Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the third request for a review to evaluate the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the application for the erection of two dwelling houses at Mundurno, Tarves Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 181513/PPP.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would be addressed by Ms Aoife Murphy and reminded Members that although Ms Murphy was employed by the planning authority she 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.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Dineke Brasier, Planner; (2) the application dated 24 August 2018; (3) the decision notice dated 18 October 2018 (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) consultee comments from the Environmental Health Team, Flooding and Coastal Protection Team, Roads Development Management Team and Waste Services Team and also a representation which objected to the planning application; and (6) the 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 Ms Murphy who advised that the review had been submitted with all necessary information within the time limit of three months following the decision of the appointed officer.

Ms Murphy then described the site advising that it related to an area of ground to the west of the B999, north of Aberdeen City and within the designated Green Belt.  At present, the site lay vacant and mostly unused.  It was stated that the site previously accommodated 2 buildings, the locations of which were noted on the existing site plans, but these buildings no longer stand on the site.  While the footprint of the building to the east of the site was visible, there appeared to be little evidence of the building that extended to the south of the bothy.

Ms Murphy indicated that the site was bounded to the east and south by agricultural land, to the west by land associated with the existing dwellinghouse and to the north and north west by the existing dwelling, steading and outbuildings currently undergoing conversion works.  In terms of planning history, an application for the extension of the existing dwellinghouse was granted in December 2015. While a subsequent application, within which this site was included was granted November 2016 for the conversion of a steading to four residential units, erection of detached garage and conversion of existing bothy under 161159/DPP. 

In terms of the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal, Ms Murphy made reference to the following factors in the decision notice:-

·       the proposal would be contrary to the overriding aims protecting the Green Belt from development in terms of Policy NE2, which are in place to maintain a distinct identity and clear physical boundary around Aberdeen; direct growth to the most suitable locations and prevent urban sprawl;

·       the proposal was not submitted with the necessary information, such as a Tree Survey Report, to assess the impact of the proposal on the existing trees as per the criteria of Policy NE5 – Trees and Woodland.  In addition, it was considered by the officer that the location of the trees may have an impact on the amenity of the proposed dwelling to the west; and

·       the proposal was considered to be located in an unsustainable location, that was not easily accessible by public transport and was not connected to safe walking and cycling routes.  As such, the development would be entirely reliant on the private car, which was not in compliance with criteria of Policy D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design, Policy T2 – Managing the Transport Impact of Development and Policy T3 – Sustainable and Active Travel.

In relation to the appellant’s case, Ms Murphy highlighted the following from the Review statement:-

·       in terms of Policy NE2 – Greenbelt, the appellant had addressed all 6 criteria within the policy. The submission stated that the land within this application site, by virtue of its location in relation to the dwellings currently being constructed, would not be suitable for agriculture, woodland and forestry, recreational uses compatible with an agricultural or natural setting, mineral extraction/quarry restoration or landscape renewal;

·       with regards to the 5 exceptions allowed by Policy NE2, the submission states the following:-

(1)    for development associated with existing activities in the green belt will be permitted, the appellant stated that the development was within the natural boundary of the residential site. The development was considered to be small scale. The erection of two further dwellings would not intensify the use of the area and that the development is ancillary to what already exists on the site; 

Ms Murphy intimated that it was considered that this exception refers to development that would be ancillary to an existing use.

(2)    in terms of Essential Infrastructure, the appellant stated that all new connections were on site, with regards to drainage, utility services etc, and as such there would be no erosion of, or detrimental impact on the character of the Greenbelt; 

Ms Murphy indicated that it was considered that this exception referred to communications infrastructure, electricity grid connections or transport proposals that could not be located elsewhere other than in the Green Belt.  As such, the exception was not relevant to this proposal. 

(3)    with regards to the exception for a Change of Use of existing buildings of historic or architectural interest, or otherwise a valuable traditional character, the appellant stated the buildings were of minimal architectural merit and the period of time that the development was on the market, the buildings fell into a state of disrepair;

Ms Murphy advised that this exception was not considered relevant as the proposal did not include a change of use of a building;

(4)    with regards to the exception allowing for the extension of existing buildings as part of a conversion/rehabilitation scheme, the appellant confirmed that the buildings could not be converted or extended to allow for the proposed use;

Ms Murphy explained that given that the buildings were no longer on site, it was considered that this exception did not apply. 

(5)    in terms of the exception for a replacement dwellinghouse on a one-for-one basis, the appellant stated that the building was previously used as sleeping quarters in relation to the farm hub, however proof of this could not be provided.  In addition, it is considered that the location of the dwellings can be improved allowing for views and daylight to be maximised and the final designs will be formed so that they are consistent with modern homes in the countryside. 

Ms Murphy advised that as there were no existing dwelling houses on this site, this exception did not apply.

Ms Murphy intimated that with regards to the second reason for refusal, relating to the tree survey report, the appellant confirmed that this would be carried out and compensatory planting would be proposed.  It was requested that this was conditioned.

Ms Murphy indicated that as for the third reason for refusal, relating to the development being located with an unsustainable location, the appellant stated that the site was located in a rural setting.  The access track had been upgraded allowing for improved safety while accessing the site.  In addition, the junction was large enough for drop off’s and pick-ups by buses or taxis.  Cycling or walking routes could not be accommodated as that would involve the full scale re-development of the B999, but it was noted that the level of traffic along the B999 should reduce as a result of the opening of the AWPR. 

In terms of consultee responses, Ms Murphy advised (1) that the Roads Development Management Team outlined a number of queries relating to materials for the driveway, the number of dwellings being served by the Tarves Road, location of refuse collection and that the site was highly dependent on vehicles.  It was also stated that parking on site was unlikely to be an issue and the number of spaces overall would be 6, 3 per dwelling; (2) that the Flooding and Coastal Protection Team had no objection to make; (3) that the Environmental Health Team considered that the connection to the mains water supply was appropriate, but required the applicant to show that a suitable connection could be established; and (4) that the Waste Services Team recommended that the proposed dwellings shared the communal waste and recycling facilities proposed for the development to the north. 

Ms Murphy intimated that one letter of objection had been received and the letter raised concerns over the proposals lack of compliance with Policy NE1 – Green Space Network and Policy NE2 – Green Belt.

Ms Murphy indicated that the applicant had expressed the view that a site inspection should be carried out to allow Members to view the proposal in context of the development site.

The Chairperson and Councillors Cameron and Macdonald all indicated in turn 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.

Ms Murphy outlined the relevant planning policy considerations, making reference to the following from the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017:-

·       Policy NE2: Green Belt;

·       Policy NE5: Trees and Woodland;

·       Policy D1: Quality Placemaking by Design;

·       Policy T2: Managing the Transport Impact of Development;

·       Policy T3: Sustainable and Active Travel;

·       Policy NE6: Flooding, Drainage & Water Quality;

·       Policy NE8: Natural Heritage;

·       Policy D2: Landscape;

·       Policy R6: Waste Management Requirements for New Developments;

·       Policy R7: Low & Zero Carbon Buildings and Water Efficiency; and

·       Policy CI1: Digital Infrastructure

She also referred to the Supplementary Guidance for Landscape, Transport and Accessibility and Trees and Woodland.

Ms Murphy intimated 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. In addition to the relevant policies from the local development plan, the following would be material considerations:-

·       Scottish Planning Policy - stated that the purpose of green belt designation was to:-

(1)    direct planned growth to the most appropriate locations and support regeneration;

(2)    protect and enhance the quality, character, landscape setting and identity of towns and cities; and

(3)    protect and give access to open space within and around towns and cities.

Ms Murphy emphasised 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.

In conclusion, Ms Murphy advised that if members were minded to overturn the decision of the appointed officer, then she would advise on conditions following deliberation of the review.

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 development would not be essential for the types of development generally acceptable in the green belt, including agriculture; woodland/forestry; recreational uses compatible with an agricultural or natural setting, mineral extraction/quarry restoration; or landscape renewal. Neither would it be compliant with any of the exceptions listed in policy NE2, as the proposal would not facilitate the rehabilitation of existing buildings; nor would it comply with all criteria for proposals for development associated with existing activities in the green belt. As such, it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to the overriding aims of protection of the green belt, which include maintaining a distinct identity and clear physical boundary around Aberdeen; directing growth to the most suitable locations; and preventing urban sprawl. It would therefore be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy - paragraphs 49-52 and policy N2 (Green Belt) of the 2017 Aberdeen Local Development Plan;

(2)      Supplementary Guidance on Trees and Woodlands sets out that any proposal for planning in principle should be supported by a Tree Survey where any trees are within 15m of the site boundary. In this case, this information has not been provided, and it is therefore not possible to fully assess the impact of the proposal on the mature trees immediately to the west of the site. However, due to the limited distance between the trees and the proposed western most dwelling, it is likely that this will intrude into the zone of influence and root protection areas of these trees. Due to the proximity of the trees to the proposed dwellings, these could have an adverse impact on residential amenity due to loss of day light/ excessive overshadowing, which could result in a requirement to remove the trees in the future. Policy NE5 (Trees and Woodlands) carries a presumption against development that will have an adverse impact on mature trees, and as such, the proposal would not comply with this policy or with Supplementary Guidance on Trees and Woodlands; and

(3)      The site is located in an unsustainable location as it would not be easily accessible by public transport and is not connected to safe walking and cycling routes. As such, the proposal would be entirely reliant on the private car. Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design), T2 (Managing the Transport Impact of Development) and T3 (Sustainable and Active Travel) and Supplementary Guidance on Transport and Accessibility sets out that all new development should promote access to sustainable transport methods, and as such the proposal is considered contrary to the requirements of these policies.

-         COUNCILLORS JENNIFER STEWART AND MARIE BOULTON, Chairpersons