Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the second request for a review of the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request for planning permission to form a new garage at the far end of the rear garden at 47 Cranford Road, Mannofield (P151897).

The Chairperson advised that the Local Review Body would again be addressed by Mr Gareth Allison and reminded members that Mr Allison 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 Allison 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 Thain, Planning Officer, dated 15 March 2016; (2) the decision notice dated 22 March 2016; (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 letter of representation.

In respect of the Review, Mr Allison advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.  Mr Allison explained that the Local Review Body was required to consider whether it had sufficient information before them to determine the review today.

Thereafter, Mr Allison referred to the delegated report wherein a description of the site was provided, along with detail of the relevant planning policies, and reason for refusal.  He advised that the proposed garage would measure approximately 6.6m long x 5.6m wide, with a mono-pitch roof would reach a height of 3.2m/3.8m.  The building would project 1.7m/1.2m beyond the existing garages to either side.  The materials proposed were roughcast to match the main dwelling, larch timber linings, slate blue roof cladding and a grey Fyfestone base course.

Mr Allison advised that one letter of representation had been received and a consultation response from Roads Development Management had been received and this recommended refusal on the basis that the proposed garage would project forward of the garages at either side and obstruct visibility along the lane.  The letter of representation and the full consultation response were included with the agenda.

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.

Members asked questions of Mr Allison regarding the proposed development, namely: previous planning history and the potential for the proposed garage to be located further back.

All Members advised that they concurred with the concerns raised by Roads Development Management.

Following discussion, Members unanimously agreed that the planning application be refused due to the proposed garage being a potential road safety hazard due to lack of visibility.  Vehicles emerging from the garage would not achieve national standards of visibility and the proposal would worsen the existing situation.  In addition, the garage would protrude beyond the neighbouring garages resulting in a detrimental impact on the lane and on the character and amenity of the wider residental area.  The garage was inappropriate with regard to siting and conflicted with Aberdeen Local Development Plan Policies H1 (Residential Areas) and D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and did not comply with the related Householder Development Guide.

The Local Review Body therefore unanimously agreed to uphold the decision of the appointed officer and refuse 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(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.