Minutes:
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 the proposed erection of four flats with associated car parking and landscaping at 44-46 Bedford Road Aberdeen, P171410/DPP.
The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Andrew Miller and reminded members that although Mr Miller 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 LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Gavin Clark, Senior Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 26 November 2017; (3) copies of the plans showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement.
Mr Miller explained that the site subject to the review formed part of the rear garden of an end-terrace 2.5 storey tenement building with corner shop, adjacent to Bedford Place, and the surrounding area was largely residential with a retail park to the north west.
Planning permission was sought for the erection of a 3¾ storey block of four 2-bedroom flats at the rear of the site, with the remainder of the site incorporating 4 off-street parking spaces. The proposals highlighted that the flats would front to Bedford Place, with the new access also to Bedford Place. There would be landscaped areas to the rear and side of the proposed block of flats, with another area of landscaping to the rear of the existing flats at 44-46 Bedford Road.
Mr Miller outlined thatthe request sought the review of the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application under delegated powers and the stated reasons for refusal were as follows:-
1. The development has not been designed with due consideration for its
context, with a roof design that does not complement the character and
appearance of the surrounding area, and the use of materials which are not readily found in the surrounding area. The proposal would also provide
inadequate amenity space for proposed residents and would have an adverse
impact on the amenity afforded to properties in the surrounding area. As a
result the proposal fails to accord with Policies H1 (Residential Areas) and D1
(Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan
and its associated Supplementary Guidance: The Sub-Division and
Redevelopment of Residential Curtilages;
2. Insufficient information has been submitted with regards to the provision of
visibility splays, the width of parking bays and to indicate that vehicles could
enter and exit the site safely in a forward gear. As a result the proposal fails to
accord with Policy T2: Managing the Transport Impact of New Development of
the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and the associated Supplementary
Guidance: Transport and Accessibility; and
3. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that adequate waste provision
would be provided within the sites curtilage, and as a result the proposal does
not accord with Policy R6: Waste Management Requirements for New
Development of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and its associated
Supplementary Guidance: Resources for New Development.
In regards to consultees and objections, Mr Miller advised that no letters of objection were received, however comments were from Historic Environment Scotland in respect of associated Listed Building Consent.
Mr Miller also made reference to the relevant planning considerations, as follows:-
· H1 – Residential Areas: all residential development should:
o Not constitute overdevelopment
o Not have an unacceptable impact on character and appearance of surrounds
o Not result in the loss of valuable/valued areas of open space
o Comply with relevant supplementary guidance.
· D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design: Requires development to be of a high standard of design.
· T2 – Development should minimise car dependant travel and maximise sustainable and active travel.
· Transport and Accessibility SG – contains maximum parking standards for development (1.5 spaces per unit in this case).
· R6 – Waste Management Requirements for New Development
Mr Miller highlighted that in relation to consultation, 3 letters of objection were received, which raised material which included the following:-
Roads Development Management commented that there were good links to public transit, and parking numbers were sufficient although spaces were smaller than the minimum standards.
Mr Miller noted that outstanding issues remained, in that no swept path analysis had been provided to demonstrate how vehicles could enter and exit in a forward gear, nor had adequate visibility splays been provided. Four cycle spaces would also be required, along with waste and recycling storage.
In regards to Environmental Health, there was no objection but requested an advisory note which related to hours associated to construction works and information in relation to ground preparation and construction works be included.
Waste Strategy requested details be provided on necessary waste requirements.
In relation to flooding, there was no objection, however an advisory note on permeable materials where suitable and rain water harvesting was recommended.
In relation to the Notice of Review, the applicant highlighted that:-
· a smaller number of mainstream flats with parking is considered to be appropriate;
· issues of amenity were considered to be met with the overall reduction in the volume of the building.
· the access and waste issues that were raised as reasons for refusal could be dealt with by condition in the opinion of the applicant.
Mr Miller then answered various questions from members.
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.
Mr Miller highlighted that whendetermining the appeal, members should take into consideration any material considerations they feel would be relevant to the application that would point to either overturning the original decision or dismissing the review.
Members agreed unanimously to uphold 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:-
1. The development has not been designed with due consideration for its context, with a roof design that does not complement the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and the use of materials which are not readily found in the surrounding area. The proposal would also provide inadequate amenity space for proposed residents and would have an adverse impact on the amenity afforded to properties in the surrounding area. As a result the proposal fails to accord with Policies H1 (Residential Areas) and D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and its associated Supplementary Guidance: The Sub-Division and Redevelopment of Residential Curtilages;
2. Insufficient information has been submitted with regards to the provision of visibility splays, the width of parking bays and to indicate that vehicles could enter and exit the site safely in a forward gear. As a result the proposal fails to accord with Policy T2: Managing the Transport Impact of New Development of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and the associated Supplementary Guidance: Transport and Accessibility; and
3. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that adequate waste provision would be provided within the sites curtilage, and as a result the proposal does not accord with Policy R6: Waste Management Requirements for New Development of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and its associated Supplementary Guidance: Resources for New Development.
Councillor Marie Boulton, Chairperson