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 application for the erection of a residential development of eight two-bedroom flats and associated car parking and amenity space at 42A Seaforth Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 180352DPP.
The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Gavin Evans and reminded members that although Mr Evans 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 Mr Gavin Clark, Senior Planner (2) the original planning application dated 5 March 2018; (3) the decision notice dated 3 May 2018; (4) links to the planning policies and plans referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement; and (6) letters of representation relating to the planning application.
Mr Evans advised that the review had been submitted with all necessary information within the time limit of three months following the decision of the appointed officer.
Mr Evans described the site, advising that it extended to approximately 636 sqm and was located on the southern side of Seaforth Road, at its junction with Urquhart Lane, incorporating a single storey, pitched-roof ‘warehouse’ type building. The building was constructed of synthetic aggregate blockwork with a metal sheet roof oriented with its gable facing onto Seaforth Road.
He indicated that the appointed officer’s report described the premises as currently vacant and most recently used as a storage shed for a plumbing business. The surrounding area was largely residential, which was reflected in its residential zoning in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, and incorporated a mix of housing styles and scales, from 2 storey - four in a block flats, to more dense 3 and 4 storey flatted developments of both traditional and modern design.
Mr Evans provided details of the planning history of the site, prior to outling the proposal which sought permission for the erection of a four storey building containing 8 flats. The flatted building would have a footprint of approximately 176 sqm, with the site accommodating 6 car parking spaces to the rear of the building and one motorcycle space, accessed via Urquhart Lane (a one-way street only accessible by vehicles from the south via Urquhart Road).
He advised that landscaped amenity space would also be provided to the rear, with cycle lockers and bin storage facilities. A section of the boundary wall would be reduced to 1m in height to provide visibility at the site access. The building would be finished in a buff-coloured synthetic stone at ground floor level, with a cream/beige smooth render and then grey zinc-effect cladding panels to the top floor, with a dark grey sarnafil roof. Windows would be in grey PVCu with black steel railings and Juliet balconies.
Mr Evans made reference to the appointed officer’s decision outlining the factors and reasons for refusal as follows:-
· The design, height, scale and massing does not demonstrate due consideration for its context, contrary to Policies H1 (Residential Areas) and D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan;
· The proposed 4-storey, flat roofed building (at 11.3m rising to 11.9m) would be incongruous against the two-storey hipped roof properties to the west (measuring 5.4m to gutter and 9.2m to apex per report). As a result, the officer’s report concluded that the development did not comply with Policies H1 (Residential Areas) and D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the ALDP.
In relation to the appellant’s case, Mr Evans indicated that the Notice of Review Statement outlined the following:-
· The development proposal has been reduced from ten to eight flats;
· The level of agreed Developer Obligations has been increased;
· A car club space is to be partially funded by the applicants;
· The amount of amenity space within the site has been increased;
· External materials have been altered to suit the requirements of the Planning Service;
· The Planning Service previously accepted the design proposed; and
· There have been no objections from neighbours to the west or east of the development site.
He explained that the applicants attached significant weight to an earlier Local Review, despite its decision to uphold the appointed officer’s decision and refuse to grant planning permission. It was contended that members of the LRB at that time agreed that the design, number of units and principle of the development was acceptable. The applicants highlighted that the LRB’s decision to dismiss the review was based on a ‘lack’ of amenity space and dominance of car parking. It was contended that Councillors sitting on the LRB stated that they would support a revised scheme if the layout was amended to reduce the number of proposed parking spaces and provided an increased amount of ‘amenity space’. The applicants contended that the current proposal had been revised in accordance with the comments made by the LRB at that time (March 2016).
In relation to consultation, Mr Evans advised that the Council’s Roads Development Management Team initially objected to the application due to the shortfall in parking provision within the site, and concerns in relation to congestion in streets in the surrounding area. This objection had been removed following agreement by the applicant to provide contribution towards half of a car club car (with the other half to be paid by the car club) and associated works required to provide this space.
He indicated that the Council’s Environmental Health Team had no objection to the proposed development. Were permission granted they had suggested an informative in relation to working hours (with regards to demolition and construction operations.
He advised that no response had been received from the Developer Obligations Team, as the proposal was almost identical to that previously refused, it was assumed that developer obligations would be similar to those of the previous application. He intimated that this should be clarified through consultation with the Developer Obligations Team if members were minded to approve the application.
Mr Evans intimated that the Council’s Flooding and Coastal Protection Team had no objections to the proposed development, as the proposal did not create a flood risk. They had recommended the use of permeable materials and rain water harvesting within the design.
Mr Evans advised that the Waste Strategy Team had advised of the waste requirements for the proposed development and indicated that if there was consent to grant the application, this would be added as an informative.
In terms of representations submitted, Mr Evans advised that there were two letters of objection received at the time of the application. The matters raised included:-
· development would be out of keeping with the surrounding area;
· too high and would impact on the amount of light afforded to properties in the surrounding area;
· highlight earlier refusals for very similar schemes;
· concerns in relation to parking capacity in streets in the surrounding area; and
· concerns regarding number of flats (including those unsold) in the surrounding area, which was not a material consideration.
Mr Evans advised that the applicant had expressed the view that a hearing session or sessions would be beneficial in allowing for a proper examination of the relevant material considerations, including the views of the Local Review Body of March 2016.
The Chairperson and Councillors Copland and Donnelly all indicated in turn that they each had enough information before them and therefore agreed that a site visit was not required and that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.
The Local Review Body then heard Mr Evans outline the relevant policy considerations, as follows:-
Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017
· H1 - proposals for new development will be acceptable in principle if they:
- does not constitute over development;
- does not have an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area;
- does not result in the loss of valuable and valued areas of open space. Open space is defined in the Aberdeen Open Space Audit 2010; and
- complies with Supplementary Guidance.
· D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design: Requires development to be of a high standard of design, which demonstrates an understanding of its context;
- Distinctive, welcoming, safe and pleasant, easy to move around, adaptable and resource efficient.
· D5 – requiring the re-use of any granite from downtakings in new development
- I1: Infrastructure Delivery and Planning Obligations;
- Policy requires developer contributions where development would result in additional demands on local services or infrastructure.
· T2: Managing the Transport Impact of Development;
- Required measures to be taken to minimise traffic generated and to maximise opportunities for sustainable and active travel.
· T3: Sustainable and Active Travel;
- Encourages travel by sustainable means and priority for walking/cycling. Highlights potential for car sharing and car clubs as a means of reducing transport impacts.
· H5: Affordable Housing:
- Housing developments of five units or more are required to contribute no less than 25% of the total number of units as affordable housing.
· NE6: Flooding, Drainage and Water Quality:
- Relates to assessment of flood risk and measures to ensure adequate drainage for surface water
· R6: Waste Management Requirements for New Developments;
- Requires provision for refuse and recycling storage and collection
· R7: Low and Zero Carbon Buildings, and Water Efficiency:
- Requires buildings to achieve carbon reductions through on-site microgeneration or by achieving a higher efficiency value than otherwise applicable via Building Regulations
· CI1: Digital Infrastructure:
- All new residential and commercial development will be expected to have access to modern, up-to-date high-speed communications infrastructure.
Supplementary Guidance:-
Planning Obligations;
Affordable Housing;
Transport and Accessibility; and
Flooding, Drainage and Water Quality
Mr Evans advised that in determining the appeal, members should 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 in addition to the relevant policies from the development plan, the following would be material considerations:
· Scottish Planning Policy
Mr Evans intimated 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.
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 was as follows:-
1. The proposed building, due to its architectural design, height, scale and massing has not been designed with due consideration for its context. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the requirements of Policies H1 (Residential Areas) and D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan.
2. The proposed building, which would be set over four storeys, with a flat roof and extend to 11.3m (and 11.9m on its eastern side) in height when viewed against the two storey hipped roof properties to the west (5.4m to gutter and 9.2m to apex), would introduce an incongruous relationship between the two buildings in terms of overall massing and form when viewed in the surrounding street scene. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the requirements of Policies H1 (Residential Areas) and D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan.
- COUNCILLOR MARIE BOULTON, Chairperson.