Agenda item

The Local Review Body (LRB) of Aberdeen City Council met on this day to review the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request for planning permission for the erection of a two storey class 3 (Food and Drink) unit with associated car parking and works at undeveloped land to the east of 1 Mounthooly Way, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 191103/DPP.

Councillor Boulton as Chair, gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken, advising that the LRB would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mr Mark Masson with regards to the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Ms Lucy Green who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the following case under consideration this day.

The Chairperson stated that although the Planning Adviser was employed by the planning authority, she 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.

The Local Review Body was then addressed by Mr Masson, Assistant Clerk in regard to the procedure to be followed, at which time reference was made to the procedure note circulated with the papers calling the meeting and to more general aspects relating to the procedure.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Robert Forbes, Senior Planning Enforcement Officer; (2) the application dated 10 July 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 22 October 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’s agent along with an accompanying statement with further information relating to the application; and (6) letters of representation submitted by consultees.

The LRB was then addressed by Ms Green 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.

Ms Green then described the site advising that it was situated approximately 1 kilometre to the north of the city centre and comprised the vehicular access to an adjacent vacant office building, part of its parking area appears to be an emergency access to the adjacent bus depot and adjacent undeveloped land at the east end of the site.

She indicated that the site was relatively level but there was a significant change in levels at the east end of its frontage, with the undeveloped part of the site elevated about 1m to 1.5m above the public road to the south, with intervening grass slope. There was no footpath on the north side of Mounthooly Way adjacent to the east part of the site and the site levels were such that formation of a footway within the site would not be feasible.

She advised that there was no footpath connection to King Street on its northern side and no pedestrian crossing in the immediate vicinity of the site.

Ms Green then outlined the applicant’s proposal making reference to the history of the site and outlined the appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal as follows:-

·       Insufficient information – no technical assessment had been submitted in relation to noise or odour impact relating to the proposed use, which conflicted with policy H2 (Mixed Use Areas) and relative to policies NC4 Sequential Approach and Impact) and NC5 (Out of Centre Proposals) within the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 (ALDP17);

·       Design issues – the building would be unduly close to the road and therefore unduly visually prominent. There was no detailed landscaping scheme submitted as expected by policy D2 (Landscape) ALDP17. There was also no dedicated pedestrian access, appropriate servicing facilities nor mitigatory soft planting on site which demonstrated that the proposal represented overdevelopment, therefore conflicted with policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and D2; and

·       Road/Public safety – There was an absence of an acceptable pedestrian access to the site and the development would not satisfy the sustainable transport objectives of policies T2 Managing the Transport Impact of Development) and T3 (Sustainable and Active Travel).

In relation to the appellants case, Ms highlighted the following responses:-

·       Insufficient information – likely noise and/or odours would be insignificant in the context of the mix uses, given its location. The bus depot had no legal right of way over the applicant’s land, therefore is irrelevant. There would ne no impact on the vitality of the neighbouring centres;

·       Design issues – there would be sufficient room for a landscaping buffer to be incorporated into the proposals and could be addressed by a landscaping condition as was customary; and

·       Road/Public safety – pedestrian access was addressed via proposed road markings highlighting a pedestrian walkway which linked to a footpath on the southside of the site to the entrance.

In relation to the consultation submissions, Ms Green made reference to the safety concerns outlined by the Roads Team and the environmental assessments not submitted to the Environmental Health Team.

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.

Ms Green 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.

The Local Review Body then asked questions of Ms Green, specifically regarding the mixed use proposal, emergency access to the bus station and delivery access.

The Chairperson and Councillors Allan and MacKenzie advised in turn and unanimously agreed 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 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:-

(1)      Insufficient information - The acceptability of the proposal in terms of compliance with policy H2 (Mixed Use Areas) within Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 is dependent on it being demonstrated that there would be no conflict with adjacent uses. Given that no technical assessment has been submitted in relation to noise and/or odour impact relating to the proposed use, it remains to be demonstrated that the use would accord with policy H2. In light of the proposed access arrangements, whereby pedestrians would be required to cross the existing bell-mouth / vehicle egress serving the office building and the bus depot (secondary access), introduction of the additional commercial use within the site would be likely to conflict with the operation of existing authorised uses, thereby resulting in conflict with policy H2. The acceptability of the proposal in terms of assessment relative to policies NC4 (Sequential Approach and Impact) and NC5 (Out of Centre Proposals) within Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 and Scottish Planning Policy regarding Town Centres remains to be demonstrated.

(2)      Design Issues. It is considered that the building would be unduly close to the road and therefore unduly visually prominent. No detailed landscaping scheme has been submitted as expected by policy D2 (Landscape) within Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017. No soft landscaping is proposed and due to the footprint of building proposed and SUDS proposal, there would be no scope for any meaningful planting. The absence of any intervening screening or soft landscaping between the proposed building and the road is of particular concern, with the building having the appearance of being “shoe–horned” into the site. This, combined with the absence of dedicated pedestrian access, appropriate servicing facilities and mitigatory soft planting on site is considered to demonstrate that the proposal represents overdevelopment of the site and therefore conflicts with the objectives of policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and D2 (Landscape) within Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017.

(3)      Road / public safety. It is considered that the detailed pedestrian access arrangement, whereby pedestrians would be required to cross the existing bell-mouth / vehicle access / egress serving the office building and the bus depot (secondary access), the proposal would result in a conflict between existing vehicular traffic and pedestrians accessing the building with consequent risk to public safety, particularly for vulnerable pedestrians and visitors to the site. This matter is exacerbated by the absence of a footway along the site frontage, the relatively high vehicle movements on Mounthooly Way, the uncertainty regarding servicing arrangements, the proximity to a fire station and police station access and the absence of a pedestrian crossing adjacent to the site. It is considered that none of these matters can be addressed by means of imposition of condition. In the absence of an acceptable pedestrian access to the site it is considered that the development would not satisfy the sustainable transport objectives of policies T2 (Managing the Transport Impact of Development) and T3 (Sustainable and Active Travel) within Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 or the Council’s approved Local Transport Strategy.