Agenda item

Members, please note that all plans and supporting documents relevant to the review can be viewed online here and by entering the application reference number 210763.

The LRB 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 change of use to form 2 residential units including formation of first floor extension above an existing single storey extension, alterations to windows and doors; formation of porches, fences with gates and associated works at 215 Stoneywood Road Aberdeen, planning reference 210763/DPP. 

The Chairperson advised that Mr Evans would again be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the following case under consideration this day and reiterated 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.  The Chairperson 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 the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council (ACC); (2) the original application dated 28 May 2021; (3) the decision notice dated 10 February 2022; (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; (6) consultee response submitted by the Roads Development Management Team (ACC), Environmental Health (ACC), Waste Strategy (ACC) and Scottish Water.

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 explained that two new roads drawing were included with the Notice of Review, which were not before the appointed officer when a decision was made.  Legal advice was sought and Members were reminded that they should only accept new information in exceptional circumstances and if the information could not have been submitted to the original planning officer.  Members agreed unanimously not to accept these two drawings as part of their consideration and determination.

Ms Evans then described the site advising that the site comprised a 1 ½ storey detached dwellinghouse and its associated grounds in an established residential area.  The building had an east facing principal elevation that fronts Stoneywood Road and there was a four-way signalised junction on the road immediately adjacent to the site.  A garage had been partially constructed in the rear grounds of the site and the site was bounded by residential dwellinghouses to the south, north and west. 

In terms of the appellant’s proposal, Mr Evans advised that detailed planning permission was sought for the change of use to form 2 residential units including formation of a first floor extension above an existing single storey extension, alterations to windows and doors, formation of porches, fences with gates and associated works.  The existing building would be substantially altered to have a singular two-storey gable roofed form with adjoining lean-to roofed front porches forward of the east elevation. The building would extend above the building and its side extension and would be 12m in width and c.9.5m in length.  The existing porch would be removed and replaced by the porches. The walls of the building would primarily be finished in white render and those of the porch would be finished in grey composite cladding. The roof would be finished in grey concrete roofing tiles and the windows and doors would be of grey uPVC. Each dwelling would be symmetrical in layout and would be c.6m in width.  Each dwelling would have its own front and private rear curtilage. The rear gardens would be soft landscaped and bounded by 1.8m timber fences. The bin stores would be located in the rear curtilage. They would have a shared parking area with an area of soft landscaping which would include the garage to the rear. A new access would be formed to the south of the building and the

existing access would be removed and become part of the curtilage of Plot B.

Mr Evans indicated that the Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal stated in the decision notice was as follows:-

1.     As a Noise Impact Assessment has not been submitted, there is insufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed dwellings and their curtilage would not be exposed to unacceptable noise levels; to assess that the dwellinghouses would be afforded acceptable levels of residential amenity; and commensurate to the scale of the development, to demonstrate that the future operation of Aberdeen International Airport would not be adversely impacted by the development by way of greater intensity of residential development within the noise contours of the airport.  As such, there is insufficient information to demonstrate accordance with Policies H1- Residential Areas, D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design, B4 – Aberdeen International Airport and T5 - Noise of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017; the Supplementary Guidance: 'Noise'; and Policies H1 - Residential Areas, D1 - Quality Placemaking, D2 - Amenity, B3 - Aberdeen International Airport and Perwinnes Radar, WB1 - Healthy Developments and WB3 - Noise of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020.

2.     The proposal would adversely affect road safety due to the new access that would be formed for the parking area in that:

(i)              The new access would cross the bicycle stop-line of a highly trafficked signalised junction, which would be hazardous in that it would require vehicles to access the road over a bicycle stop-line;

(ii)             It would require an extended section of dropped kerb adjacent to an existing pedestrian crossing which would be hazardous for pedestrians; and

(iii)            It would create a hazard for vehicles travelling southbound, particularly those which will have just turned onto the Stoneywood Road.  There would also be insufficient space for southbound vehicles to turn west to access the site because of the proximity to the pedestrian crossing and the junction with Stoneywood Terrace to the north. Waiting in this area would cause congestion by preventing the free flow of traffic for other southbound vehicles through the junction. As such, the proposal would adversely impact road safety and cause traffic congestion within the local transport network. As such, the proposal would conflict with Policy T2 - Managing the Transport Impact of Development and Policy T2 - Sustainable Transport of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

Mr Evans outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review as follows:-

·       Notes that a shop previously stood to the south of the cottage at 215 Stoneywood Road however that had been demolished;

·       Notes that the existing site access is of long standing and existed prior to the installation of traffic signals, crossing or bike lanes;

·       Contends that a Noise Impact Assessment was never sought by the planning authority when assessing earlier applications for change of use (from dwellinghouse to guest house or House in Multiple Occupation) but nevertheless feel that concerns around noise can be addressed by carrying out a Noise Impact Assessment and via the design and materials employed;

·       Highlights that a number of new domestic, commercial and educational developments have been constructed within the same area subject to airport noise;

·       Explains that the existing access, which pre-dates the installation of traffic signals, is difficult to use as a vehicle exiting is not aware which phase the lights are at and it is also very tight to manoeuvre;

·       Considers the proposed access to be an improvement on the current arrangement and notes that other live permissions would increase the number of vehicles using the existing access

·       Highlights that efforts were made to discuss the access with officers and to find a solution but no agreement could be reached; and

·       Asks that members visit the site to see first hand the benefit of the proposed new access.

Mr Evans advised that various consultee responses were received including Roads Development Management Team (ACC), Environmental Health (ACC), Waste Strategy (ACC) and Scottish Water.

Mr Evans advised that the applicant had expressed the view that the review may proceed on the basis of the information provided.

The Chairperson and Councillors Bell and Henrickson all indicated in turn that they each had enough information before them and therefore agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without any further procedure.

In terms of relevant policy considerations, Mr Evans referred to the following in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017:-

·       Policy H1 - Residential Areas

·       Policy B4 – Aberdeen Airport

·       Policy D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design

·       Policy NE6 - Flooding, Drainage and Water Quality

·       Policy R6 - Waste Management Requirements for New Development

·       Policy R7 - Low and Zero Carbon Buildings and Water Efficiency

·       Policy T2 - Managing the Transport Impact of Development

·       Policy T3 - Sustainable and Active Travel

·       Policy T5 – Noise

·       Policy CI1 - Digital Infrastructure

Mr Evans responded to questions from the Members in relation to noise and the lack of a Noise Impact Assessment, road safety concerns and also the new proposed access to the properties.

The Chairperson and Councillors Bell and Henrickson each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to uphold the appointed officer’s earlier decision to refuse the planning permission.

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)  As a Noise Impact Assessment has not been submitted, there is insufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed dwellings and their curtilage would not be exposed to unacceptable noise levels; to assess that the dwellinghouses would be afforded acceptable levels of residential amenity; and commensurate to the scale of the development, to demonstrate that the future operation of Aberdeen International Airport would not be adversely impacted by the development by way of greater intensity of residential development within the noise contours of the airport.

As such, there is insufficient information to demonstrate accordance with Policies H1 - Residential Areas, D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design, B4 – Aberdeen International Airport and T5 - Noise of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017; the Supplementary Guidance: 'Noise'; and Policies H1 - Residential Areas, D1 - Quality Placemaking, D2 - Amenity, B3 - Aberdeen International Airport and Perwinnes Radar, WB1 - Healthy Developments and WB3 - Noise of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020.

(2)  The proposal would adversely affect road safety due to the new access that would be formed for the parking area in that:

(i)              The new access would cross the bicycle stop-line of a highly trafficked signalised junction, which would be hazardous in that it would require vehicles to access the road over a bicycle stop-line;

(ii)             It would require an extended section of dropped kerb adjacent to an existing pedestrian crossing which would be hazardous for pedestrians; and

(iii)            It would create a hazard for vehicles travelling southbound, particularly those which will have just turned onto the Stoneywood Road.

There would also be insufficient space for southbound vehicles to turn west to access the site because of the proximity to the pedestrian crossing and the junction with Stoneywood Terrace to the north. Waiting in this area would cause congestion by preventing the free flow of traffic for other southbound vehicles through the junction.   As such, the proposal would adversely impact road safety and cause traffic congestion within the local transport network. As such, the proposal would conflict with Policy T2 - Managing the Transport Impact of Development and Policy T2 - Sustainable Transport of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan