Planning Committee (including Former Development Management And Development Quality) - 17/04/2023

At a MEETING of the PLANNING COMMITTEE held remotely on 17th April, 2023.

Present:-

BAILIES

COUNCILLORS

Bailie Will DAWSON, Convener, in the Chair.

The minute of meeting of this Committee of 13th March, 2023 was held as read.

Unless marked thus * all items stand delegated.

I DECLARATION OF INTEREST

Bailie Macpherson declared an interest in Article II(a) by virtue of living within the vicinity of the proposed development, took no part in the proceedings and withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

Bailie Wright declared an interest in Article II(a) by virtue of living within the vicinity of the proposed development, took no part in the proceedings and withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

II PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(a) 22-00453-FULL - CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF FORMER TRAM DEPOT INTO A TRANSPORT MUSEUM - FORMER MARYFIELD TRAM DEPOT, 25A FORFAR ROAD, DUNDEE - FOR DUNDEE MUSEUM OF TRANSPORT

It was reported that a request had been received for a deputation to address the Committee from Paul Jennings of Dundee Museum of Transport in support of the application. Thereafter, having considered objections received, the Committee approved the application, subject to the conditions recommended by the Head of Planning and Economic Development and, in the circumstances, declined to hear the deputation.

(b) 22-00852-FULM - PROPOSED ERECTION OF A WAREHOUSE (CLASS 6) WITH ANCILLARY OFFICES, ASSOCIATED VEHICLE PARKING, VAN STORAGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE - LAND TO THE NORTH OF JACK MARTIN WAY, CLAVERHOUSE EAST INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, DUNDEE - FOR WEST RANGA PROPERTY GROUP

The Committee acceded to a request for a deputation to address the Committee from Jamie Parrat and Nigel Mann of Porter Planning in support of the above application which was recommended for approval. After the deputations had stated their cases and answered questions from members of the Committee, they were thanked for their attendance and withdrew.

Thereafter, having considered objections received, the Committee approved the application, subject to the conditions recommended by the Head of Planning and Economic Development.

(c) 22-00865-FULL - FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION TO REAR ELEVATION (WEST), 2 HOLLY CRESCENT, BROUGHTY FERRY, DUNDEE - FOR MR AND MRS IAIN WILSON

The Committee acceded to requests for deputations to address the Committee relative to objections to and in support of the application which was recommended for approval, from Agnes Ramsay and Blair Smith of Jon Frullani Architects respectively. After the deputations had stated their cases and answered questions from members of the Committee, they were thanked for their attendance and withdrew.

Thereafter, having considered objections received, the Committee approved the application, subject to the conditions recommended by the Head of Planning and Economic Development.

III PLANNING APPEAL DECISION

Planning Application 22/00533/FULL - 54B East Dock Street

There was submitted Agenda Note AN10-2023 advising the Committee that Planning Application 22/00533/FULL sought planning permission to change the use of a car wash building to a drive-thru coffee shop at 54B East Dock Street. The application was refused by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 24th October, 2022 for the following reasons:-

1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 1 of the Dundee Local Development Plan (2019) because the proposed development fails to prioritise and encourage sustainable and active travel choices, such as walking, cycling and public transport and is contrary to Criterion 3 of Appendix 1 - High Quality Design and Placemaking. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight that would justify approval of the application contrary to the Development Plan.

2. The proposal is contrary to Policy 3 of the Dundee Local Development Plan (2019) because the proposed drive-thru coffee shop use does not fall within the defined Use Classes 4, 5 and 6 that Development Plan policy aims to direct to Principal Economic Development Areas, in the interests of safeguarding employment and business land from other development pressures. The proposed development would introduce other development pressures into a Principal Economic Development Area where the Development Plan seeks to safeguard that land for employment use and this is contrary to Policy 3. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight that would justify approval of the application contrary to the Development Plan.

3. The proposal is contrary to Policy 6 of the Dundee Local Development Plan (2019) because the proposed drive-thru coffee shop is not small-scale and goes beyond the ancillary nature of complementary land uses that Policy 6 is seeking to permit in Economic Development Areas. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight that would justify approval of the application contrary to the Development Plan.

4. The proposal is contrary to Policy 21 of the Dundee Local Development Plan (2019) because it has not been reasonably demonstrated that there are no sequentially preferable options available, that the proposal would not have a significant adverse effect on the vitality or viability of the City Centre, District Centres or Commercial Centres, or that the proposal would address a deficiency in provision which cannot be met within or on the edge of these centres. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight that would justify approval of the application contrary to the Development Plan.

5. The proposal is contrary to Policy 54 of the Dundee Local Development Plan (2019) because the development would not minimise the need to travel by private car. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight that would justify approval of the application contrary to the Development Plan.

6. The proposal is contrary to Policy 56 of the Dundee Local Development Plan (2019) because the proposal is a commercial development at an out-of-town location, but does not provide covered secure cycle parking with changing facilities for employees.

Planning appeal reference PPA-180-2069 was submitted and the Reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers issued a decision on 3rd March, 2023. The Reporters decision was to DISMISS the appeal and REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION.

The Reporter reached similar conclusions to the reasons for refusal in respect of sustainable transport as it would not minimise the need to travel by private car.

The Reporter concluded that the sites use as a car wash was already non-conforming in terms of its policy designation and therefore the proposal would not have any material impact on the availability of employment land for Class 4, 5, and 6 uses.

The Reporter concluded that the whilst there was potential for use by some employees on their way to or from work nearby, this would be incidental to the main aim of capturing passing trade from the A92 and it was therefore in conflict with LDP Policy 6 as it was not a small-scale ancillary service which could be demonstrated to meet the needs of employees.

On the issue of conflict with the town centre first principle, the Reporter concluded that given the absence of any customer facilities in the proposal, it would be unlikely to draw significant trade from coffee shops within the city centre or other defined centres, or harm the vitality and viability of these centres.

When considering whether there was any support for this use in this location, the Reporter considered LDP Policy 27 and concluded that the policy intent was to support proposals of a scale and nature that would principally serve a local catchment, and hence would not be more appropriately located in an existing centre. In this case, the lack of customer facilities and the primary customer base of passing vehicular traffic means the proposal was qualitatively different from a neighbourhood coffee shop serving local demand and therefore it was not supported by LDP Policy 27.

The Reporter considered the various policies contained with the National Planning Framework 4 - adopted after the appeal was submitted - and the advice to local planning authorities contained within the Chief Planners letter. Of note was NPF4 Policy 27 which indicated that drive-thru developments would only be supported where they were specifically supported in the LDP. The Chief Planners letter advised this should not be taken as a moratorium or a ban on such developments, and the facts and circumstances of each case should be considered. In this case, the Reporter noted that the LDP neither supported nor resisted drive-thru's in themselves, which could involve a wide range of uses, not just coffee shops. But having considered the proposal against LDP Policies 6 and 27, the Reporter concluded the proposal was not actively supported by either of them due to its particular characteristics. In the absence of any other specific policy support for a development of this nature at this location, he concluded that the principle of the proposal was contrary to NPF4 Policy 27 in this respect.

Will DAWSON, Convener.