or cumulatively will place additional demands on community facilities or infrastructure, the Council will require the developer to meet or contribute to the cost of providing, or improving such infrastructure or facilities.

 

R6 – Waste Management Requirements for New Development

Housing developments should have sufficient space for the storage of residual, recyclable and compostable wastes. Flatted developments will require communal facilities that allow for the separate storage and collection of these materials.

 

T2 – Managing the Transport Impact of Development

New developments will need to demonstrate that sufficient measures have been taken to minimise the traffic generated.

 

 

Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan

The following policies substantively reiterate policies in the adopted local development plan as summarised above:

 

H1 – Residential Areas (H1 – Residential Areas)

H5 – Affordable Housing (H5 – Affordable Housing)

D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design (D1 – Architecture and Placemaking and D2 – Design and Amenity)

I1 – Infrastructure Delivery and Planning Obligations (I1 – Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions)

T2 – Managing the Transport Impact of Development (T2 – Managing the Transport Impact of Development)

T3 – Sustainable and Active Travel (T3 – Sustainable and Active Travel)

R6 – Waste Management Requirements for New Developments (R6 – Waste Management Requirements for New Developments)

 

Supplementary Guidance

Transport and Accessibility Supplementary Guidance - provided guidance on car and cycle parking standards, and car-free developments.

 

Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) 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. 

 

The stated reason for refusal of planning permission, as detailed in the delegated report, was as follows:

The proposed site layout was dominated by car parking and an access road and therefore failed to incorporate a usable and high quality sitting out area for residents. The use of juliet balconies did not constitute an alternative sitting out area and therefore the application was contrary to Adopted Local Development Plan Policy D2: Design and Amenity. The lack of external amenity provision and associated landscaping or soft boundary treatment indicated that the site was being overdeveloped and would therefore have an adverse impact on the character of the wider area, contrary to Adopted Local Development Plan Policies D1: Architecture and Placemaking, H1: Residential Areas and Proposed Local Development Plan Policies D1: Quality Placemaking by Design and H1: Residential Areas.

 

With regards to the view of the applicant’s agent in response to the planning officer’s decision and the content of the delegated report, with the statement, accompanying the Notice of Review the applicant’s agent had responded to the concerns raised by the planning officer and had concluded that in his view:

·         The proposed development at 42A Seaforth Road would see the replacement of a deteriorating industrial building with high quality modern flats. This would better complement the local area, which was characterised by residential uses. The current building was incongruous in the streetscape.

·         The scheme proposed 11 car parking spaces in order to satisfy parking standards and to meet the needs of future residents. Balancing the requirements of the car and cycling parking and taking into account the urban nature of the area, it was difficult to see how a ‘usable high quality sitting out area for the residents’ could be realistically achieved on the site. This resulted in the proposal not strictly complying with policy D2 in terms of open space. However what was proposed was a high quality development that was appropriate to, and in keeping with the surrounding area, in a location that would encourage sustainable transportation and living.

·         The 50% open space requirement set out in policy D2 of the adopted Local Development Plan had not been delivered in recent developments found along Seaforth Road, where the courtyards were dominated by car parking. This was common for city centre developments and the 50% open space requirement was not realistic for the site at 42A Seaforth Road, which was already constrained by size. The use of juliet balconies represented an innovative solution to provide amenity for residents.

Thereafter, the accompanying statement responded to each of the relevant policies referred to in the delegated report and advised how they were of the view that the proposal met with the policy requirements.

 

Thereafter the Local Review Body was addressed by Mr Nicholas Lawrence, Planning Adviser, who advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes. In addition, Mr Lawrence advised that in accordance with the relevant regulation, all matters that the applicant intends to raise in the review should be set out in or accompanying the notice of review, as should all documents, materials and evidence upon which the Applicant intends to rely. In this regard, he explained that the Appeal Statement appended to the Notice Review stated the applicant “noted that the scheme had already been reduced from 10 units to 8, and the scheme would not simply be viable if it were further reduced to 5 units”. He went on to advise that no such viability evidence was lodged in the papers by the Appellants and no justification was before the prescribed officer at the time the application was determined.  Therefore as no evidence has been produced to substantiate this assertion as required and consequently the Local Review Body could not consider the matter of viability in its decision-taking capacity.

 

Thereafter, he talked Members through the application which was the subject of the review referring to electronic plans where appropriate.

Thereafter Mr Lawrence raised a number of matters regarding the content of the delegated report and the Notice of Review and accompanying statement, which the Local Review Body should be advised on in considering this review, namely:

 

1.    The applicants’ quoted precedents of courtyard development dominated by car parking as a reason for permission being forthcoming. Mr Lawrence reminded Members that it was a tenant of planning law that each application was considered on its own merits and not those of other developments.  With regard precedent cases, he explained that these should be identical in all respects, however in this regard the quoted cases date from pre 2008 and were all granted permission prior to the 2012 Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

2.    The appeal statement stated that the development “makes a significant decrease in density on the site”. Mr Lawrence advised that this was factually wrong – density was the number of dwellings on site or buildings, therefore the density increased from 1 to 12 and increase of over 1,000%. There was a reduction in the coverage of the Appeal Site occupied by buildings.

3.    The applicants’ position was predicated on the belief that any creation of space was a benefit and permission should be forthcoming and that the number of car parking spaces dictated that the amenity space policy position could not be met.  Mr Lawrence explained that he would not expect a plumbers store to have open space.

4.            The applicants’ referred to useable open space, however Mr Lawrence explained that this was not used in the delegated report, nor in any of the planning policies. In addition, he advised that in planning terms, the fact that space was provided where none existed previously did not establish a presumptive right that planning permission has to be granted.  He therefore highlighted that the applicants’ noted that the scheme fell short of the requirement set in policy D2 and advised that the space created had to be judged not on quantum but also quality.

5.            The level of car parking – Mr Lawrence advised that the scheme did not meet the Council’s adopted standards and even allowing for this position the scheme did not provide a level of quality space sought by policy D2. 

6.            Objections – Mr Lawrence advised that the appeal statement stated that there was no objection from third parties, however an objection was received and duly placed before Members.

 

The Local Review Body then asked a number of questions of Mr Lawrence during which Mr Lawrence advised that only the two ground floor flats would have access to the garden area and that this position had been confirmed by the applicant’s agent in an email on 3 December 2015. Mr Lawrence also confirmed that the Planning Officer was aware of that information when determining the application.

 

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.  The Members of the Local Review Body therefore agreed that neither a site visit nor a hearing session were required, as Members knew the location of the site and felt they had sufficient information before them.

 

The Chair advised that in his view economic viability had been ruled out as a consideration, and that the main aspect was the lack of (a) a usable and high quality sitting out area for residents and (b) the level of external amenity provision at the site. The Local Review Body explored potential options to alleviate the aforementioned concerns during which the potential for a dispensation from the required car parking spaces should the application introduce a charging point or car club space was discussed.

 

Following discussion of the application, all three Members agreed that the proposal was contrary to Policies D1: Quality Placemaking by Design, D2: Design and Amenity and H1: Residential Areas of the Local Development Plan.  The Local Review Body therefore agreed unanimously to uphold the decision of the appointed officer and refuse the application.

 

Members also advised that in their view the applicants could submit an alternative proposal which could satisfy the requirements of the Local Development Plan policies.

 

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 in which the Local Review Body based this decision were as follows:-

The proposed site layout was dominated by car parking and an access road and therefore failed to incorporate a usable and high quality sitting out area for residents. The use of juliet balconies did not constitute an alternative sitting out area and therefore the application was contrary to Adopted Local Development Plan Policy D2: Design and Amenity. The lack of external amenity provision and associated landscaping or soft boundary treatment indicated that the site was being overdeveloped and would therefore have an adverse impact on the character of the wider area, contrary to Adopted Local Development Plan Policies D1: Architecture and Placemaking, H1: Residential Areas and Proposed Local Development Plan Policies D1: Quality Placemaking by Design and H1: Residential Areas.

-     COUNCILLOR RAMSAY MILNE, Convener