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 application for the formation of a driveway at 28 Cadenhead Place Aberdeen, 180883/DPP.

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 Ms Sheila Robertson, Planning Technician; (2) the decision notice dated 3 August 2018; (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning notices referred to in the delegated report; (4) comments received from Roads Development Management and (5) the original application and Notice of Review submitted by the applicant.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Evans who advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

At this juncture, Mr Evans advised that the applicant had asked that a doctor’s note be submitted to be considered as part of the Local Review Body.  Lisa Christie, Legal Adviser to the LRB, explained that new material was not normally raised unless there was a reason why it couldn’t be raised before and when the original case officer was determining the application unless in exceptional circumstances.  Ms Christie advised it was for Members to decide whether to accept the additional information or not.  Members discussed the situation and agreed unanimously to accept the additional information, and agreed that the letter was not readily available to the applicant previously, and as such could not submit it to the case officer and unanimously accepted that the letter was not available at the time of the original determination.  

Following the acceptance of the additional information, Mr Evans explained that the application related to the proposed formation of a driveway and the application site was located on the south eastern side of Cadenhead Place approximately 17m from its junction with Cadenhead Road and the application related to the ground floor (Left) in a 3 storey block which contained 6 flats conjoined to an identical building.  The garden ground pertaining to the application flat comprised an area of front garden ground, approximately 13m in width x 7.7m in depth extending eastwards from the communal front entrance path and wrapping around the eastern gable.  Mr Evans also noted that there was a communal path traversing the front garden, close to the frontage of the building and running along the gable to give access to the rear garden.  The garden ground was, until recently, entirely laid in grass however an area of slabs had been laid to the front and side of the application property, approximately 4m in width and 17m in length and covering 50% of the garden ground. 

In regard to the application, Mr Evans explained that Cadenhead Place was characterised by similar blocks of flats to both sides of the road and terminated in a hammerhead towards the north east with a terrace of 5 single storey dwelling houses at the far end.  With the exception of 3 properties, none of the front gardens facing Cadenhead Place have driveways and are undeveloped and laid mainly in grass.  There are also double yellow line parking restrictions to both sides of the area of road to the immediate north east of the application property.

In relation to the Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal, Mr Evans intimated that it made reference to the following factors:-

·         Would result in the unacceptable loss of locally available on-street parking;

·         Would exacerbate an existing on street parking problem;

·         It would be detrimental to the residents amenity of the area;

·         There would be a loss of valued garden ground and the presence of parked cars within the front garden would have an unacceptable impact on the wider visual amenity;

·         The proposal would be unsympathetic to the character and appearance of the existing streetscape, adversely affecting existing residential character and visual amenity;

·         Would set an undesirable precedent for developments of a similar nature which would be difficult to resist and cumulatively further erode the established visual character and residential amenity of the area; and

·         Fails to comply with Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and the Supplementary Guidance.

In relation to the appellant’s case, Mr Evans made reference to thesubmitted Notice of Review which referred to the following points:-

Ø  The appointed officer failed to consider the details of the planning application appropriately;

Ø  The proposed driveway would remove one parking space from the street however currently the area to the front of the property had cars parked across the kerb impacting pedestrian safety; and

Ø  A medical condition meant that the applicant required parking in close proximity to the property and a dedicated parking space would provide that.

Mr Evans advised that there was no consultation response from the local community council or other representations submitted however Roads Development Management submitted comments on the proposed driveway.

Mr Evans indicated that the applicant had expressed the view that a site visit was required before the application could be determined.

The Chairperson and Councillors Cameron and MacKenzie 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.

Mr Evans outlined the relevant policy considerations, making reference to the following in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017:-

Aberdeen Local Development Plan (ALDP)

• H1 - Residential Areas;
• D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design; and
• Policy T2 - Managing the Transport Impact of Development

Supplementary Guidance

• Householder Development Guide
• Transport and Accessibility

Mr Evans advised that in determining the appeal, members should also 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.

In addition to the relevant policies from the development plan, he indicated that Scottish Planning Policy would be material considerations.

He 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 Policy. 

The Local Review Body then asked questions of Mr Evans, specifically regarding the medical information and the situation in regard to the applicants need to be parked close to the property, and also questioned about the loss of garden space.   

Members agreed unanimously to overturn the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application and therefore planning permission was granted.

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 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) and other material consideration in so far as these were pertinent to the determination of the application.

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

The Local Review Body recognised that the surrounding area is not characterised by driveway parking, but noted that a submission from the applicant’s doctor demonstrated specific needs that could be met through the proposed development. The Review Body noted that the narrowing of Cadenhead Place outside the application property is such that a dedicated parking space for disabled persons could not be accommodated. Whilst the proposal would remove an area of soft-landscaped garden grounds, it was considered that this would not be excessive in the context of the green space remaining within the plot. Incorporating two off-street spaces within the curtilage of the property was also seen to contribute to reducing the pressure on existing on-street car parking. This proposal was not considered to result in a wider adverse impact on the character or amenity of the surrounding area, consistent with policy H1 (Residential Areas) and policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

-        Councillor Jennifer Stewart, Convener