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 241146.

The LRB then considered the third 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 formation of a car park at The James Hutton Institute, Countesswells Road, Aberdeen AB15 8QH. Planning Reference Number 241146.

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.  He 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 draft delegated report by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 29 September 2024; (3)  the Decision Notice dated 27 May 2025; (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the draft delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant/agent; and (6) consultee responses from the Council’s Roads Development Management Team and Craigiebuckler and Seafield Community Council and two letters of representation objecting to the application.

Ms Greene then described the site including planning history and outlined the appellant’s proposal for detailed planning permission.

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

·       Tackling climate crisis, giving significant weight – Policy 1;

·       Forming car park with no new development – increasing use of cars and not public transport, walking, cycling etc;

·       Principle of a development that supported the Institute and Just Transition Hub;

·       Impact on open space & biodiversity and character and visual amenity of area

·       Car park on open space and not associated with new development was contrary to giving significant weight to climate and nature crisis and conflicted with Policy 2 on Climate Mitigation which required siting and design to minimise emissions;

·       Insufficient evidence car park was needed to address existing or future requirements. Encouraged car travel and not sustainable options T3, T2 & 13

·       Car park resulted in loss of open space, as amenity, biodiversity and landscape – conflicted with Policy 20 on Green & Blue infrastructure, and NE2 on same;

·       Although not prominent, hardcore with no soft & hard landscaping conflicted with policies on Design and Landscape Design; and

·       Biodiversity enhancements in wider area, car park was permanent loss of open space – conflict with Policy 3 of NPF4.

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

·       Application of policies on Climate and Nature Crises and Mitigation was disproportionate. NPF4 should be considered as whole;

·       Rigid stance on sustainable travel and parking policies;

·       Limited consideration of benefits – parking for dog walkers, nursery and scout hut as well as over flow for events at Just Transition Hub;

·       Car park would prevent on street parking;

·       Area had not been used as open space or public amenity, was used for storage, was inconspicuous;

·       Landscaping and biodiversity could be incorporated; and

·       Site was used for temporary parking during access road development - also used by community.

Ms Greene provided information on the consultee responses and letters of representation which all objected to the proposal and were submitted with the papers.

In terms of procedure by which the review would be conducted, Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that the review may proceed on the basis of the documents submitted.

The Chairperson and Councillors Boulton, Lawrence and Macdonald 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 the National Planning Framework 4 and the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023.

Ms Greene responded to questions from members relating to public transport in the area, whether the Institute has a travel policy for staff, and whether a survey had been undertaken in terms of car space usage (arrivals and departures within the car park).

Members each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to uphold the appointed officers earlier decision. Planning permission was therefore refused.

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 –

The formation of a car park not associated with any new development on an area of informal open space, conflicts with the requirements of Policy 1 (Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), which requires significant weight to be given to the global climate and nature crises. It furthermore conflicts with Policy 2 (Climate Mitigation and Adaptation), which requires development proposals to be sited and designed to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible.

The proposal comprises a permanent car park not associated with any new development, in direct conflict with Policy T3 (Parking) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that it is necessary to address existing and future transport requirements, taking into account the requirement of Policy 13 (Sustainable Transport) of NPF4 for proposals to be considered in line with the sustainable and active travel hierarchy, which promotes walking, wheeling, cycling, public transport and shared transport options in preference to single occupancy private car use for the movement of people. Commensurate with its scale, the proposal incentivises and thus likely increases reliance on private car travel to the surrounding uses, disincentivising the use of more sustainable modes of travel, including local public transport.

The development therefore conflicts with Policy 13 (Sustainable Transport) of NPF4 and Policy T2 (Sustainable Transport) of the ALDP.

The car park results in the loss of the open space as a public amenity, which supported local biodiversity and contributed to the local landscape character, in conflict with the aims of Policy 20 (Blue and Green Infrastructure) of NPF4 and Policy NE2 (Green and Blue Infrastructure) of the ALDP.

Whilst the site is not in a prominent location, the absence of soft and hard landscape design, and the finish in hardcore aggregate and mats, have an informal appearance that detract from the visual amenity of the area, in conflict with the aims of Policies 14 (Design, Quality and Place) of NPF4, and Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking) and D5 (Landscape Design) of the ALDP. Despite other biodiversity enhancements taking place on the James Hutton Institute unrelated to this development, the car park results in the permanent loss of open space, to the detriment of

biodiversity. Proportionate to the scale of the development, the proposal conflicts with the aims of Policy 3 (Biodiversity) of NPF4.

-       COUNCILLOR CIARAN MCRAE, Chairperson