Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the third 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 alterations to the boundary wall to the front of 25 Braemar Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 191665/DPP.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Matthew Easton and reminded Members that although Mr Easton 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 Jamie Leadbeater, Planner; (2) the application dated 1 November 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 20 December 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) letters of representation submitted by the Council’s Roads Team, the Aberdeen Civic Society and two residents living in the neighbourhood of the proposed application.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Easton 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 Easton then described the site advising that was located on the south side of Braemar Place. It comprised a two storey, end-of-terrace building comprising a ground and first floor flat. The front garden featured an area of gravel with soft landscaping borders and paths. The flat to which the application related was on the first floor whereas as a separate flat known as 23 Braemar Place was on the ground floor.

He explained that Braemar Place was characterised with predominantly soft landscaped gardens set in front of two storey granite terraced flatted buildings and semi-detached houses and low-rise granite walls with gaps for gates and footpaths along front boundaries. Of the 45 homes on this stretch of Braemar Place, five had driveways.

He indicated that detailed planning permission was sought for the formation of a double driveway measuring 6m by 6m within a shared front garden space, including the removal of 5.5m of the front boundary granite wall. The existing gravel area would be used for parking.

Mr Easton outlined the appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal advising that in considering the application he found that the proposal would adversely harm the prevailing visual character of the Braemar Place street scene and neighbouring properties residential amenity, specifically as the proposed arrangement would result in increased noise disturbance to number 21, 23 and 27 Braemar Place. He indicated that residents of the street would have further to park their vehicles as a result of the driveway reducing the level of on-street parking capacity available to residents. Therefore, the proposal would fail to comply with Policy H1 (Residential Areas) and Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017. It was also found to fail to comply with the guidance on driveways for flats outwith conservation areas under Section 6.2 of the Transport & Accessibility supplementary guidance and therefore the proposal would be contrary to the aims of Policy T2 (Managing the Transport Impact of Development) in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017.

In relation to the appellants case, Mr Easton made reference to the appeal statement and highlighted the following:-

·       that there would be no adverse impact on the visual appearance of Braemar Place as a result of the driveway and that the loss of the boundary wall was not of significance;

·       that the supplementary guidance relating to the presumption against parking in the front gardens of the tenements did not apply as the building was not a tenement; and

·       that the applicant had advised that should consent be granted, an agreement would be entered into with the owner of the lower ground floor flat so that both could use the two spaces;

In relation to the consultee response, Mr Easton intimated that the Council’s Roads Team had not objected to the proposal and considered the layout of the driveway acceptable. They also advised that loose material (e.g. stone chippings) must not be used to surface the first 2 metres of driveway adjacent to the footway.

He indicated that three representations had been received, one from the Aberdeen Civic Society and two from neighbours, all of which object to the proposals. The reasons were summarised as follows:-

·       the proposal removes garden ground and boundary wall and replaces it with parked cars, affecting the character and attractiveness of the street.

·       the increase in hard surface could increase the risk of flooding; and

·       it sees the creation of private parking spaces, the use of which would be restricted, at and the expense of public on street parking which is free for anyone to use.

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 Easton 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 Policy T2 (Transport and Accessibility and its Supplementary Guidance on parking standards).

Mr Easton also highlighted that the applicant had noted several other driveways which existed on this stretch of Braemar Place and explained that there were five driveways, three of these were historic and had been around for many years, with the other two approved in 2008 and 2013, prior to the adoption of the current local development plan and guidance.

Mr Easton then responded to questions from members relating to the loss of amenity for neighbours including the loss of car parking spaces to the front of the properties and the retention of the wall.

Members agreed by a majority of two to one to reverse the decision of the appointed officer and to approve the application conditionally.

The Chairperson supported the appointed officer’s reasons to refuse the application. 

Councillors Allan and Mackenzie indicated in turn that they were minded to overturn the officer’s decision and to approve the application both advising that although one space would be lost on the street, there would be two cars taken off the street and part of the wall would be retained including soft landscaping.

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 proposal would result in one space being lost on the street but two cars would be taken off the street. The soft landscaping within the garden would be retained which would minimise any harm to the character of the street in accordance with Policy H1 (Residential Areas) and Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017.

CONDITION:(01) DRIVEWAY SURFACING

Notwithstanding approved drawing 1962-02, no development shall take place unless a revised layout drawing (showing the first 2 metres of the driveway adjacent to the public footway being surfaced in an solid surface featuring no loose material (for example stone chippings)) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter work shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Reason - to minimise the risk of loose material being deposited on the pavement or road which would be to the detriment of pedestrian and road user safety.

- COUNCILLOR MARIE BOULTON, Chairperson