Agenda item

Members, please note that this review has not yet been determined and this is an appeal on grounds of non-determination. A decision has to be made by members of the Local Review Body.

The Local Review Body then considered the third request for a review on the grounds of non-determination for planning permission for the change of use of the existing building to form 20 serviced apartments with associated car parking at 116 Rosemount Place, Rosemount, Aberdeen, AB25 2YW (P160408).

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Ms Lucy Greene and reminded members that Ms Greene had not been involved in any way with the consideration 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 draft delegated report by Mr Lawrence, Planning Officer; (2) plans showing the proposal; (3) planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (4) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement; and (5) four letters of representation and 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 draft delegated report wherein a description of the site was provided, along with detail of the relevant planning policies, and the reason why the application would have been refused. She advised that there had been some confusion regarding the description of the proposal, specifically the use of the term “services apartments”. She explained, as detailed in the draft delegated report that the description on the Council’s web site referred to serviced apartments. However; the description of the proposed development on the application form read “Change of use, alterations and extension of existing building to form 20 No apartments with associated parking with associated internal alterations to adjoining building”. She confirmed that the assessment of the Planning Officer had been based upon the description of the development on the application form as it governed the extent of the permission sought and ancillary documents such as plans and drawings could not extend the description.

Ms Greene provided a detailed description of the application, referring members to the plans available.

Ms Greene advised that four letters of public representation had been received and those along with the consultation responses from the Roads Development Management and Environmental Health were contained in the agenda and referred to in the delegated report.

The draft delegated report advised that the planning permission for the application would have refused on the following grounds:-

1.     The proposed development by reason of its design, form, design, height, scale, mass, and roof treatment would harm the character and appearance of the area, the Conservation Area and setting of the listed building was contrary to policies D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and D5 (Built Heritage) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012; policy D1; (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2015; and advice set within Scottish Planning Policy;

2.     The proposed development would adversely affect residential amenity afforded local residents as such the development was contrary to policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2015; and advice set within Scottish Planning Policy;

3.     The proposed development failed to provide for adequate open space as required by policies D2 and NE4 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012;

4.     The proposed development failed to make provision for affordable housing as required by policy H5 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012; and

5.     The proposed development failed to provide adequate car parking arrangements as required by and Supplementary Guidance on Transport and Accessibility to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012.

Ms Greene then referred to the statement from the applicant’s agent which accompanied the Notice of Review which advised that the application had been submitted on 31 March 2016 following the withdrawal of previous applications and was subsequently validated on 4 April 2016 and therefore should have been determined by 1 June 2016. However, the application had not been determined and no agreement with the Planning Officer had been made for this timeframe to be extended, nor had there been any communication from the Planning Officer.

In response to the draft delegated report, the applicant’s agent had stated the following:

·         The Roads Departments had not objected to the proposals. They had had no detailed discussions with the Roads Department and although their response stated that the use of a car hoist was not acceptable there were no policies or guidance that inhibited such use;

·         They were confident that following discussion with the Roads Department, they could provide car, cycle and motorcycle spaces that the Roads Department would find acceptable; and

·         Refuse vehicles would not enter the site as it was impracticable and unnecessary for them to do so and therefore a strategy for the storage and collection of refuse would be discussed and agreed with Aberdeen City Council’s Waste Management Team.

In response to the letters of representation, the applicant’s agent had stated:

• Parking – the building had no parking provision therefore whatever use the building generated the need for some level of parking which would have an effect on the surrounding streets and this might occur at differing times of the day;
• Overlooking – the proposal has removed any dormers to what was the north elevation and the rooms behind were now served by roof lights and they were placed at a high level to the rooms to eliminate this specific issue. In their view any person within a room which faced north could not peer over these gardens as they would have to be standing on a chair or ladder. In addition, there were only two bedrooms which would rely on these roof lights as the only source of natural light with all other rooms on that elevation having windows to the east and west; and
• Height – the overall height of any part of the building was no greater that the ridge height of the existing building. Whilst the pitch of the roof was increased to the north elevations the eaves height had not changed and the rood would cause no overshadowing to the gardens beyond. Where the proposal had a perceived increase in height along the lane the view of this was barely seen from Rosemount Place and there were no amenity issues as there were no private gardens to the east which could be affected.

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: the pitch of the roof; mechanism for the basement car parking provision; ventilation within the car park; materials to be used; potential impact on the character of the area; existing and proposed elevations; and potential impact on privacy.

Following discussion, the Local Review Body therefore unanimously agreed to refuse the application.

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

1.            The proposed development by reason of its design, form, design, height, scale, mass, and roof treatment would harm the character and appearance of the area, the Conservation Area and setting of the listed building contrary to policies D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and D5 (Built Heritage) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012; policy D1; (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2015; and advice set within Scottish Planning Policy;

2.            The proposed development would adversely affect residential amenity afforded local residents as such the development is contrary to policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2015; and advice set within Scottish Planning Policy;

3.            The proposed development fails to provide for adequate open space as required by policies D2 and NE4 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012;

4.            The proposed development fails to make provision for affordable housing as required by policy H5 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012; and

5.            The proposed development fails to provide adequate car parking arrangements as required by and Supplementary Guidance on Transport and Accessibility to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012.

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.

-       COUNCILLOR RAMSAY MILNE, Convener