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 and installation of a handrail to the front of the property at 14 Hilton Walk, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 190487/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 Roy Brown, Planning Trainee; (2) the application dated 16 April 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 5 September 2019 (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report;  (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant along with an accompanying statement with further information relating to the application; and (6) a letter of representation from the Council’s Roads Team.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Evans who 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 then described the site advising that it was a residential plot containing a 1½ storey mid-terraced dwelling , set in a predominantly residential area. The dwelling faced onto Hilton Walk, and due to a change in ground levels across the site, the house was located approximately 2 metres higher than street level, with steps leading up to the house and raised gardens having been present prior to the unauthorised works to form this off-street parking.

He indicated that the front garden of both number 14 (application site) and the neighbour at number 15 Hilton Walk had been excavated to form a level surface for the formation of lock-blocked driveway, along with a 2-metre-high retaining wall and safety barriers above. Planning permission was required for these works and was not obtained prior to the works being undertaken. An application seeking permission retrospectively for number 14 Hilton Walk only had been refused, and it was the appointed officer’s decision to refuse that application which was now before members of the LRB. It would be for the planning authority to decide what further action may be required in terms of the works at 15 Hilton Walk. The appointed officer’s report highlighted that the plans indicated a Fyfestone wall, however the works undertaken included a rendered finish.

Mr Evans outlined the appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal as follows:-

• the works would visually dominate the street elevation of the property, and are incongruous in the context of this terrace due to their significant height and scale, and also the loss of the soft landscaping previously present;
• As a result, the proposal adversely affected the character and visual amenity of the area; and
• If similar proposals were to be repeated in the surrounding area, this could further erode the character and amenity of the area, contrary to the aims of policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Delivery Plan.

In relation to the appellants case, Mr Evans highlighted the following:-

(1)  The review statement highlighted that the applicant was a pensioner who suffered from walking difficulties and now relied heavily on his car;

(2)  He had experienced increasing difficulty in parking close to his property due to heavy parking demand on Hilton Walk.

(3)  This demand had increased since flats were built directly opposite. He had also found it increasingly difficult to maintain the sloping garden to the front;

(4)  The off-street parking provision gave him immediate access to his house and helped reduce the parking problems existing on the street; and

(5)  The Applicant was unaware planning permission was required, having seen similar driveways in the local area;

In relation to (4) above, Mr Evans advised that this was incorrect in so far as it loses one on-street space that could be used by anyone.

In relation to (5) above, Mr Evans intimated that although there were driveways located there, it did not mean that permission was not required, in addition, Pre-Application advice had been sought in April 2019 indicating that permission would be required and that a driveway could be supported, subject to minimal intervention and retention of some garden ground.

In relation to the consultee response, Mr Evans advised that the Council’s Roads Team indicated that they had no objection to the proposal provided that the driveway complied with various standards relating to dimensions, materials and drainage. The appointed officer’s report recognised that the driveway met those requirements.

Mr Evans indicated that no representations were received.

Mr Evans then advised that the applicant had expressed the view that further procedure was not required, and that the review may proceed on the basis of their written submissions.

The Chairperson and Councillors Allan and MacKenzie advised in turn that they each had enough information before them and agreed that a site visit was not required and that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.

Mr Evans outlined in detail, the relevant policy considerations, making reference to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017, namely policy H1 (Residential Areas: Householder Development), policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and Transport and Accessibility Supplementary Guidance.

The Chairperson and Councillors Allan and MacKenzie advised in turn and unanimously agreed that the proposal was acceptable and therefore the Local Review Body’s decision was to overturn the decision of the appointed officer and approve the application unconditionally.

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 considerations 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 noted that the works in question have already been carried out and that planning permission is sought retrospectively. Members noted that the driveway would be internally drained and would meet technical specifications set out in the Council’s Transport and Accessibility Supplementary Guidance.  Whilst it was recognised that the provision of this off-street parking would result in the loss of an on-street space, and that there is a degree of conflict with policy in that respect, members were nevertheless satisfied that the proposal would not detract from the character or amenity of the street or the surrounding area. It was recognised that it would have been difficult to retain any meaningful area of the original garden ground whilst accommodating off-street parking, and also that no objection had been made by the Council’s Roads Development Management Team. The prevalence of other driveways in the surrounding area, some of which have resulted in the removal of sloping gardens and the formation of retaining walls, was considered to be such that there would be no significant adverse impact. On this basis, members considered that the proposal demonstrated sufficient compliance with the development plan, and determined that planning permission should be granted unconditionally.

- COUNCILLOR MARIE BOULTON, Chairperson