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 change of use from amenity ground to form a driveway at 6 Craighaar Gables, Aberdeen, 181329/DPP. 

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 Lynsey McBain 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 McBain, 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 Roy Brown, Planning Technician; (2) the decision notice dated 28 September 2018; (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning notices referred to in the delegated report; and (4) the original application form and Notice of Review with accompanying statement submitted by the applicant.

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 was a 62sqm area of amenity open space to the east of 6 Craighaar Gables and west of Stoneywood Road, which was located in a residential area.  The application site forms part of the wider soft-landscaped communal amenity open space in and around the residential properties in Craighaar Gables. 

In regard to the description of proposal, Mr Evans advised that the change of use of the site from amenity open space to residential curtilage and the hard surfacing of the area to form a double driveway which would facilitate two parked cars and would be accessed via Stoneywood Road to the east.

In relation to the Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal, Mr Evans intimated that it made reference to the following factors:-

·         Loss of communal open space which contributes to the character of the area;

·         Resultant conflict with policies H1 (Residential Areas) and D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and the associated ‘Householder Development Guide’ and Transport and Accessibility SG documents;

·         Potential for increased rate of surface water run-off due to the non-porous nature of the hard surface, potentially increasing flood risk outwith the site, contrary to objectives of policy NE6 (Flooding, Drainage & Water Quality); and

·         There was a risk that approval would set a precedent for the incremental erosion of this wider open space, to the detriment of the character and amenity of the surrounding area.

In relation to the appellant’s case, Mr Evans made reference to thesubmitted Notice of Review which referred to the following points:-

·         Contends that the application site is flanked by two private gardens which were purchased from Aberdeen City Council by the owners of numbers 5 and 9 Craighaar Gables in 1999 and 2001 respectively;

·         Explains that flood risk/drainage was not raised with client prior to determination; and have added a new surface water filter trench to act as SUDS; and

·         As regards to precedent, the applicant highlights that the council’s sale of neighbouring land in fact set the precedent.

Mr Evans advised that roads had no objection to the application provided that standard specifications are met and the estates team confirmed that the land in question is subject of an application to purchase, with sale conditional upon the applicant obtaining change of use to Garden Ground.

Mr Evans indicated that the applicant had expressed the view that no further procedure was required and the application could be determined without further procedure. 

The Chairperson and Councillors Duncan and Henrickson all indicated in turn that they each had enough information before them and therefore agreed that a site visit nor an additional hearing were required and that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.

Mr Evans outlined the relevant policy considerations, making reference to the following in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017:-

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

o   do not constitute over development;

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

o   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

o   complies with Supplementary Guidance.

NE3 – Urban Green Space

Permission will not be granted to redevelop parks, playing fields etc or other areas of urban green space (including smaller spaces not identified on the proposals map)

Mr Evans noted that this area of green space, which is understood to form part of a wider space that historically would have been communal, however the appointed officer’s assessment has treated it as constituting an area of Urban Green Space, similar to parks, public gardens, playing fields, sports pitches, woods and allotments. Mr Evans advise that Members should consider for themselves whether this area warrants being considered under policy NE3 in that context.

Supplementary Guidance

·         Householder Development Guide

Section 3.1.11 deals specifically with changes of use from amenity ground to private garden, setting out the following criteria:

-          Should not adversely affect spaces that make worthwhile contribution to character and amenity of area;

-          Should fragment or erode larger areas of open space/landscaping;

-          Should not worsen or create deficiency in recreational open space; and

-          Should not result in loss of visual amenity – including loss of trees

·         Transport and Accessibility

-          Permission will not be granted for driveway across an amenity area unless it would produce a demonstrable improvement in road safety;

-          Should be internally drained, no water discharging to street; and

-          Should be min 5m wide (for double) and 5m long.

Mr Evans advised that in determining the appeal, members should also 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.

In addition to the relevant policies from the development plan, he indicated that Scottish Planning Policy would be material considerations.

He 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. 

The Local Review Body then asked questions of Mr Evans.

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 this decision were as follows:-

(1) The proposed change of use to residential curtilage and the formation of a hard surfaced double driveway would result in the loss of an area of valuable communal amenity open space which makes a worthwhile contribution to the character and amenity of the area by providing a soft landscaped setting to Stoneywood Road and in terms of providing usable communal open space to the public, particularly the residents of Craighaar Gables. The proposal would in itself fragment the wider area of open space around Craighaar Gables and would result in an irregular domestic boundary by resulting in an isolated domestic curtilage within the wider open space. The proposal would thus have an adverse impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area. The proposal would conflict with the principles of Scottish Planning Policy, Policies H1 - Residential Areas and D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017; the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide' and 'Transport and Accessibility'.

(2) If planning permission was granted it would be likely to set a precedent for the incremental erosion of the wider amenity open space, thereby resulting in further detriment to the character and amenity of the surrounding area and increased flood risk to nearby land.