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 for the change of use from offices (class 2) to 14 flats and associated alterations at 18/19 Bon Accord Crescent, Aberdeen, AB11 6XY (P160105).

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would be addressed by Ms Lucy Greene and reminded members that Ms Greene 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.  Ms Greene 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 Ng’ambwa, Planning Officer; (2) the decision notice dated 19 October 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) consultation responses.

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

Thereafter, Ms Greene referred to the delegated report wherein a description of the site was provided, along with detail of the relevant planning policies, and reasons for refusal.

Ms Greene advised that no public representations had been received and explained that copies of the consultation responses from the Roads Development Management, Developer Obligations Team and Waste Team which had been received were contained in the agenda and referred to in the delegated report.

Ms Greene then took Members through the plans showing the existing building and the proposed development.

The statement from the applicant’s agent which accompanied the Notice of Review made the following points from the applicant’s perspective:

• The policies in the current Local Development Plan, or how they were interpreted, were no longer consistent with what the Council wanted to achieve in City Centre Master Plan;
• The levels of amenity proposed was entirely consistent with the levels of amenity in other city centre flats and on the basis of precedent, the level of amenity proposed, could not be deemed to be sub standard;
• The appraisal of residential amenity was purely subjective as there were no clearly stated criteria or guidance in any planning policies;
• In all cases the head of the windows sat above the level of the pavement level beyond and in all, or most, cases they either had a reasonable distance to any wall which formed the lightwell where they were located, namely 2.7m to the front (south west orientation) and 1-2m to the rear where rooms overlooked an enclosed private garden;
• The property would have been in residential use when it was built some 130 years ago and that some parts of the lower ground floor accommodation would have been used for habitable use;
• Strongly disagreed that the creation of flats to the Coach House would have a detrimental impact on prospective residents as if there were to be any situations where there were a clear apartment window to window clashes they could reasonably be dealt with by the of opaque glass;
• Strongly disagreed that the proposals did not comply with Policy D2 for the reason that this Policy sets no specific tests;
• The application of Supplementary Guidance; Sub-division and Re-development of Residential Curtilages was simply wrong; and
• Strongly disagreed that the proposal would not make a positive contribution to the Bon Accord/Crown Street conservation area.

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

In principle, the conversion of the two office buildings to residential units was acceptable according to Policy H2 (Mixed Use Areas) of both the adopted and Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plans.  However, the proposed residential development was not considered to be satisfactory as it would provide an unacceptable level of residential amenity for several of the flatted units. Flat 3 and bedrooms one and two in flat 1 and bedroom one in flat 2 would have very limited access to natural light as they were located well below pavement level and would look out onto an internal lightwell.  In addition, the development of flats in the coach house with access from the back lane was unacceptable. The creation of these two flats would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the prospective residents at 18-19 Bon Accord Crescent, as well as providing insufficient amenity for the future occupants of the flats in the coach house. The proposal therefore failed to comply with Policy D2 (Design and Amenity) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Guidance: The Sub-division and Redevelopment of Residential Curtilages.

Although some of the proposed external alterations on the north east elevation of No.18 Bon Accord Crescent and the coach house would be acceptable, this was not the case for taking down part of the boundary wall on this elevation. Insufficient detail had been provided to justify the removal of part the boundary wall, which would not contribute positively to the area’s setting. Consequently, the proposal failed to comply with Policies D1 (Architecture and Placemaking), D4 (Aberdeen’s Granite Heritage) and D5 (Built Heritage) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan. It also contravened national policy: Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Historic Environment Policy and Historic Environment Scotland’s Guidance on Boundaries.

It was believed that approval of the proposal would not make a positive contribution to the Bon Accord/Crown Street Conservation Area, and it would set a precedent for similar proposals which would erode the character of the wider Area. On the basis of the above, and following on from the evaluation under policy and guidance, it was deemed that the proposal did not accord with the provisions of the Development Plan and that there were no material planning considerations – including the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan – that would warrant approval of 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, unanimously, that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure. 

Members asked questions of Ms Greene regarding the proposed development, namely: listed building consent for the proposal; provision of a lightwell and access to natural light for the basement flats in particular; developer contribution; existing uses and character of the area; potential impact on privacy; car parking provision; principle of change; and quality of development. 

Following discussion, Members unanimously agreed that the principle of the change of the use was supported, however the current design proposed was not acceptable, in particular the level of lighting available to the basement flats.  Members suggested that the applicant review the current design, in particular the basement flats and the potential impact on privacy resulting from the redevelopment of the coach house.

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

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

In principle, the conversion of the two office buildings to residential units was acceptable according to Policy H2 (Mixed Use Areas) of both the adopted and Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plans.  However, the proposed residential development was not considered to be satisfactory as it would provide an unacceptable level of residential amenity for several of the flatted units. Flat 3 and bedrooms one and two in flat 1 and bedroom one in flat 2 would have very limited access to natural light as they were located well below pavement level and would look out onto an internal lightwell.  In addition, the development of flats in the coach house with access from the back lane was unacceptable. The creation of these two flats would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the prospective residents at 18-19 Bon Accord Crescent, as well as providing insufficient amenity for the future occupants of the flats in the coach house. The proposal therefore failed to comply with Policy D2 (Design and Amenity) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Guidance: The Sub-division and Redevelopment of Residential Curtilages.

Although some of the proposed external alterations on the north east elevation of No.18 Bon Accord Crescent and the coach house would be acceptable, this was not the case for taking down part of the boundary wall on this elevation. Insufficient detail had been provided to justify the removal of part the boundary wall, which would not contribute positively to the area’s setting. Consequently, the proposal failed to comply with Policies D1 (Architecture and Placemaking), D4 (Aberdeen’s Granite Heritage) and D5 (Built Heritage) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan. It also contravened national policy: Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Historic Environment Policy and Historic Environment Scotland’s Guidance on Boundaries.

It was believed that approval of the proposal would not make a positive contribution to the Bon Accord/Crown Street Conservation Area, and it would set a precedent for similar proposals which would erode the character of the wider Area. On the basis of the above, and following on from the evaluation under policy and guidance, it was deemed that the proposal did not accord with the provisions of the Development Plan and that there were no material planning considerations – including the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan – that would warrant approval of 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.