Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the fourth request for a review to evaluate the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request for planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse at 36 Auchmill Road Aberdeen.

The Chairperson stated that although the Planning Adviser was employed by the planning authority hehad 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 by Mr Ross McMahon, Trainee Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 31 March 2016; (3) copies of the plans showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) six letters of representation; and (6) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Gavin Evans who advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Mr Evans advised that the application sought planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse at 36 Auchmill Road Aberdeen and the site relates to an area of brownfield land located to the south of Auchmill Road off the A96 which is a trunk road and behind a line of buildings comprising commercial units at ground floor with flats above.  The site is accessed from Auchmill Road via a shared pend between the gables of two properties, shred by a garage and leading to a raised area of ground comprising the remaining rubble and low walls of building.  The application site is situated within a Residential Area, as identified in the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012.

Mr Evans further advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of a one-and-a-half storey, three bedroom dwellinghouse on the footprint of a former dwelling.  The site slopes up considerably to the south where there is a retaining wall defining the southern boundary of the site.  The proposal would provide a raised area of amenity space to the immediate north of the proposed dwelling, accessed via a set of steps beneath which two off-street parking spaces would be provided.  The dwelling would be finished in wet dash render, Siberian larch, black uPVC rainwater goods, and slate grey aluminium lad windows and doors.

In regards to consultees and letters of representations, Mr Evans explained that three letters of representations were received, with one letter of support and two objecting to the application. Regarding statutory consultees, comments were received from Roads Development Management, Flooding Team, Environmental Health and Transport Scotland.  Road recommended that the application be refused and advised that the pend does not allow two vehicles to pass which could potentially cause delays on the A90 and additionally, could result in a safety issue for pedestrians.  Environmental Health noted that the occupants of the proposed development would potentially be exposed to noise from a number of likely sources, however noted that provision of suitable mitigation measures could address these concerns.  Transport Scotland advised that planning permission should be refused as (1) the existing pend/access is too narrow to permit a vehicle to enter while another is leaving thus causing a vehicle to stop on the trunk road, (2) the lack of visibility for exiting drivers to see pedestrians on the trunk road footway and (c) the site is too small to adequately cater for the turning manoeuvres within the site to ensure that all vehicles entering and leaving the site can undertake movements in forward gear.

The Grounds of Appeal Statement which accompanied the Notice of Review advised that (a) the proposed dwelling has been designed to ensure the best possible appearance for the development in relation to the surrounding area, taking into account its current footprint and maintaining a quality streetscape, (b) the scale, massing and height are appropriate and requisite to delivering modern quality of living, (c) the proposed dwelling will respect the natural and built features on the site which are worth of retention, (d) the proposals have incorporated best practice measures in terms of energy efficiency and maximising the potential for solar gain through the use of glazed curtain walling on the rear elevation for privacy and (e) the extended dwellinghouse will not adversely impact on any important viewpoints or panoramas and the proposals will not adversely impact on the character of the area.

The delegated report advised that the stated reason for refusal of planning permission was as follows:-

The proposal fails to fully comply with Policy D1 (Architecture and Placemaking), Policy D2 (Design & Amenity), Policy H1 (Residential Areas) and Policy T2 (Managing the Transport Impact of Development) in addition to the Council's Supplementary Guidance: The Subdivision and Redevelopment of Residential Curtilages of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, in that the proposed dwelling would be incongruous with the established built form of the surrounding area, would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties, would not be afforded a reasonable level of amenity and would pose a safety hazard to pedestrians, and to vehicles using the adjacent trunk road. On the basis of the above, and following on from the evaluation under policy and guidance, it is considered that there are no material planning considerations - including the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan - that would warrant approval of the application.

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

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 a site visit, a hearing session nor further written representations were required, as members felt they had enough information before them.

Members unanimously upheld the decision of the appointed officer to 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. 

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

The Local Review Body felt that the proposal did not comply with Policy D2 (Design & Amenity) as rear gardens of dwellings of up to two storeys should have an average length of at least 9 metres and should have an acceptable level of privacy and amenity.  The proposal would have 3m in length and would be overlooked by existing residential properties.

They also felt that the proposal did not comply with policy T2 (Managing the Transport Impact of Development), the Council’s Supplementary Guidance; the Subdivision and Redevelopment of Residential Curtilages and therefore H1 (Residential Area) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and would result in safety issues for both traffic users and pedestrians, as well as a negative impact on amenity.

-       Councillor Ramsay Milne, Chairperson