Agenda item

Members, please access all relevant plans at the following link:-

http://planning.aberdeencity.gov.uk/PlanningDetail.asp?ref=151376

The Local Review Body 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 proposed demolition of the existing dwellinghouse and erection of three dwellinghouses at Brookfield, Land at Murtle Den Road Aberdeen, 151376.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Mr Robert Forbes and 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.

In relation to the application, the Local Review Body had before it (1) a delegated report by Mr Paul Williamson, Planning Officer, dated 9 September 2015; (2) the decision notice (3) online links to plans showing the proposal; (4) online links to planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement; and (6) representationsreceived in respect of the proposal.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Forbes, who explained that the application was for planning permission in principle for the demolition of the existing house and the construction of three new detached houses within the existing curtilage using the existing access point.  Mr Forbes outlined that the site extended to 1Hectare and comprised a detached house and associated garden ground located on the eastern side of Murtle Den Road within the green belt between Milltimber and Bieldside.  Mr Forbes advised that Murtle Den Road was a privately maintained road which offered no through route, with access and egress via a single point on North Deeside Road, which gave access to 13 substantial detached dwellings, most of which were set within extensive plots in a mature woodland setting.  The site was enclosed by mature coniferous tree belts which cast considerable shade, and the tree belt at the southern edge of the site was visible from the A93 on approaching the site from Bieldside.

Mr Forbes explained that the applicant considered that the application site no longer warranted green belt designation.  However Mr Forbes highlighted that rezoning of the land in question was not a matter which is within the remit of the LRB as it is a matter for the local plan review to consider revision of green belt boundaries.

Mr Forbes advised that the stated reason for refusal was as follows:-

(1)   That the site lay within the Green Belt which was defined to protect and enhance the landscape setting and identity of urban areas and in which there was a presumption against most kinds of development with only limited exceptions. The proposed development did not comply with any of the specified exceptions to the presumption against development within the Green Belt and therefore does not comply with Policy NE2, and could erode the character or function of the Green Space Network thus conflicting with Policy NE1 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012. If permitted, this application would create a precedent for more, similar developments to the further detriment of the objectives of the Green Belt policy.  If approved, the necessary road improvements could also result in a significant impact on the character of the area, through the provision of a widened access road, with the potential loss of a number of trees. Furthermore, the proposal was also considered to be contrary to the Supplementary Guidelines relating to the Sub-division and Redevelopment of Residential Curtilages, in that it would result in the creation of a secondary building line in a backland location which would erode the character and residential amenity of the area. 

It was noted that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes. 

In regards to representations, it was noted that three letters of representation were received, and listed below were reasons which were not covered in the report:-

(1)  The proposal development would challenge the capacity of Murtle Den Road; and

(2)  No negative visual impact.

Members were then given the opportunity to ask the Planning Adviser any questions in regards to the application.  Members asked various questions in regards to (1) the tree survey undertaken, (2) drainage; (3) use of the access road; (4) the previous application that had been submitted; (5) green belt; and (6) any material considerations.  Mr Forbes advised that in regards to the access road, Murtle Den Road is not controlled by the applicant or the Council and given that the owner of the road had objected to the development, the competency of imposing a condition requiring the road to be upgraded, as requested by the Roads consultee, is questionable.  Mr Forbes also indicated that the appellant made reference to a number of approvals in the vicinity of the site previously, however these sites were either not on the green belt or was a site released in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan for a new housing development which was assessed against a different policy context.

At this juncture, the Chairperson asked if members were happy to proceed with determining the application.  Members felt that they had sufficient information in order to reach a decision and did not require a site visit. 

Councillor Donnelly indicated that the application should be approved in principle conditionally, as each application should be considered on its own merits, and other houses had previously been built on green belt land.

Councillor Dickson indicated that he would vote to uphold the decision due to the land being on the green belt. 

Finally Councillor Milne advised that he would vote to uphold the decision as the land sits within green belt land and the planning policies were agreed by Council and remain the policies of the Council.

Following discussion of the application, two of the three Members agreed that the proposal was contrary to policy NE1 and NE2 of the Local Development Plan.  The Local Review Body therefore agreed by majority to uphold the decision of the appointed officer and refuse the application.

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(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) which required that where, in making any determination under the planning acts, regard was to be had to the provisions of the development plan and that determination should be made in accordance with the plan, so far as material to the application, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. 

-        COUNCILLOR RAMSAY MILNE, Convener