Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the second 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 proposed change of use from public amenity space to domestic garden ground (retrospective) and erection of timber fence at 12 Seaview Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 170693.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Andrew Miller and reminded members that although the Planning Adviser was employed by the planning authority, he 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.  She emphasised that the officer 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 Robert Forbes, Senior Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 21 July 2017; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) letters of representation; and (6) the application and Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement.

Mr. Miller advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes. He also indicated that the appellant had requested that the LRB undertake a site inspection as a further procedure.

Mr. Miller advised that the site was an area of amenity ground that formed a buffer between the garden fence and public road. It had since been enclosed and incorporated into garden ground (retrospective) but the proposed position would be 1.5 metres inward.

He explained that consent was sought for the change of use of the amenity land to residential and the erection of a 1.8m high fence with a 1.5m buffer strip of landscaping/planting.

Mr Miller indicated that the request sought the review of the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application under delegated powers. In refusing the application, the reasons given were as follows:-

•           Visually dominant, loss of buffer strip of amenity space;

•           Blocks visibility splay; and

•           Creation of precedent for similar proposals.

It was therefore considered to be contrary to policy H1, NE3, D1, NE5.

Mr Miller made reference to the appellant’s case advising that the Notice of Review Statement outlined the following:-

•           that the fence was at lower level than the public road, and therefore was not so dominant;

•           that the visibility splay required for the junction was not impacted on (2.4 x 70 metres);

•           that the area was an unkempt mess by the factor; and

•           that there was examples of precedent.

Mr Miller intimated that the appellant’s future plans for extending their property was not a consideration for the LRB.

In relation to consultations and objections, Mr Miller advised that one letter of objection was received, which raised concerns on public safety and inadequate ground maintenance due to the position of the fence. Roads Development Management objected to the application due to impact on visibility at the junction of Seaview Avenue with Dubford Road (required visibility splay of 4.5 x 90 metres as it was a local distributor road).

The appellant had requested a site visit be carried out prior to determination.

The members of the Local Review Body agreed that there was no requirement for a site visit as they felt that they had enough information before them. The Local Review Body thereupon agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure. 

Mr Miller made reference to the relevant Policy considerations as follows:-

H1 – Residential Areas:

•           Residential development was acceptable in principle on basis it complied with Supplementary Guidance and did not result in an adverse impact on established residential amenity;

D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design:

•           Required all development to be of a high standard of design;

D3 – Urban Green Space:

•           Development should not result in loss of urban green space; and

Householder Supplementary Guidance:

•              Proposal should not result in irregular plot shapes compared to established pattern of plots, nor result in a precedent.

Mr Miller explained that applications that were retrospective should be given no less scrutiny than development that comes forward in the usual pre-emptive manner.

Mr Miller advised that in determining the appeal, members should also take into consideration any material considerations they feel were relevant to the application that would point to either overturning the original decision or dismissing the review.

He indicated that should members wish to overturn the decision of the appointed officer, consideration should be given to any conditions which would be appropriate in order to make the proposal acceptable. However all conditions must meet the six tests set out by Scottish Government policy.

Mr Miller explained that if members were minded to overturn the decision then he would advise conditions ensuring proposed amendments were carried out and planting would be retained in perpetuity.

The Local Review Body then asked questions of Mr Miller, specifically regarding land ownership, road safety issues relevant to the nearby junction, shrub removal and the reinstatement process.

Members agreed by majority to uphold the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application.

The Chairperson and Councillors Copland, John and Nicoll voted to uphold the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application. Councillor Cameron voted to overturn the decision of the appointed officer and approve the application subject to a condition relating to the relocation and reduction of the fence height to 1.5m for public safety reasons.

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:-

1. The development has resulted in significant detriment to the visual amenity of the residential area by reason of: the incorporation of public open space within a private garden; the associated removal of soft landscaping including established shrubs and trees, which contributed to the landscape character of the residential area; and due to the visual prominence and siting of the boundary fence. The application therefore conflicts with the objectives of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan policies H1 (Residential Areas), D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design), D2 (Landscape), NE3 (Urban Green Space) and NE5 (Trees and Woodland). No material considerations presented or evident are considered to justify approval of the application contrary to the development plan policy objectives;

2. The fence is considered to result in a detriment to public road safety by reason of its location partly within a visibility splay at the junction of Seaview Drive with Dubford Road; and

3. Approval of this application would establish an undesirable precedent for similar proposals which would result in further erosion of the design quality and visual amenity of the wider housing area, and in other similar situations elsewhere within the city, and which is contrary to the local plan policy NE3 and the Council’s Householder Development Guide supplementary guidance. Approval of the application could therefore further undermine the above amenity policy objectives of the development plan.

ADVISORY NOTE

The applicant is advised that formal enforcement action may be required in order to secure removal of the existing unauthorised fence within the site and reinstatement of the landscaped amenity open space in accordance with the design quality of the original development layout.