Local Review Body - 27/09/2011
At a MEETING of the LOCAL REVIEW BODY held at Dundee on 27th September, 2011.
Councillor David BOWES
Councillor Tom FERGUSON
Councillor Christina ROBERTS
Councillor David BOWES, in the Chair.
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 MINUTE OF MEETING OF LOCAL REVIEW BODY OF 23RD AUGUST, 2011
The minute of the above meeting was submitted and noted.
II LOCAL PLANNING REVIEW LR8/11
There was submitted Agenda Note AN149-2011, giving details of a request for a review of the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a 18.9m Tall Monopole supporting six Vodafone and 02 Antenna within a GRP Shroud and one Transmission Dish with Ground Level Cabinet at land to the south of 4 Explorer Road, Dundee Technology Park, Dundee.
The Planning Adviser gave a brief outline of the application and the reasons for 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 new material not before the Appointed Officer at the time of reaching his decision had been submitted with the application. The Applicant had not provided any reason why the material was not presented to the Appointed Officer but simply made a comment concerning the coverage plots in the area. The new material consisted of Coverage Plot Analysis, Photomontages and an Extract of Cushman Wakefield European Cities Report 2010.
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 was not to raise any matter which was not before the appointed person at the time the determination reviewed was made unless that party could demonstrate:-
(a) that the matter could not have been raised before that time; or
(b) 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 this 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.
It was also reported that the Report of Handling had indicated that the application did not require to be advertised. In terms of the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2008, Regulation 20(1)(d), where the application related to development which did not accord with the provisions of the development plan, the planning authority must publish a notice in the form set out in Schedule 4 to the regulations, in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the neighbouring land is situated. The Appointed Officer had concluded that the development was contrary to the development plan.
Regulation 19 of the Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2008 required that the Local Review Body must, to the extent not already done so, comply with Regulation 20 of the Management regulations. This had not been done.
The Local Review Body therefore agreed to publish a notice in the form set out in Schedule 4 to the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2008.
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. Members noted that the applicant had requested that the review be undertaken on the basis of the review documents and a site visit.
The Local Review Body considered the documentation submitted and, after discussion, agreed to request further written submissions from the applicant in respect of the undernoted matter under the provisions of Regulations 13 and 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008:-
further evidence of the efforts made with Arquiva regarding the prospects for mast sharing with Telefonica at Sidlaw House and an explanation of the reasons why an agreement had not been reached.
The Local Review Body also agreed to hold an accompanied site visit.
III LOCAL PLANNING REVIEW LR7/11
There was submitted Agenda Note AN150-2011, making reference to Article II of the minute of meeting of the Local Review Body of 23rd August, 2011, wherein details had been submitted of an application for a review of the refusal of planning permission for Change of Use from Industrial Unit to Indoor Football Centre at Unit 1, Forties Road, Baldovie Industrial Estate, Dundee.
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 13th September, 2011.
On 24th August, the Local Review Body had requested that the Head of Economic Development provide certain information concerning available units of like, type and size to those of the application in the city. This information had been provided and a copy forwarded to the Applicant's agent for comment. In his response to these comments, the Applicant raised further matters concerning traffic at the application site. A response to this was obtained from the Council's Transportation Department. This was new evidence and in terms of Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedures) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 an opportunity should be given to the Applicant and any relevant party to comment on them before the Local Review Body reached a decision.
Also on 24th August, the Local Review Body had sought information from the Applicant concerning the availability of sites within or on the edge of the City Centre or District Centres or in the designated Leisure Parks in terms of Policy 18 of the Dundee Local Plan Review 2005. The Applicant responded, and this response was forwarded to the Appointed Officer and the Head of City Development for their comments. Again, these responses provided what may be considered new evidence in terms of Regulation 17 and the Applicant, and any relevant party, should be afforded the opportunity to make further comments before the Local Review Body reach its decision.
The Local Review Body considered the documentation submitted and, after discussion, agreed to defer consideration of the application to the next meeting to allow the Applicant and any relevant party to make further comments on the new evidence submitted. It also requested further written submissions in respect of the undernoted matters under the provisions of Regulations 13 and 15 of the Town and County Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations from the Applicant:-
(i) Alternative Sites - evidence demonstrating that, within the context of Policy 18 of the Dundee Local Plan Review 2005, no suitable site was available within or on the edge of the City Centre or District Centres or in the designated Leisure Parks. This was additional to the information that has been provided by the Applicant in respect of the alternative buildings that were considered for the proposal.
(ii) Transportation - information, in addition to the Transport Statement Form submitted as part of the planning application, regarding:-
(a) the proposed number of people, including staff and visitors, that would be coming to and leaving from the development during the morning peak of 0800 and 0900 and evening peak of 1630 and 1730. The number of cars and the number of vans/deliveries arriving and leaving during these periods should also be provided;
(b) details of the pedestrian routes to the development and an assessment of any improvements that might be required;
(c) details of the location of nearby bus stops and the bus services that use these stops; and
(d) a justification for the level of car and cycle parking provision proposed.
David BOWES, Chairman.