Agenda and minutes

The agenda and reports associated with this minute can be found at:-

http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=284&MId=4419&Ver=4

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 proposed erection of a 25m tall lattice tower at Prime Four, Kingwells Business Park, off A944, Kingswells.

Councillor Milne as Chairperson gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken.  He indicated that the LRB would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mr Mark Masson as regards the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Mr Nicholas Lawrence who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the 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.  He 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 regards 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 certain more general aspects relating to the procedure.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Mr Ross McMahon, Planning Trainee, dated 28 April 2016; (2) the decision notice dated 28 April 2016; (3) links to the plans showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Lawrence who advised that the Notice of Review pertains to the decision of Aberdeen City Council under Delegated Powers of the 28 April 2016 to refuse planning permission for a mobile communications tower adopting a lattice form some 25.00 meters in height to support:-

• 3 antenna;
• 3 remote radio units; and
• 2 dish antenna each measuring 300mm in diameter.

The submission also provided for three ground level cabinets all set within a 2.10 metre high fence to the north of the A944, and to the west of the C89C (Kingswells) within the north most section of the ‘Prime Four’ Business Park that is currently under construction.

Mr Lawrence made reference to the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agents, which noted that:-

• The Council failed to give any consideration to extensive pre-application discussions through processing agreement meetings;
• The Council failed to give sufficient weight to national policies and in particular
• policies on the provision of digital communications and the request of Statoil for enhanced mobile coverage;
• The Council over-stated the visual impact and had limited regard to mitigation
• provided by overhead pylons; and
• The Council incorrectly applied the No build Zone as contained within the Kingswells development Framework  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

The Local Review Body (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 request for planning permission for the erection of a farm worker’s dwelling house at Oldtown Farm, Station Road South, Peterculter.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Ms Lucy Greene and stated that although the Planning Adviser was employed by the planning authority she 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.  He emphasised that the officer would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

In relation to the application, the Local Review Body had before it (1) a delegated report by Ms Dineke Brasier, Planning Officer, dated 26 April, 2016; (2) the decision notice dated 5 May, 2016; (3) links to the plans showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement.

The LRB was then addressed by Ms Greene who provided information on the location of the farm and advised that the application site consisted of part of a field and is grassed, to the south are the farm buildings, the farm house, agricultural buildings, and steading converted into two houses and a house in the former bothy.

In relation to planning history, Ms Greene referred to the officer’s report and advised that there had been a number of applications at the farm.  Most recently, there was a refusal of planning permission for a house in the same location in 2015, which was appealed to the LRB, however the appeal was dismissed.

In relation to the proposal, Ms Greene indicated that the application was for PPiP and only the red line of the site was provided along with a statement and a labour requirement report.  The application was refused for the reasons outlined in full within the decision notice and can be summarised as follows:-

It’s not accepted that requirement for an additional dwelling on site is essential to the running of the farm, given the proximity of Peterculter.  The proposal would therefore be contrary to green belt policy and the second reason relates to the precedent that would be set which could result in a proliferation of additional housing in the green belt.

In terms of consultations, there were no objections.  The Community Council did not object to the application subject to a condition that tied the house to be occupied by an agricultural worker and that the building be finished in stone.

Ms Greene advised that the Community Council submitted a representation to the LRB which stated that it supported the rigorous application of green belt policy.  The applicant’s agent provided a response.

Ms Greene then outlined the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.