Agenda item

With reference to article 11 of the minute of its meeting of 8 October 2014, the Council had before it a report by the Development Management Manager in relation to the proposed residential-led, mixed use development at Aberdeen Local Development Plan Site OP58, Countesswells, lying west of Hazlehead Park.  At its meeting in October 2014, Council had agreed a willingness to grant conditional approval to the application, but to withhold issue of the consent document until the applicant had entered into a legal agreement with the Council to address the following matters:-

(i)        The provision of 25% affordable housing on site in accordance with the Development Framework, including a range of delivery options, including contributions towards a gypsy traveller halting site;

(ii)       Developer contributions towards primary education provision (one two stream and one three stream school) and a new secondary school plus serviced land for the foregoing;

(iii)     Developer contributions towards community facilities, a library, sports provision, playing fields and healthcare;

(iv)     Developer contributions towards the Strategic Transport Fund;

(v)       Developer contributions towards mitigation on the local roads network, together with provision of infrastructure; and

(vi)     Developer contributions towards the Core Paths Network.

The report advised that since that time, the three developers involved in the Countesswells site had been unable to reach agreement on a consortium approach to delivery of the development.  Stuart Milne Group had therefore requested that the permission in principle be issued with suspensive conditions securing the delivery of the infrastructure for the development.  It was suggested that in order to allow substantial progress in the short term once planning permission in principle was granted that separate Section 75 agreements might be necessary.

The report recommended:-

that Members agree to a willingness to approve the application, subject to all the conditions listed within the circulated report to Council, but to withhold the issue of the decision notice until such time as either one, two or all of the collective Consortium Members had signed up to a Section 75 relating to the provision of contributions towards affordable housing, a gypsy traveller halting site, primary and secondary education, core paths, the Strategic Transport Fund and Healthcare, and the agreement or agreements had subsequently been registered.

Councillor Milne moved, seconded by Councillor Young:-

That Council recognises that the Countesswells Consortium (the applicant for the Aberdeen Local Development Plan Site OP58, Countesswells lying west of Hazlehead Park planning application), already enjoys a willingness to approve in respect of this application, subject to conditions and to the signing of a Section 75 agreement to secure essential but very costly infrastructure, a substantial part of the cost of which the Council could now be exposed to if the conditional consents now proposed were to be successfully challenged.

Council, without rescinding the willingness to approve, agrees to refuse the current proposal to approve the application subject to condition but without the protection of a legally binding Section 75 agreement. 

Council further instructs officers to:-

(a)   work with the applicant to obtain the executive of the Section 75 agreement by the consortium and all relevant associated parties;

(b)   reiterate advice given to the principal member of the consortium previously, that, should early agreement on the Section 75 agreement not be reached, the Council would consider a separate new application for the land within the principal party’s control;

(c)    pursue these options as a matter of utmost urgency; and

(d)   report back to the Group Leaders, the Conveners of Finance, Policy and Resources; Communities, Housing and Infrastructure; and Planning Development Management Committees, and to appropriate Committee(s) / full Council on progress in the delivery of the development of this strategically important site.

Councillor Boulton moved as an amendment, seconded by Councillor Thomson:-

            That Council:-

(i)            note the report;  and

(ii)          instruct officers to proceed with the existing approval of October 2014 and agreed Section 75.

Councillor Yuill moved as a further amendment, seconded by Councillor Malone:-

That Council refuse the application on the grounds that the surrounding roads infrastructure was currently unable to support the proposed development, and due to the impact on the education infrastructure.

There being a motion and two amendments, the Council first divided between the amendment by Councillor Boulton and the amendment by Councillor Yuill.

On a division, there voted:-

For the amendment by Councillor Boulton (21) – Lord Provost; Depute Provost; and Councillors Allan, Boulton, Cameron, Cooney, Copland, Dickson, Donnelly, Jackie Dunbar, Finlayson, Flynn, Ironside, Kiddie, Laing, MacGregor, Malik, Samarai, Taylor, Thomson and Townson.

For the amendment by Councillor Yuill (5) – Councillors Delaney, Greig, Malone, Jennifer Stewart and Yuill.

Declined to vote (10) – Councillors Carle, Crockett, Lesley Dunbar, Graham, Grant, Lawrence, Milne, Jean Morrison, Nathan Morrison and Young.

The Council then divided between the motion and the amendment by Councillor Boulton.

For the motion (18) – Lord Provost; and Councillors Carle, Corall, Crockett, Donnelly, Lesley Dunbar, Graham, Grant, Ironside, Kiddie, Lawrence, Malik, Milne, Jean Morrison, Nathan Morrison, Sandy Stuart, Taylor and Young.

For the amendment by Councillor Boulton (19) – Depute Provost; and Councillors Allan, Boulton, Cameron, Cooney, Copland, Delaney, Dickson, Jackie Dunbar, Finlayson, Flynn, Greig, Laing, MacGregor, Malone, Samarai, Thomson, Townson and Yuill.

Declined to vote (1) – Councillor Jennifer Stewart.

The Council resolved:-

to adopt the amendment by Councillor Boulton.