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 231380.

The LRB then considered the second request to review the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation for the refusal of the application for the change of use from class 10 (non-residential institutions) to class 4 (business); erection of replacement extension, alterations to door and associated works at Kingswells House, Skene Road, Aberdeen AB15 8PJ.

 

The Chairperson advised that Ms Lucy Greene 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, 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.  She 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; (2) an application dated 24 October 2023; (3) the decision notice dated 27 June 2024; (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; and (6) correspondence from Aberdeen City Council’s Roads Development Management Team, Waste and Recycling Team, Scottish Water and Historic Environment Scotland.

 

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.

 

Ms Greene indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal outlined in the report of handling was as follows:-

·       Change of Use was acceptable in principle;

·       Not accepted that granite structure needed to be demolished – contrary to Policy D7 – Our Granite Heritage in LDP and HEPS;

·       Proposed extension located on principal elevation, projected 10m, not subordinate, nor sufficiently high quality design, not exemplary and harmonious  – contrary to D1 & D6, Policy 7 & 14, HEPS & Managing Change: Extensions;

·       Accorded in part with Policy 9 – Empty Buildings. Due to demo & lack of biodiversity enhancement, contrary to Policy 1, 2, 3 and 12 – Zero Waste. Conflict with Managing Change – Adaptation of LBs; and

·       Road safety, due to poor visibility and no separate pedestrian route. Contrary to T2 – Sustainable Transport. Although parking provided, it could not be safely accessed.

 

Ms Greene outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review as follows:-

·       Compliance in terms of tree and natural heritage; principle of use; waste;

·       LBC 231347/LBC was refused and had been appealed to DPEA (site visit taken place, decision target 18 December);

·       Application for Class 10 (A6/0170) involved small meetings, with maximum of 12. Max people residing – 8, plus caretaker. Applicant equated this to 20 comings and goings from site, possibly more;

·       9m by 120m was required. Exiting junction could continue use. Due to sale by previous owner, ownership extended to only width of junction. Alternatives explored;

·       Heritage and Design statements covered history and background in detail;

·       Extensive justification had been given for demolition;

·       Building no longer in residential use, however, extension was domestic in scale;

·       Setting of house had completely changed with Prime Four etc;

·       Unclear why contrary to Policies 1,2,3,4,5,9, 6 or 12 – it was reuse;

·       Garage was without merit, whilst demo was least preferable, justification given;

·       Materials would be reused in retaining wall;

·       Justifications were given throughout the process and with reuse of granite the proposal complies with Policy D7, Managing Change on extensions and Historic Environment Scotland do not object to the LBC;

·       Proposal secured long term future of the building, economic implications if the building was unable to adapt. The need of the business to occupy it should be recognised; and

·       Amendments were made, including reducing the size of link and to the roof.

 

In terms of consultation, the Roads Development Management Team had  objected as access was far below current standards in terms of visibility splay onto the busy road with well used footpath and cycle path and there was a safety concern for vehicle entry and exit. There was no objection from the Waste Team or Scottish Water; there was no response from Aberdeen Airport and no comment from Kingswells Community Council.

 

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had indicated on the Notice of Review that there were new matters to be raised, however, these were comments on reasons for refusal, and would not fall into the definition of new matters. In terms of the procedure by which the review would be conducted, the applicant had expressed the view that it may proceed without site visit.

 

At this point in the proceedings, the LRB considered whether they had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review.

 

The Chairperson and Councillors Boulton, Copland, Clark and Thomson 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, Ms Greene referred to National Planning Framework 4 and the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023.

 

Ms Greene responded to various questions from members relating to extension, retaining wall and the concerns relating to the pathway and entrance/exit.

 

Members each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to reverse the appointed officer’s earlier decision. Planning permission was therefore granted conditionally.

 

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 are as follows:-

That the office use hereby granted permission would be acceptable in principle within this area zoned under Policy B2: Business Zones, within the Aberdeen Local Dvelopment Plan 2023 (ALDP).

 

The extension would be acceptable as its design would manifest an assertive contrast to the existing historic building, whilst through its scale and siting would be subservient. As such it would accord with Policy 7: Historic Assets and Places in National Planning Framework 7 (NPF4), Policy D6: Historic Environment and D7: Our Granite Heritage of the ALDP and Historic Environment Scotland’s Historic Environment Policy for Scotland and Managing Change Guidance: Extensions.

 

Vehicular access arrangements are considered acceptable, on the basis that a condition would require the closing off of the existing access across the central reservation of the A944 dual carriageway to ensure that vehicles would only be able to access and egress the site from the east bound carriageway. Pedestrian access is considered acceptable on the basis that lighting and a footpath are provided. With such conditions in place, the application would comply with Policy T2: Sustainable Transport in ALDP and  Policy 13: Sustainable Transport in NPF4.

 

CONDITIONS

 

This permission is granted subject to the following conditions.

 

(01)    DURATION OF PERMISSION

 

The development to which this notice relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date of this notice. If development has not begun at the expiration of the 3-year period, the planning permission lapses.

 

Reason - in accordance with section 58 (duration of planning permission) of the 1997 act.

 

(02)    CLOSURE OF A944 CENTRAL RESERVATION CROSSING

 

The office hereby granted permission shall not be brought into use unless the existing opening in the central reservation directly opposite (to the south of) the driveway to Kingswells House has been closed off to prevent right turning into and out of the site.

 

Reason – In the interests of road safety.

 

(03)    PEDESTRIAN FOOTPATH

 

The office hereby granted permission shall not be brought into use unless there has been laid out a pedestrian footpath alongside the access driveway serving Kingswells House, in accordance with a scheme that has been submitted to, and the approved in writing by the planning authority. Such a scheme shall include:

a)         A plan showing the route and dimensions of the path and root protection area of trees along the path route

b)         A methodology for laying a surface path using ‘no dig’ method or such other method that ensures no damage to trees;

c)          Details of surface finish to path, such as granite dust or similar.

 

Reason: In the interests of safety and encouraging sustainable travel.

 

(04)    EXTERNAL LIGHTING

 

The office hereby granted permission shall not be brought into use unless there has been provided external lighting along the pedestrian route from the A944 to the building entrance, in accordance with a scheme that has been submitted to, and the approved in writing by the planning authority. Such a scheme shall include:

a)         A site plan showing the lighting in conjunction with the pedestrian route;

b)         Details of the lighting units, for example, solar powered bollard type lights, including dimensions, finish, and manufacturer specification

c)          Details of any cabling and method of fixing to ground.

 

Reason: In the interests of safety and encouraging sustainable travel.