Agenda item

The Local Review Body (LRB) 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 proposed erection of a house and garage with associated garden ground at Grounds of Dunlin, Dalmuinzie Road, Bieldside, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 170646.

 

Councillor Jennifer Stewart as Chairperson gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken.  She indicated that the LRB would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mr Mark Masson with regards to the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Mr Andrew Miller who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the three cases under consideration this day.

 

The Chairperson stated that although the Planning Adviser was employed by the planning authority, hehad 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.  She emphasised that the officer would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

 

The Local Review Body was then addressed by Mr Masson, Assistant Clerk in regards to the procedure to be followed, at which time reference was made to the procedure note circulated with the papers calling the meeting and to more general aspects relating to the procedure.

 

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Ms Jane Forbes, Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 27 July 2017; (3) copies of various plans and photographs showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) letters of representation; and (6) the application and Notice of Review submitted by the applicant along with an accompanying statement and further information relating to the application.

 

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Miller who advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes. He also indicated that the appellant had requested that the LRB undertake a site inspection as a further procedure due to site specific circumstances.

 

At this juncture, the Chairperson moved that a site inspection be undertaken in order to assess the area of the application fully and to better evaluate the issue in relation to the trees on site. Councillors Cameron, Copland, John and Nicoll all indicated that they each had enough information before them and therefore agreed that a site visit was not required and that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.

 

Mr Miller advised that the site forms an area of the grounds of Dunlin, a detached house set in extensive grounds in Bieldside. It was located within a residential area, as zoned in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017. It was also within the Green Space Network zoning. The surrounding area was typified by relatively large, detached house set in generous garden grounds, many of which contain established trees that form part of ancient/semi-natural woodland and was covered by a Tree Preservation Order.

 

He indicated that the application sought consent for the erection of a house with detached garage, access/driveway, drainage and landscaping.

 

He explained that the request sought the review of the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application under delegated powers. In refusing the application, the reasons given were as follows:-

•           there would be an unacceptable adverse impact on the woodland character and recreational and wildlife value of the area, within the Green Space Network and a wider wooded area;

•           constrained within site in close proximity to mature and semi-mature trees and the potential impact of the proposed development might result in severe damage or loss of trees covered by  a Tree Preservation Order and formally recognised as Ancient, Long-established and Semi-natural Woodland; and

•           accordingly the proposals were considered to be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy, H1 (on basis that it fails to comply with Supplementary Guidance on Sub-division, landscape and trees), D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design, D2 – Landscape, NE1 – Green Space Network. It would also fail to comply with Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy.

 

Mr Miller made reference to the appellant’s case, advising that there were several comments within the Notice of Review Statement that cannot be taken into consideration. This related to how the application was determined which was not for the LRB to take into consideration, namely, allegations that the officer did not visit the site and the case officer refusing to have additional meetings at the request of the applicant/agent. He explained that the LRB should determine the application on a de novo basis, i.e. consider the proposals afresh with respect to the development plan and material considerations.

 

Mr Miller indicated that the Review Statement indicated that the proposal was not overdevelopment, would not have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, the site could accommodate the development and would accord with Policy H1. Furthermore the Statement advised that there would not be an unacceptable loss of tree cover, there would be no adverse impact on road safety (as highlighted in letters of objection) and the level of drainage provided to the site would be satisfactory.

 

Mr Miller outlined the history of the site, indicating the following:-

•           that the site was covered by a Tree Preservation Order that had been in place since 1972;

•           that an application for the erection of a new house in the grounds of Dunlin was withdrawn in 2009, following a recommendation of refusal to the Planning Development Management Committee;

•           that in 2012, permission was granted for the removal of 52 trees (many of which were dead/dying). This was on the agreement that 2 for 1 replacement planting was carried out;

•           that in 2013, permission was granted for the removal of 3 trees;

•           that in 2015, permission was granted for the removal of 28 trees and work to 15 trees for health and safety reasons. Replacement planting was required on a 2 for 1 basis;

•           that in 2016, permission was refused for the removal of a Douglas fir tree; and

•           that an application for the erection of a house on this site was refused under delegated powers in November 2016.

 

In relation to consultations and objections, Mr Miller advised that there were four letters of objection received in respect of this application. In summary, the points raised were:-

•           that access arrangements were unsafe on a narrow, private road that cannot accommodate additional traffic;

•           Drainage concerns – whereby removal of trees had increased the run off of rainwater, and there was potential risk of contamination to watercourses from proposed drainage arrangements. Existing drainage arrangements in the area were problematic;

•           Trees – loss of Protected Trees had created an un-natural clearing that had been formed over time to accommodate a dwelling in ancient and natural woodland. There would be potential for adverse impact on existing trees should the house be permitted; and

•           there would be potential for an undesirable precedent and no change in circumstances from previous refusal on site.

 

Mr Miller advised that Roads Development Management had no objections and that the Flooding Team had no objections following provision of additional information.

 

Mr Miller made reference to the relevant Policy considerations as follows:-

 

 

            H1 – Residential Areas:

•           Residential development was acceptable in principle on the basis that it complied with Supplementary Guidance and did not result in an adverse impact on established residential amenity;

NE1 – Green Space Network:

•           Development that is likely to erode character or function of the GSN would not be permitted;

D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design:

•           Required all development to be of a high standard of design;

T2 – Managing the Transport Impact of Development:

•           Development should minimise traffic generated and maximise opportunities for sustainable and active travel;

NE5 – Trees and Woodlands:

•           There would be a presumption against development that results in damage to trees that contribute to landscape character, nature conservation and local amenity; and

Scottish Government Control of Woodland Removal Policy:

•           Presumption against removal of ancient woodland.

 

Mr Miller advised that in determining the appeal, members should also take into consideration any material considerations they feel were relevant to the application that would point to either overturning the original decision or dismissing the review.

 

Mr Miller also intimated that should members wish to overturn the decision of the appointed officer, consideration should be given to any conditions which would be appropriate in order to make the proposal acceptable. However all conditions must meet the six tests set out by Scottish Government policy.

 

Mr Miller indicated that if members were minded to overturn the decision then he would advise placing conditions requiring the following:-

•           Samples of external material finishes of the development;

•           Boundary Treatment details; and

•           Conditions relating to the implementation of tree protection measures outlined in supporting documents.

 

The Local Review Body then asked questions of Mr Miller, specifically regarding tree felling and replacement planting.

 

Members agreed by majority to uphold the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application.

 

Councillors Cameron, Copland and Nicoll voted to uphold the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application. The Chairperson and Councillor John voted to overturn the decision of the appointed officer and approve 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.

 

More specifically, the reasons on which the Local Review Body based this decision were as follows:-

 

1.    The proposed development is unacceptable in terms of the adverse impact it would have on the woodland character and recreational and wildlife value of this section of Dalmuinzie Road which lies within the Green Space Network, and that of the wider woodland area.  The proposed dwelling would be extremely constrained within the site, given its proximity to semi-mature and mature trees.  If the proposal were to be approved, both the impact of the construction work on the trees, and the potential impact of the trees on the dwelling and associated garage building would result in either the loss or severe damage of trees on this site.  As such the proposal would support neither the protection nor the enhancement of the natural landscape, and would bring added pressure to the remaining woodland which is protected by TPO No 26 and formally recognised as Ancient, Long-established and Semi-natural Woodland. Whilst addressing the requirements of Policy T2 (Managing the Transport Impact of Development) and Policy R7 (Low and Zero Carbon Buildings, and Water Efficiency) of the Aberdeen City Local Development Plan, the proposal would only partially comply with Policy NE6 (Flooding, Drainage and Water Quality) and ACC's Supplementary Guidance on Flooding, Drainage and Water Quality; and would not fully address the requirements of Scottish Government's 'Control of Woodland Removal’ Policy.  The proposal would be contrary to SPP, and to Policies H1 (Residential Areas), D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design), D2 (Landscape), NE1 (Green Space Network), and NE5 (Trees and Woodland) of the Aberdeen City Local Development Plan; and would fail to accord with the requirements of the Council's supplementary guidance on 'The Sub-division and Redevelopment of Residential Curtilages', 'Landscape' and 'Trees and Woodlands'.

2.  That the proposal, if approved, would set an undesirable precedent for applications of a similar nature that would seriously erode the landscape quality and character of the surrounding area.