Agenda item

The Local Review Body (LRB) of Aberdeen City Council met at the Town House 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 extension of the yard area, including all associated engineering and landscaping works at Unit 1, Stoneywood Park, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 180989.

 

Councillor Boulton as Chairperson gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken.  She indicated that the LRB would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mrs Stephanie Dunsmuir as regards the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Mr Gavin Evans who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the case under consideration.

 

The Chairperson highlighted 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 LRB 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 Dunsmuir, Assistant Clerk regarding 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 LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Mr Matthew Easton, Senior Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 25 July 2018; (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning notices referred to in the delegated report; (4) letters of representation; and (5) the application and Notice of Review submitted by the applicant along with an accompanying statement with further information relating to the application.

 

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Evans who advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

 

Mr Evans explained that the application site formed part of a wider woodland belt which separated Stoneywood Park Industrial Estate from the residential development to the south.  The area in question measured approximately 75m wide (road frontage to Cedar Avenue) and 35m deep (distance back from road to boundary of industrial uses).  The site sat immediately south of (and adjoining) the Marwood Group premises, which comprised a single storey warehouse and storage yard, with a narrower planting belt dog-leg around the western edge of the Marwood site.

 

Mr Evans advised that on the opposite side of Cedar Avenue were residential dwellings within the former Stoneywood Estate development, with two residential properties that immediately abutted the western edge of the site (328 Stoneywood Road and a recently approved and constructed house).  The woodland belt was zoned as part of the wider H1 Residential Area.

 

In respect of planning history, Mr Evans explained that an early application for a larger area of yard with a much thinner landscaping strip to the road frontage at Cedar Avenue had been refused at the Planning Development Management Committee in December 2017.

 

Mr Evans advised that permission was sought for the extension of the existing industrial premises, via the construction of an enlarged asphalt yard on what was currently a woodland belt separating industrial and residential land uses.  He highlighted that the current proposal involved the removal of 77 trees compared to the removal of 93 with the previous application.  Mr Evans noted that the decision had stated that 93 trees were to be removed, and explained that this was due to the survey and arboricultural impact assessment carried out in relation to the earlier application in 2017 being resubmitted with no update to reflect the reduced extent of the yard area, however reiterated to Members that the number of trees to be removed was in fact 77.  Mr Evans further explained that an 8 metre deep landscape strip would be retained between the new yard space and the southern boundary, and that compensatory planting was proposed in the western portion of the site, with approximately 80 new trees to be planted which would be 70 to 90cm in height at the time of planting.

 

Mr Evans outlined that the request sought the review of the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application under delegated powers and the stated reasons for refusal were as follows:-  

 

The loss of the woodland and creation of the yard would significantly reduce the amenity of existing and future residents in both the immediate surroundings and wider Stoneywood area, contrary to Policy H1 (Residential Areas).

 

The removal of the woodland would destroy part of the city's identified Green Space Network (GSN) and erode the overall network in the wider sense. It may also set a principle precedent and encourage other businesses within Stoneywood Industrial Estate to seek the removal of other parts of the woodland belt, exacerbating this negative impact on the GSN. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy NE1 (Green Space Network), NE3 (Urban Green Space) and Policy NE5 (Trees and Woodland).  Neither is the proposal is supported by the Scottish Government's Policy on Control of Woodland Removal, as no overriding wider public benefit has been demonstrated.  Compensatory planting has been proposed but it is considered that this does not adequately compensate for the reduction in area of GSN and associated removal of 93 mature trees.

 

Whilst the expansion of existing businesses is supported by Policy B1 (Business and Industrial) within such allocated areas, the overall proposal does not see the business activity expanded into such an identified area, but is also clearly contrary to the aim of retaining open space and therefore Policy B1 is not considered to support the proposals.

 

In regard to consultees and objections, Mr Evans advised that 28 letters of objection had been received, including an objection from Dyce and Stoneywood Community Council.

 

Mr Evans made reference to the relevant planning considerations as follows:-

 

Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017

H1: Proposals for new development will be acceptable in principle if they:

1             do not constitute over development;

2             do not have an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area;

3             do not result in the loss of valuable and valued areas of open space. Open space is defined in the Aberdeen Open Space Audit 2010; and

4             comply with Supplementary Guidance. (Trees and Woodland)

 

B1: Business and Industrial Land

• Expansion of existing uses within B1 locations will be permitted in principle.

• Where business and industrial areas are located beside residential areas, new planning permissions will be restricted to Class 4 (business).
• Buffer zones, which are appropriately sized and landscaped, may be required to separate these uses and safeguard residential amenity.

 

NE1: Green Space Network

• ACC will ‘protect, promote and enhance the wildlife, access… landscape value of the Green Space Network’.
• Proposals that are likely to destroy or erode the character and/or function of the GSN will not be permitted

 

NE5: Trees and Woodlands

• Permission will not be granted ‘to redevelop parks, playing fields… woods, allotments or other areas of urban green space (including smaller spaces not identified on the Proposals Map)’.
• Exceptions if an equivalent area is laid out and made available in the local area as urban green space.
• Additional criteria include proviso that ‘there is no loss of established or mature trees’.

 

Supplementary Guidance

 

• Trees and Woodlands – generally relates to the content of supporting information.  In this instance, Mr Evans advised that it was noted that the survey and arboricultural impact assessment carried out in relation to the earlier application in 2017 had been resubmitted with no update to reflect the reduced extent of the yard area.

 

In the Notice of Review and supporting statement, the appellant had highlighted the following:-

·         That the proposal allowed business to grow, to the benefit of the City’s economy;

·         The inaccuracy in the reason for refusal, namely that 77 trees were to be removed, not 93 as stated;

·         The poor condition of some existing trees and the net increase in tree numbers through compensatory planting;

·         The retention of an 8 metre wide buffer to the south edge of the yard area;

·         That the appellant disagreed that precedent would be set and contended that policy NE3 (Urban Green Space) did not apply, and that green space network would not be eroded; and

·         That Scottish Government policy on the Control of Woodland Removal supported the proposal, as it allowed for woodland removal where it would contribute significantly to enhancing sustainable economic growth.

 

The Local Review Body then asked questions of Mr Evans in regard to the application.

 

The Local Review Body thereupon agreed unanimously that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure, as Members felt they had enough information before them to determine the application.

 

Mr Evans highlighted that when determining the appeal, Members should take into consideration any material considerations they feel would be relevant to the application that would point to either overturning the original decision or dismissing the review. 

 

During deliberation, Members noted the following:-

• That the area designated as residential would have a change of use if the application was approved;
• That the proposal would be removing urban greenspace and that the proposed replanting would not compensate for the loss of trees;
• That while Members were keen to encourage economic growth, this needed to be weighed up against the loss of amenity to the existing residential area; and
• That they considered that the policies had been applied appropriately and that there could also be a risk to the retained trees on the site. 

 

Following discussion, Members agreed unanimously to uphold the decision of the appointed officer to 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 consideration in so far as these were pertinent to the determination of the application.

 

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

 

The loss of the woodland and creation of the yard would significantly reduce the amenity of existing and future residents in both the immediate surroundings and wider Stoneywood area, contrary to Policy H1 (Residential Areas).

 

The removal of the woodland would destroy part of the city's identified Green Space Network (GSN) and erode the overall network in the wider sense. It may also set a principle precedent and encourage other businesses within Stoneywood Industrial Estate to seek the removal of other parts of the woodland belt, exacerbating this negative impact on the GSN. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy NE1 (Green Space Network), NE3 (Urban Green Space) and Policy NE5 (Trees and Woodland).  Neither is the proposal is supported by the Scottish Government's Policy on Control of Woodland Removal, as no overriding wider public benefit has been demonstrated.  Compensatory planting has been proposed but it is considered that this does not adequately compensate for the reduction in area of GSN and associated removal of 77 mature trees.

 

Whilst the expansion of existing businesses is supported by Policy B1 (Business and Industrial) within such allocated areas, the overall proposal does not see the business activity expanded into such an identified area, but is also clearly contrary to the aim of retaining open space and therefore Policy B1 is not considered to support the proposals.