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 permission for the proposed erection of two detached dwellings, the formation of associated private garden ground and car parking at Burnside Poultry Unit, Little Clinterty, Aberdeen, AB21 0TL (P170395).

Councillor Boulton, as Chairperson, gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken.  She 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 Miller, 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.  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 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 Mr Robert Forbes, Senior Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 26 July 2017; (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) letters of representation and consultation responses.

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 advised that the site subject to the review formed a 1.3 hectare site formed of agricultural land. The site included a disused poultry shed (10 x 35 metres), the foundations of a demolished agricultural building and various other farming paraphernalia. There was also a mix of mature and immature trees. The site was located within the Green Belt of Aberdeen, as zoned within the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017.

In terms of the proposal, Mr Miller advised that the application sought consent for the erection of two houses on the site, utilising the existing access track. Both houses would be identical and would be one and half storey and would have a single integral garage.

Mr Miller explained that the reasons for refusal of the application was that the proposal would be contrary to policy NE2 – Green Belt, on the basis that the proposal would not fall within any of the specified exceptions for development within the green belt. The proposal was also considered to be contrary to policy D2 – Landscape, on the basis the development would result in suburban intrusion into open countryside, as well as being contrary to Scottish Planning Policy and the Strategic Development Plan.

The proposal was also considered to be unduly car dependant and would conflict with policies T2 and T3, which both seek to minimise the number of car journeys generated by development and maximise sustainable and active travel. Finally, it was considered there was a potential for a precedent to be set.

With regards to the applicant’s statement, Mr Miller advised that the applicant had highlighted that a similar case for the removal of farm buildings and was granted at nearby Clinterty Mill, in terms of new housing replacing redundant agricultural buildings, and policies he was of the view that these had been applied inconsistently. Mr Miller advised that many of the arguments in the review statement made direct comparison to this case.

Mr Miller also advised that the applicant had stated that the current poultry shed was not fit for purpose and it would be uneconomical to repair it and unviable to bring it back into agricultural use. Feasibility statements and quotes provided were dismissed by the case officer. The applicant had also stated that the site was within 1km walk of Blackburn and bus services could be accessed here, as well as from the A96 with underpass provided. Also, the applicant was of the view that opening of AWPR would lower traffic volumes on nearby public road. The re-use would cross-fund remediation works for contamination on site.

In relation to the history of the site, Mr Miller advised thatin April 2003 an application for the erection of a house adjacent to the site was refused consent. Also, in January 2017 an application for the erection of two houses at the site was refused under delegated powers. This differed in that one of the houses was larger and had a detached garage.

With regards to consultation responses and objections, Mr Miller advised that the following responses had been received:

• Dyce and Stoneywood Community Council had objected to the application as they considered it to be an inappropriate land use in the Green Belt. They were not convinced that “enabling development” applies in this case compared with Clinterty Mill, where they state the historic mill was refurbished (this was not the case). Accordingly they did not believe policy R2 – Remediation of Contaminated Land.

• Roads Development Management had raised no objections to the application but had asked for details of a refuse collection scheme.

• Environmental Health had stated that there should be evidence provided that demonstrated that a public water supply has been established at the property.

• Contaminated Land had stated that site investigation provided highlight potential contamination. They had also requested conditions requiring a further survey to be undertaken and remediation implemented.

• Environmental Policy had noted that a tree survey was not provided with the application and advised that this was required. They raised no concerns in respect of bats. They also recommended that further ecological survey work be undertaken and considered that the landscape impact of the proposal would be adverse.

• Three letters of objection were submitted. The matters raised related to:

1.            Breach of green belt policy

2.            Potential setting of precedence for further housing development in greenbelt.

3.            Site history of refusals.

4.            Adverse road safety impact and poor linkages of site to sustainable transport.

5.            Visual prominence and lack of screening.

6.            No justification for 2 houses on site.

7.            Site was not severely contaminated and the site has the potential for agricultural uses as evident by recent use as vegetable plot/market garden/grazing.

8.            Negative impact on neighbouring amenity due to screening.

Mr Miller then highlighted that the applicant had asked that the review procedure include one or more hearing sessions due to complex issues arising from the review 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.

At this point, the Local Review Body considered whether they had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review. The Chairperson and Councillor Cameron advised that they wished a site visit to be held prior to determining the review. Councillor Copland advised that he knew the site well and did not feel that a site visit was required. The Local Review Body then agreed by majority (two to one) that the review under consideration should be adjourned in order for a site visit to be conducted in due course.