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 erection of a coffee shop with ‘drive-thru’ (sui generis) and associated infrastructure and landscaping works at Site 2, Intown Road, Broadfold Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 191277. 

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 Jane Forbes, Planner; (2) the application dated 29 January 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 5 March 2020 (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 agent along with an accompanying statement; and (6) letters of representation from consultees.

The Local Review Body then heard from Mr Evans, who explained 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 situated to the northern side of Broadfold Road, Bridge of Don, and was bounded on its eastern and northern sides by ‘Intown Road’. The busy A956/Ellon Road lay circa 30m east, to the other side of a belt of trees and running parallel to Intown Road. The site extended to 0.28ha (2800sqm) and previously formed part of a larger site which was the premises of a car sales garage and repair/servicing workshop, prior to the site being cleared and separated into two units of roughly equal size, with the other side being developed as a hot-food restaurant and drive-through. To the west of the site was a neighbouring industrial building and associated yard area. Whilst to the north, on the other side of Intown Road, is the BOC gas depot. The site lay within an area zoned for principally business and industrial uses, where policy B1 would apply.

Mr Evans referred to therelevant planning history both on the entirety of the former car garage premises and on the adjoining ‘half’ formed through subdivision of the larger plot.

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

·     Conflicted with policy B1 on the basis that it would not be ancillary to business/industrial use and would serve a wider catchment including passing vehicle traffic on Ellon Road (A956);

·     No evidence provided to demonstrate compliance with NC4 and NC5, relating to the location of significant footfall generating developments;

·     Recognised that the site was accessible by sustainable means, per T3, and satisfies policies D1, R6 & NE6 on technical matters; and

·     Noted that problems with traffic flow issues around the Ellon Road/Broadfold Road and Broadfold Road/Intown Road junctions persist, in spite of junction upgrades and introduction of waiting restrictions and before the consented drive through next door had begun operating – conflict with T2

Mr Evans highlighted the following key points from the appellant’s review statement:-

• Recognised that the proposal does not strictly comply with policy B1;
• Contended that the proposal would serve a function ancillary to the business/industrial area and other material considerations outweigh that policy;
• Pointed to substantial amount of vacant space within the business/industrial area and slow take-up;
• Significant employment supply across the city (surplus);
• Visual benefit in removing gap site and utilising brownfield land for development;
• Creation of employment opportunities and economic benefit;
• Site was too small to be viable for business/industrial uses;
• Site marketed since 2012 with no interest for business use;
• Submissions demonstrated local road network had been improved to accommodate this development which the Council’s Roads team consider acceptable;
• Use would support existing businesses and enhance appeal of remaining vacant business land;
• Contended that the use was not a destination, and would operate more like a local convenience facility;
• Pointed to similar approvals (adjoining site and others in B1 areas); and
• Contended that a review of alternative sites per policies NC4 and NC5 was not required.

In relation to the consultee response, Mr Evans advised that the Roads Management Team had no objection. They sought additional analysis of the development’s impact on the operation of the Broadfold Road /Intown Road junction and were satisfied with the submission made. Earlier concerns regarding servicing/access arrangements had been addressed through agreement of a revised servicing strategy. Recommended that submission of a travel plan and details of staff cycle parking to be subject to conditions.

Bridge of Don Community Council objected to the proposal for the following reasons:-

·     Exacerbation of existing traffic flow problems at Broadfold Road/Ellon Road and Broadfold Road/Intown Road junctions;

·     Related safety concerns;

·     Noted that works already undertaken in relation to the approved KFC on Intown Road had failed to address problems at these junctions, without that unit ever having been brought into use. It was therefore assumed that the problem would be exacerbated when that unit, and potentially the one before the LRB, was operational;

·     Highlighted that the desk-based assessment undertaken by Roads officers did not reflect the real conditions observed at the junctions in question;

·     Highlighted inconsistency between applicants insistence that many users would travel on foot or by other means of sustainable transport and that vehicular traffic will be low with the inclusion of drive through facilities; and

·     Warned that roads assessments also indicated that McDonalds would operate within junction capacity, but problems were observed immediately.

The Chairperson and Councillors Henrickson and Macdonald 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 B1(Business and Industrial Land), Policy NC4 (Sequential Approach and Impact); Policy NC5 (Out of Centre Proposals); Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design);Policy T2 (Managing the Transport Impact of Development); Policy T3 (Sustainable and Active Travel); Policy R6 (Waste Management Requirements for New Development); Supplementary Guidance: Transport and Accessibility

In addition to the relevant policies from the local development plan, Mr Evans indicated that the following would be material considerations:-

·       Scottish Development Plan - sustainable economic growth, using resources more efficiently and effectively; and 

·       Scottish Planning Policy – requirement to protect town centres.

The Local Review Body members asked questions of Mr Evans in regard to the application, specifically relating to the history of the site, traffic flow in terms of the photographs submitted by the community council.

The Chairperson and Councillors Henrickson and Macdonald 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:-

The proposed development fails to comply with the requirements of Policy B1 (Business and Industrial Land) of the Aberdeen City Local Development Plan in as far as it does not constitute a business or industrial use or a use that could be considered ancillary to other uses within the surrounding business park. By its very nature, the main focus of a drive-thru coffee shop is typically to serve and attract passing trade, and in particular, given the site location, this would be in the form of vehicular users of the A956 Ellon Road dual carriageway, from which the site is accessed. On this basis the proposed development would not deliver a use aimed primarily at meeting the needs of businesses and employees within the surrounding business and industrial area, but would clearly aim to serve a customer base from a far wider area.

The proposal also fails to address the requirements of Policy NC4 (Sequential Approach and Impact) and Policy NC5 (Out of Centre Proposals) of the Aberdeen City Local Development Plan. It has not been demonstrated that any consideration has been given to locating the proposed development at an alternative site within a designated centre, or that there is any proven deficiency in provision of the kind of development proposed. Moreover, rather than complementing a similar existing use within a designated centre as required under Policy NC5, it is considered that the proposal would likely be in direct competition and as such have the potential to affect the vitality/viability of such centres.

In recognising that the site is located adjacent to one of the main thoroughfares in/out of the city and that the proposed development would serve a customer base beyond that of the surrounding business and industrial area, it is acknowledged that this location allows for access by public transport, cyclists and pedestrians. As such it is deemed suitably compliant with Policy T3 (Sustainable and Active Travel) of the Aberdeen City Local Development Plan. The proposed development would, by its very nature, generate additional traffic. Recent upgrading of the Ellon Road/Broadfold Road/Intown Road junction layout does not appear to have addressed ongoing traffic flow problems at this road junction, as acknowledged by the applicant within the Transport Statement Addendum. The statement advises that the introduction of no waiting restrictions along the northern side of Broadfold Road would address such problems, and allow the Intown Road/Broadfold Road junction to operate within capacity. The traffic modelling undertaken assumed the parking restrictions had already been introduced. However, with the waiting restrictions now in place, and notwithstanding the comments by the Roads Development Management Team, it is apparent from on-site observations that the traffic flow problems around the Ellon Road/Broadfold Road/Intown Road junction remain. These traffic issues have been outlined in some detail by the Bridge of Don Community Council, whilst also experienced on a number of site visits undertaken by the case officer. Problems relating to traffic flow continue to occur, regardless of the junction upgrades and the introduction of waiting restrictions, and as such, cannot be overlooked in the Council's determination of the application. Taking all of the above into account, and bearing in mind that the recently consented fast-food drive-thru which immediately neighbours the application site is not yet operational, it is considered that the proposed development would likely exacerbate existing traffic congestion in the vicinity of the site and as such the proposal does not fully address the expectations of Policy T2 (Managing the Transport Impact of Development).

It is acknowledged that the design, scale and finish of the proposed development may not raise specific concerns. Similarly matters including site drainage and waste management arrangements have been suitably addressed. However, whilst the requirements of Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design), R6 (Waste Management Requirements for New Developments) and NE6 (Flooding, Drainage & Water Quality) may have been suitably addressed, compliance with such policy cannot be viewed in isolation nor outweigh the issue of principle in this instance. There are no material considerations identified, including evaluation under the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020, that would outweigh the above policy position or justify approval of the application.

-         COUNCILLOR MARIE BOULTON, Chairperson