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 formation of a driveway at 90 Polwarth Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 191406/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 Mr  Gavin Evans 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, 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.

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 Roy Brown, Planning Trainee; (2) the application dated 13 September 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 12 February 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 applicant along with an accompanying statement with further information relating to the application; and (6) letters of representation submitted by the Roads Management Team and members of the public.

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 located on the southern side of Polwarth Road, and comprised a ground floor flat within a two-storey, four-in-a-block building with front and rear gardens. The area was predominantly residential in character and was zoned within an H1 Residential Area in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan. Such four-in-a-block properties did not generally have access to their own driveways and were reliant on on-street car parking. The site was not within a controlled parking zone and the officer’s report noted the presence of a streetlight on the footway.

The Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal were as follows:-

·       Road safety: Driveway of insufficient depth to allow for parking at right-angle to the road without vehicles overhanging the pavement, contrary to requirements of Transport and Accessibility Supplementary Guidance. If vehicles parked parallel to the road, visibility would not be adequate on exiting driveway;

·       Amenity: Removal of front garden and loss of enclosure would be detrimental to character and visual amenity of surrounding area, in conflict with policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and H1 (Residential Areas);

·       Loss of on-street parking: Proposal would result in loss of up to 3 public on-street spaces. Decision notice highlighted lack of off-street parking for 4-in-a-block properties on south side of Polwarth Road (and consequent reliance on on-street spaces), and identifies conflict with Transport and Accessibility Supplementary Guidance; and

·       Precedent: Highlighted potential cumulative effect of similar proposals in terms of impact on pedestrian safety, removal of on-street spaces in an area of high demand and visual/amenity impact arising from loss of front gardens.

The appellant had submitted a statement in support of the application for Local Review, and Mr Evans referred directly to the reasons for refusal and the main points put forward were as follows:-

• Contended that similar properties of the same type in Torry had smaller driveways than that which was proposed. Provided photographs of examples;
• Argued that a new housing development ‘round the corner’ on Walker gardens had changed the character of the area;
• Highlighted that there were driveways on the north side of Polwarth Road; and
• Contended that the formation of a new dropped kerb would remove less than 1 car length from the street available for on-street parking.

In relation to consultee and representation submissions, Mr Evans made reference to the following:-

·       Roads Development Management Team – Recommended refusal of the application: Highlighted inadequate length, contrary to Council guidance, which would risk parked vehicles overhanging the footway, presenting a hazard for pedestrians;

·       Four representations received, including one from Aberdeen Civic Society, all objecting to the proposal. Reasons given included:-

-          Safety concerns, for both pedestrians when vehicles crossing the footway and for other vehicles – highlighted previous accidents on this road;

-          Loss of public parking space on a road where it was in high demand; and

-          Removal of boundary enclosure would have an adverse impact on streetscape and approval would set a poor precedent for the wider area.

The Chairperson and Councillors Bell 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 highlighted the relevant policy considerations, making reference to the following:-

·      the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 - H1 – Residential Areas: Householder Development;

·      Transport and Accessibility Supplementary Guidance;

·      D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design.

Mr Evans 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 Mr Evans, specifically regarding parking issues and road safety concerns.

The Chairperson and Councillors Bell and Mackenzie each 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:-

Road Safety: The proposed driveway would have a significant adverse impact to the level of public safety in the surrounding area. This is because if cars were parked at a right angle to the road, the driveway would not be of an adequate length to prevent vehicles overhanging the footway, which would be detrimental to pedestrian safety, particularly to children and those with a disability. The approximate 3.9m length of the driveway would conflict with the Supplementary Guidance: 'Transport and Accessibility' as it would be less than 5m. If cars were parked parallel to the road, there would not be an adequate level of visibility between vehicles exiting the driveway, pedestrians on the footway and other vehicles, which would also be to the detriment of public safety.

Amenity: The proposed driveway would result in the removal of a significant area of the front garden of the property and loss of enclosure, which would be detrimental to the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area, in conflict with Policies D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design and H1 - Residential Areas of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

Loss of Public Parking Provision: The proposal would result in the loss of up to approximately 3 public on-street parking spaces (if a vehicle on the driveway was parallel parked). Given none of the four-in-a-block properties to the south of Polwarth Road have off-street parking provision, the loss of these spaces would decrease the supply of on-street parking provision for a street with a high demand for such. It would result in the neighbouring properties in the block not being able to park adjacent to their property, in conflict with the Supplementary Guidance: 'Transport and Accessibility'. This would be detrimental to the level of amenity afforded to the surrounding area.

Precedent: The proposed driveway would be likely to set an unwelcome precedent for similar driveways which cumulatively would significantly adversely affect public safety; result in the further reduction of on-street parking provision on a street where there is a high demand for it; and result in the loss of soft landscaped front curtilage in the front of the four-in-a-block properties on Polwarth Road, which would be significantly detrimental to the character and the visual amenity of the surrounding area.