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 extension of the existing residential building to form two additional flats at Bleachfield House, Grandholm Drive, Aberdeen, AB22 8AA (P160813).

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 Easton, 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 Mr Andrew Miller, Planning Officer; (2) the decision notice dated 19 August 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) letter of representation and consultation responses.

In respect of the Review, Mr Easton advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.  Mr Easton 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 Easton 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, and it along with consultation responses received were detailed in the report and copies contained in the agenda. Mr Easton then took Members through the plans showing the existing building and the proposed development.

The statement from the applicant’s agent which accompanied the Notice of Review expressed the following points:

• The refusal notice stated that the proposed development would result in an unjustified and unsustainable urban sprawl, however the statement explained why they believed that the proposed development did not constitute urban sprawl and did not spread into what used to be countryside;
• Although within the Greenbelt (NE2) and Green Space Network (NE1 ), the land on which the proposed building footprint was sited had no inherent ecological or agricultural value, it currently consisted of a gravel driveway and two profiled metal sheet sheds;
• The land was privately owned and not accessible to the public;
• The existing building was underused and in need of repair;
• The proposed extension comprised of a traditional building form, with reference taken from the existing building. Traditional materials had been proposed which were to match the existing on a like for like basis;
• The proposal did not dominate the existing appearance as stated in the refusal, in contrast, it was believed that the proposed extension was subservient to the existing building. The proposed dimensions relating to height, width and length of the extension were less than those of the existing building;
• SEPA had no objection to the planning application on flood risk grounds. There were records of flooding in the area, although there were no records of flooding at the site;
• With reference to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and SEA Environmental Report, there were sites that have been identified for Greenfield Development. There were Greenfield Development Housing Allowances located in Grandhome. The proposed site was to the north of the River Don. It was noted that significant land allocations had been made to the area north of the River. The Plan allocated sites for more than 7,000 homes in Bridge of Don and Grandhome; and
• The existing building was in poor condition and in need of repair. The proposals provided an opportunity to repair and develop the site and add real value. There were allocations for Greenfield development in the area; and

On the basis of the above points, the applicant’s agent believed that the proposals should be welcomed and supported.

The delegated report advised that the stated reason for refusal of planning permission was as follows:-

The extension of this building, to provide two additional flats, within a Green Belt setting would result an unjustified and unsustainable urban sprawl out with appropriate locations (including brownfield land) as designated in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (ALDP) 2012. The proposal would also result in the inappropriately designed extension of an existing traditional building that would sit uncomfortably with the existing form and dominate its appearance, detracting from its setting. The proposal therefore does not comply with Policies NE2 (Green Belt) and D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) of the ALDP 2012 and Policies NE2 (Green Belt) and D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design of the Proposed ALDP 2015. In addition, a Flood Risk Assessment was requested but not provided and due to the unknown impact of flooding on the proposed development, the proposals were considered to fail to comply with policy NE6 (Flooding and Drainage) of the ALDP 2012, and NE6 (Flooding, Drainage and Water Quality) of the Proposed ALDP 2015.

Mr Easton 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 Easton regarding the proposed development, namely: the design of previous planning applications for the property; whether a flood risk assessment had been submitted; and how far the building was from the river in light of the consultation response from SEPA.

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, all three Members agreed that the extension of the building, to provide two additional flats, within a Green Belt setting would result an unjustified and unsustainable urban sprawl out with appropriate locations (including brownfield land) as designated in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (ALDP) 2012. The proposal would also result in the inappropriately designed extension of an existing traditional building that would sit uncomfortably with the existing form and dominate its appearance, detracting from its setting. The proposal therefore did not comply with Policies NE2 (Green Belt) and D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) of the ALDP 2012 and Policies NE2 (Green Belt) and D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design of the Proposed ALDP 2015.

In addition, Members noted that a Flood Risk Assessment had been requested but not provided and therefore agreed that due to the unknown impact of flooding on the proposed development, the proposals were considered to fail to comply with policy NE6 (Flooding and Drainage) of the ALDP 2012, and NE6 (Flooding, Drainage and Water Quality) of the Proposed ALDP 2015.

On this basis, 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 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.