Agenda item

Members, please note that you are reviewing the decision of the case officer to refuse the above application.

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 permission for the change of use from general industrial (Class 5) to an indoor trampoline centre (Class 11) at Craigshaw Road, Tullos, Aberdeen, AB12 3AP (P161212).

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 Williamson, 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 report of handling by Ms Dineke Brasier, Planning Officer; (2) the decision notice dated 23 December 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, documents and initial planning application; and (6) thirty letters of representation and consultation responses.

In respect of the Review, Mr Williamson advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.  Mr Williamson highlighted that the applicant had asked that the review procedure include one or more hearing sessions, combined with further written submissions.  prior to the Local Review Body 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 Williamson referred to the delegated report wherein a description of the site was provided, along with detail of the proposal, relevant planning policies, the history of the site and reason for refusal. He highlighted that the proposals sought to obtain permission to change the use of the property which had been vacant for 5 years, to use as a trampoline centre.  Physical alterations to the host property would be relatively minimal, apart from the provision of an oversheet of new goosewing grey cladding, and the internal provision of the trampoline equipment.

He then advised that thirty letters of representation had been received, and those along with consultation responses received were detailed in the report and copies contained in the agenda. In respect of consultation responses, no objections were received, although Roads Officers indicated some concerns relating to walking and cycling routes; availability of public transport, and the need for provision on site for accessible parking, and cycle storage facilities.  Mr Williamson then took Members through the plans showing the proposed development.

Mr Williamson advised, as detailed in the delegated report, that the stated reason for refusal of planning permission was that the proposal represented a commercial facility, in an out of centre location, which was not demonstrated as appropriate from the perspective of a sequential approach, and the availability of other properties in more suitable locations.  It was therefore considered that the proposal would be contrary to Policy C1 City Centre Development; RT1 Sequential Approach and Retail Impact), and RT2 Out of Centre Proposals of the Adopted Plan (at the time of determination), as well as policies NC1 City Centre Development – Regional Centre, NC4 Sequential Approach and Impact and NC5 Out of Centre Proposals of the Proposed Local Development, which was subsequently adopted following the determination of the application, which was the subject of review. Additional reasoning provided indicated that there would be potential conflict with existing business and industrial uses within the immediate vicinity and particularly on Craigshaw Road given the different users and operational characteristics between them and a commercial leisure facility focused on families.  As such, it was considered that the proposed use would not be suited to that location as a result, and that there would be tension with Policy B1 of the proposed LDP as well as Scottish Planning Policy. The final aspect of the reason for refusal related to the nearest bus stop being located around 600 metres away on Wellington Road, which exceeded the maximum distance as set out through the Supplementary Guidance relating to Transport and Accessibility.  The routing to get to the bus stop could have significant potential for an adverse impact on pedestrian safety.  As such, it was considered that the proposals would be contrary to policies D3 Active and sustainable travel and RT2 out of centre proposals of the Adopted LDP, and Policies T3 Sustainable and active travel and NC5 Out of Centre Proposals of the Proposed LDP, in light of the proposal not being readily accessible by sustainable transportation, and heavily reliant upon the private car.

Thereafter, Mr Williamson, advised that the statement from the applicant’s agent which accompanied the Notice of Review, as contained in the agenda, expressed the following points:

• The application did accord with the relevant policies of the Local Development Plan and Scottish Planning Policy;
• There were sufficient material considerations (including economic and health benefits) which support the application.  Among these were the creation of 60 non oil related jobs during a period of economic downturn, and the provision of an all-weather facility which promotes exercise and healthy lifestyles;
• The proposal would also see the re-use of a building which had been vacant for 5 years, and which was within an area which was less attractive than more modern business/industrial estates or sites;
• The planning case officer acknowledged the principle of the change of use was open to consideration in light of the aforementioned aspects, albeit subject proposal meeting the other requirements of planning policy;
• The spatial requirements of the building, which required at least 1400 square metres, and a minimum head height of 6m, rendered many locations unsuitable;
• An options assessment was carried out by Knight Frank in respect of the availability of alternatives, which drew a blank;
• Of the 89 similar facilities in the UK, 86 were located within industrial estates, and 100% of Scottish examples were in industrial estates;
• Precedents were already located in Industrial Estates in the City including Kart Start and Strikers in Bridge of Don, and the relatively nearby Banks O’ Dee Sports Club on Abbotswell Road;
• There were opportunities for multi-purpose trips in the wider vicinity;
• The proposal should meet a qualitative and quantitative deficiency within the area;
• There was no objection from roads in respect of road safety, and peak activity was likely to be evening and weekends thus minimising potential conflicts;
• In respect of the proximity or otherwise to public transportation and access by walking/cycling, the appellant had indicated the potential for enhanced infrastructure connections from the rear of the facility to the Toucan crossing on West Tullos.  The appellant indicated a contribution could be made to provide this infrastructure;
• The appellant also considered that the proposals aligned with the aims and objectives of the Strategic Development Plan; and
• In respect of Scottish Planning Policy, it had a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Mr Williamson advised that the Local Review Body needed to assess the proposal against the policies of the Development Plan, and the other material considerations identified such as the Councils Supplementary Guidance relating to Transport and Accessibility. 

The principle considerations in this instance were:

-          whether the proposal would be acceptable in this area;

-          whether there were any alternative locations utilising the sequential approach which would be preferable;

-          Whether the proposal could be conveniently accessed by foot, cycle and sustainable transportation measures, or whether the usage could lead to conflicts with neighbouring uses and pedestrian safety; or

-          Whether there were any material considerations which should be taken into account such as the economic or health benefits which might arise.

Members asked questions of Mr Williamson regarding the proposed change of use, namely: accessibility to public transport from the building; requirement for additional road infrastructure; and the availability and suitability of other properties.  Mr Williamson advised Members of the distances to bus stops on Wellington Road, Arbroath Way, and to Provost Watt Drive.  Mr Williamson further confirmed the detail that would require to be considered in respect of the shared footway/cycleway connection to the crossing point, and that infrastructure such as existing lampstandards may require re-siting/replacement.  It was advised that such matters could not require a financial contribution to be conditioned.  A condition could however be worded to require the submission of a scheme for the provision of a pedestrian/cycle connection to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in liaison with Roads Officers.

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. 

Thereafter, Members considered each of the aforementioned principle considerations in respect of the proposal.

Following the discussion, the Local Review Body unanimously agreed to reverse the decision of the appointed officer and to approve the application subject to the following conditions:

(1)          that, the proposed change of use hereby approved shall not be brought into use, unless a further detailed scheme for the provision of local infrastructure improvements for enhanced walking and cycling connections to and from the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority.  Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details as so agreed prior to the commencement of use – in the interests of pedestrian and road safety, and the provision of enhanced accessibility;

(2)          that, the proposed change of use hereby approved shall not be brought into use, unless the car parking areas (including delineation) and associated drainage measures  have been provided in complete accordance with the details shown on the approved plan 5297/007/- Once provided, the turning and parking areas shall thereafter be permanently retained as such - in order to ensure the timely completion of the parking areas to an adequate standard and in the interests of road safety;

(3)          that, the proposed change of use hereby approved shall not be brought into use, unless a further detailed scheme for the provision of cycle storage facilities (both short and long term) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority.  Thereafter the development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the details as so agreed prior to the commencement of use, and thereafter be retained in perpetuity – in the interests of pedestrian and road safety, and the provision of enhanced accessibility; and

(4)          that, the proposed change of use hereby approved shall not be brought into use, unless details of bin/refuse provision has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.  Thereafter the development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the details as so agreed prior to the commencement of use – in order to ensure that suitable provision was made for the storage and collection of waste.

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 are as follows:-

The principle of the proposed change of use was considered acceptable as an exception to the general principles of Policy B1 (Business and Industrial Land) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2017), on the basis of the following material considerations and special circumstances, namely: (1) the activity proposed had specific space requirements which suited a large industrial building and therefore restricted the buildings available to the applicant and it was satisfied that an assessment of alternative locations had been undertaken and that no suitable premises in a more suitable location were available and therefore that the policy did align with the principles of policies NC1 City Centre – Regional Centre and NC4 Sequential Approach and Impact, of the Local Development Plan; and (2) that given the presence of other leisure uses on nearby sites in the vicinity of the building had been approved and given the economic downturn and lack of investment in property assets and demand for industrial properties, as demonstrated by the building being vacant for a period of 5 years, the change of use would be of a net economic, as well as a health and wellbeing, benefit to the city  in line with the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy 2014 and the Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan.