Local Review Body - 20/05/2014

At a MEETING of the LOCAL REVIEW BODY held at Dundee on 20th May, 2014.

Present:-

Councillor Craig MELVILLE (during consideration of Articles I to IV only)

Councillor Stewart HUNTER

Councillor Tom FERGUSON

Councillor David BOWES (during consideration of Article V only)

Councillor Craig MELVILLE, in the Chair during consideration of Articles I to IV, and Councillor David BOWES, in the Chair during consideration of Article V.

The Chairman welcomed those present to the meeting and briefly outlined the role of the Local Review Body and officers, in particular advising that, although the Planning Adviser was an employee of the Planning Authority, he had not been involved in the determination of the case under review and was present to provide factual information and guidance only.

I DECLARATION OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

II MINUTE OF MEETING OF LOCAL REVIEW BODY OF 22ND APRIL, 2014

The minute of the above meeting was submitted and noted.

III REQUEST FOR REVIEW - LR1/14 - 34 TO 38 CLAYPOTTS ROAD, BROUGHTY FERRY, DUNDEE

There was submitted Agenda Note AN155-2014, giving details of a request for a review of the refusal of planning permission for change of use to Hot Food Takeaway.

The Local Review Body had requested further written submissions which had been provided and circulated. It had also requested an accompanied site visit which had taken place on 6th May, 2014.

The Local Review Body noted all of the above, and agreed in terms of the Local Review Procedure Regulations, to determine the review without further procedure on the basis of the information before it.

Thereafter, having considered all the information, the Local Review Body having taken into account the provisions of the Development Plan, all material considerations, the accompanied site visit and all matters raised at the review, upheld the Appointed Officer's decision to refuse planning permission reference 1300737FULL for the following reasons:-

(a) the proposed development does not comply with Policy 28 (Public Houses, Restaurants and Hot Food Takeaways outwith the City Centre) of the Dundee Local Development Plan 2014. The proposed development fails to comply with the criteria of the Policy which requires a separation distance to neighbouring residential properties of a minimum of 30 metres. There are no material considerations of sufficient strength to justify the granting of planning permission contrary to the provisions of the Dundee Local Development Plan 2014; and

(b) the proposed development is contrary to Policy 16 of the Dundee Local Development Plan 2014. The proposed development fails to comply in respect of parking provision, traffic movement, noise and smell all of which would have a detrimental effect on the residential amenity enjoyed by neighbouring residents. There are no material considerations of sufficient strength to justify the granting of planning permission contrary to the provisions of the Dundee Local Development Plan 2014;

IV REQUEST FOR REVIEW - LR2/14 - 19 BALUNIEFIELD ROAD, DUNDEE

There was submitted Agenda Note AN156-2014, giving details of a request for a review of the refusal of planning permission for change of use from Shop Unit to Cafe/Snack Bar.

The Planning Adviser gave a brief outline of the application and the reasons for the refusal.

Thereafter, the Legal Adviser advised of the undernoted procedural/legal issues which required to be considered by the Local Review Body:-

The applicant had intimated in the Notice of Review that he had not raised any new matters in the review which were not before the Appointed Officer at the time of reaching his decision. In the grounds of appeal statement which accompanied the Notice of Review, the applicant's agent reiterated that no new evidence was being submitted as part of the review application. Reference, however, was made to SPP (2010) and, in particular, to the policies on economic development. The Appointed Officer made no mention of SPP (2010) in her Report of Handling. It was also suggested that the development could serve as a community facility which was not mentioned in the original application.

In terms of Section 43B(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended, in a review, a party to the proceedings is not to raise any matter which was not before the Appointed Officer at the time the determination reviewed was made unless that party can demonstrate either that the matter could not have been raised before that time, or that its not being raised before that time was a consequence of exceptional circumstances. If either of these tests was met then the Local Review Body should take the new information into consideration in reaching its decision.

In any event, in terms of Section 43B(2) of the 1997 Act as amended, the Local Review Body was, required, in reaching its decision, to have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and any other material considerations. Therefore, if the Local Review Body considered that the new information contained material considerations, it was required to take these into account. If not, and if neither of the criteria in terms of sub-section (1) was met, the new information should not be considered.

The Local Review Body agreed with the view of the Legal Adviser that the new material referred to in the application for review should be taken into consideration and should not be ruled out at this stage.

Thereafter, the Local Review Body considered whether it felt that it had sufficient information before it to determine the review at that time, or whether it required any further information.

The Local Review Body considered the documentation submitted and, after discussion, agreed to advise the applicant that the Local Review Body considered that the Grounds of Appeal Statement dated March, 2014 produced by Cockburn's Consultants, provided insufficient clarity and requested that he provide details and evidence of the marketing activities previously undertaken for the property and review and provide accurate distances between the property and adjacent housing.

The Local Review Body also agreed to hold an accompanied site visit on Tuesday, 3rd June, 2014 at 2.00 pm.

V REQUEST FOR REVIEW LR3/14 - 3 MAULE STREET, BROUGHTY FERRY, DUNDEE

There was submitted Agenda Note AN157-2014, giving details of a request for a review of the refusal of planning permission for Proposed Alterations and Two Storey Extension with Balcony and Dwellinghouse.

The Planning Adviser gave a brief outline of the application and the reasons for the refusal.

Thereafter, the Legal Adviser advised of the undernoted procedure/legal issues which required to be considered by the Local Review Body:-

The applicant had intimated in the Notice of Review that he had not raised any new matters in the review which were not before the Appointed Officer at the time of reaching his decision. In the grounds of appeal statement which accompanied the Notice of Review, the applicants agents identified three areas which it was submitted had properties with similar roofs to those of the proposed development. The issue of the design of the roof was clearly before the Appointed Officer in determining the application but there was no evidence that the areas referred to were.

In any event, in terms of Section 43B(2) of the 1997 Act as amended, the Local Review Body was required, in reaching its decision, to have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and any other material considerations. Therefore, if the Local Review Body considered that the new information contained material considerations, it was required to take these into account. If not, and if neither of the criteria in terms of sub-section (1) was met, the new information should not be considered.

Thereafter, the Local Review Body considered whether it felt that it had sufficient information before it to determine the review at that time, or whether it required any further information.

The Local Review Body considered the documentation submitted and, after discussion, agreed to hold an accompanied site visit on 3rd June, 2014 at 3.00 pm.

Craig MELVILLE, Chairman (Articles I to IV) and David BOWES, Chairman (Article V).

Was This Useful?