Agenda item

The Local Review Body 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 permissions for the proposed change of use from class 9 (residential) to class 5 (general industrial), the erection of a workshop measuring approximately 31m in length, 19m in width, 6m to eaves height and 7m to ridge height, erection of a 1.8m high palisade fence to the perimeter of the site, widening of existing access, installation of security gates and the conversion of the existing garage to form an office at Moss-side Croft, Charleston (P160131).

Councillor Milne, as Chairperson, gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken.  He indicated that the Local Review Body would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mrs Swanson, as regards the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Mr Allison, 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 Mrs Swanson, the Assistant Clerk as regards 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 Local Review Body had before it (1) a delegated report by Ms Readman, Planning Officer, dated 17 February 2016; (2) the decision notice dated 31 March 2016; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) 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.

In respect of the Review, Mr Allison advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.  Mr Allison highlighted that the applicant had asked that a site visit be undertaken by the Local Review Body prior to it determining the Review and explained that the Local Review Body was required to consider whether it had sufficient information before them to determine the review today.

Thereafter, Mr Allison referred to the delegated report wherein a description of the site was provided, along with detail of the proposal, relevant planning policies, previous planning history of the site and reason for refusal.

He advised that one letter of representation had been received which and consultation responses were detailed in the report.

Mr Allison advised that the site was designated as part of the green belt and therefore the proposal had to comply with policy NE2 of the Local Development Plan. He explained that policy NE2 stated that “no development would be permitted in the green belt for purposes other than those essential for agriculture, woodland and forestry, recreational uses compatible with an agricultural or natural setting, mineral extraction or landscape renewal.” However, he advised that the policy also included an exception which stated that “proposals for development associated with existing activities in the green belt will be permitted but only if all of the following criteria are met:

a)    The development is within the boundary of the existing activity;

b)    The development is small scale;

c)    The intensity of activity is not significantly increased;

d)    Any proposed built construction is ancillary to what exists.”

If it could be demonstrated that the proposed development complied with this exception, then the principal of development on this site might be acceptable, however the conclusion of the appointed planning officer as detailed in the delegated report was that the proposal did not comply with any of the essential activities and did not meet all of the criteria required in exception 1.

Mr Allison explained that the Local Review Body if determining the Review today, required firstly to determine whether the proposal complied with policy NE2, and if it did not, did it meet the exception 1 criteria. If the Local Review Body concluded that the principal of development be approved, he highlighted that other planning matters had been raised regarding the operation and design of the proposed development and would require to be considered by the Local Review Body.

Members asked questions of Mr Allison regarding the proposed development, namely: tree removal; intensity of activity should the proposal be approved; travel plan; road safety; scale of the proposed building and impact on character of the area.

At this point, the Local Review Body considered whether they had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review. The Local Review Body thereupon agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure. 

On discussing the proposal, the Chair advised the he was of the view that an exception to the general principles of Policy NE2 ‘Green Belt’ of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, did apply to this proposal as the green belt nature of the application site had been significantly diminished due to previous development both within this site and the immediate areas surrounding the application site.  He was also satisfied with the scale of the proposal and that it would not have an impact on the character of the area. The chair also expressed that the development would have an economic benefit to the area.

Councillor Stuart advised that he did not agree that the proposal met the requirements of the Policy NE2 or the exception and whether it had previously been brown field, or might be again, was not relevant on considering the Review as they had to consider it on the basis of the existing policies and green belt designation.

Councillor Jaffrey referred to the adjacent developments and activities and explained that she was also of the view that the exception to Policy NE2 did apply, highlighting that she was also satisfied that the nature and scale of the proposal for the area would not be out of keeping for its context. 

Following discussion of the application, one Member agreed with the decision of the appointed officer that the proposed change of use would introduce a new use to a green belt site which was not deemed ancillary, small scale or within the boundary of an existing activity. The associated built development was not in keeping with the character of the green belt, being too large for its context and of no architectural merit. Therefore, that Member agreed that the proposal was contrary to Scottish Planning Policy, Aberdeen Local Development Plan Policies D1 – Architecture and Placemaking, D6 - Landscape, NE2 – Green Belt, and Proposed Local Development Plan Policies D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design, D2 – Landscape and NE2 – Green Belt.

Whilst, the remaining two Members agreed that the proposal was not to Scottish Planning Policy, Aberdeen Local Development Plan Policies D1 – Architecture and Placemaking, D6 - Landscape, NE2 – Green Belt, and Proposed Local Development Plan Policies D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design, D2 – Landscape and NE2 – Green Belt..  The Local Review Body therefore agreed by majority that thedecision of the appointed officer to refuse the application be reversed and the application approved subject to the following conditions:

(1)          that, the proposed change of use hereby approved shall not be brought into use, and no development pursuant to the planning permission hereby approved shall be carried out, unless a further detailed scheme of landscaping for the site had been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, and thereafter the development should be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed.  The scheme should include indications of all existing trees and landscaped areas on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development, and the proposed areas of tree/shrub planting including details of numbers, densities, locations, species, sizes and stage of maturity at planting - in the interests of the amenity of the area;

(2)          that, any tree work which appeared to become necessary during the implementation of the development should not be undertaken without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority; any damage caused to trees growing on the site should be remedied in accordance with British Standard 3998: 2010 "Recommendations for Tree Work" before the building hereby approved was first occupied - in order to preserve the character and visual amenity of the area;

(3)          that all planting, seeding and turfing comprised in the approved scheme of landscaping should be carried out in the first planting season following the completion of the development and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, were removed or became seriously damaged or diseased should be replaced in the next planting season with others of a size and species similar to those originally required to be planted, or in accordance with such other scheme as might be submitted to and approved in writing for the purpose by the planning authority - in the interests of the amenity of the area;

(4)          that, the proposed change of use hereby approved should not be brought into use, and no development pursuant to the planning permission hereby approved should be carried out, unless a detailed scheme to show the existing adopted footway to the south of Wellington Road being extended and connected to the application site had been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, and thereafter the development should be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed – in the interests of suitable pedestrian connectivity;

(5)          that, the proposed change of use hereby approved should not be brought into use, and no development pursuant to the planning permission hereby approved shall be carried out, unless a Travel Plan Statement for the application site had been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, and thereafter the development should be implemented in accordance with the details so agreed – in the interests of sustainable transport methods;

(6)          that, the proposed change of use hereby approved should not be brought into use, and no development pursuant to the planning permission hereby approved shall be carried out, unless a Drainage Impact Assessment for the application site had been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, and thereafter the development should be implemented in accordance with the details so agreed – in the interests of sustainable drainage methods; and

(7)          that, the proposed change of use hereby approved should not be brought into use, and no development pursuant to the planning permission hereby approved should be carried out, unless a detailed boundary enclosure scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, and thereafter the development should be implemented in accordance with the details so agreed – in order to preserve the character and visual amenity of the area.

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 were as follows:-

The principle of the proposed change of use was considered acceptable as an exception to the general principles of Policy NE2 ‘Green Belt’ of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, in that the current green belt nature of the application site had been significantly diminished due to previous development both within this site and the immediate areas surrounding the application site.  Having direct regard for the existing development on adjacent sites, the proposed development was considered to be of an appropriate nature and scale for the area and would not be out of keeping for its context, as required by Policy D1 ‘Architecture and Placemaking’ of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan.  It would also enable economic benefit for the area in line with the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy 2014 and the Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan.