Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the third request for a review of the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request for planning permission for the construction of a two storey four bedroom dwelling in the northern part of the site at Mossbrodiepark, Peterculter (P160180).

The Chairperson advised that the Local Review Body would again be addressed by Mr Andrew Miller and reminded members that Mr Miller 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.  Mr Miller 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 Ms Brasier, Planning Officer, dated 21 March 2016; (2) the decision notice dated 23 March 2016; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) 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) a letter of representation.

In respect of the Review, Mr Miller advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.  Mr Miller 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 Miller referred to the delegated report wherein a description of the site was provided, along with detail of the proposal, relevant planning policies and reason for refusal.

Mr Miller advised the site was covered in predominantly rough grass and a cleared area where the footings of a former steading complex have recently been excavated.  He confirmed that there was no building on the site at present.

He then advised as detailed in the delegated report that the application had been refused as the site was designated as green belt, and therefore policy NE2 (Green Belt) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (ADLP) applied.  This policy did not permit development for purposes other than those essential for agriculture, woodland and forestry, recreational uses compatible with an agricultural or natural setting, mineral extraction or restoration, or landscape renewal.  In this case, the proposal would be for the construction of an additional, new dwelling on what was promoted as a vacant site.  The planning officer had concluded that the dwelling would not be related to any existing activities within the green belt.  As such, the proposal would introduce a further, additional dweling in the green belt, increasing the amount of residential activity within this sensitive area, which was contrary to the principle of policy NE2 (Green Belt).

He went on to highlight the planning officer’s (a) response to the applicant’s view, as contained in the Notice of Review documentation, that as the dwelling would be located within the area where the footings of a former farm complex had been discovered and excavated, the proposal should be considered under exceptions NE2(3) and NE2(4) as a conversion/ extension of an existing building in the Green Belt; and (b) subsequent conclusion that the principle of the development did not comply with the policy context which would allow for the development of new housing in the Green Belt.

He advised of the applicant grounds of appeal as detailed within the Notice of Review contained within the agenda, namely that the site fell within the definition of brownfield land as provided by Scottish Planning Policy.  The site had no function and had no prospect of a return to an agricultural use given the current condition of the site.  All policies of the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council supported the reuse of brownfield land as a scarce resource.  Indeed Scottish Planning Policy 2014, which post dated the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, introduced a presumption in favour of development that contributed to sustainable development.  The reuse of brownfield land was considered to contribute to sustainable development.

The appeal site was located in a discreet location and, with the proposed enhanced landscaping provided as part of the overall scheme, the proposed house would not have a detrimental impact on the Greenbelt.  Indeed the development of a single, high quality, innovative family home, which had been designed to respond to the site and the surroundings, would result in a net environmental benefit through the reuse of derelict brownfield land which had been the subject of recent fly tipping.  The house would continue the existing development pattern of the area, that being sporadic development of single houses which have developed organically over time.  The proposed house would not have a detrimental impact on the landscape setting of the City and would not result in urban sprawl.  As such the main function of the Greenbelt remained unaffected by the proposal.  As such it was submitted that there were sufficient material planning justifications to set aside strict adherence to the Policy NE2 in this instance.

He advised that one letter of representation had been received and was included within the agenda which raised the following matters:

1. The site was located within the green belt and the new house would detrimentally affect the landscape setting of the green belt and be contrary policy NE2 (Green Belt) of the ADLP;
2. There was no existing building on the site, so the proposal could not be considered as a rehabilitation of an existing farmstead;
3. The site was identified as Green Space Network, therefore its development would erode the wildlife and landscape character of the site and would fail to comply with policy NE1 (Green Space Network) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (ALDP); and
4. The proposal would result in a loss of open space and would be contrary to policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the ALDP.

No consultation responses had been received.

Mr Miller explained that the Local Review Body if determining the Review today, required firstly to determine whether the proposal complied with policy NE2.  If the Local Review Body concluded that the principal of development be approved, he highlighted that other planning matters as detailed in the delegated report had been raised regarding the design and operation of the proposed development and would require to be considered by the Local Review Body, namely: policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design), D2 (Landscape), NE1 (Green Space Strategy), NE6 (Flooding, Drainage and Water Quality) and T2 (Managing the Transport Impact of Development).

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.

Members asked questions of Mr Miller regarding the proposed development, namely: the remains of the previous dwelling on the site; elevations of the proposed development; and level of housing supply.

All Members advised that they concurred with the concerns raised by Roads Development Management.

Following discussion, Members unanimously agreed that the site is located in the green belt where the principal of the construction of an additional dwelling would be contrary to the types of development suitable under the terms of policy NE2 (Green Belt) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and policy NE2 (Green Belt) of the Proposed Local Development Plan.  The proposal was therefore considered to be contrary to the main functions of the Green Belt, which were to preserve the landscape setting of the city and to resist urban sprawl.

The Local Review Body therefore unanimously agreed 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.