Agenda item

Planning Reference: 190136

 

Planning Officer:  Gavin Evans

The Forum had before it a report by the Chief Officer – Strategic Place Planning, on a submission of a Proposal of Application Notice by Halliday Fraser Munro, on behalf of their client, Cognito Oak LLP, for a proposed major residential led mixed-use development of circa 500-600 units (mixed tenure affordable and private), community facilities, recycling centre and local shops/services (class 1, 2, 3 Sui Generis) with associated landscaping, open space and infrastructure, at land at Cloverhill East of A90 Ellon Road, Bridge of Don Aberdeen, 190136.

 

The report advised that the application site formed part of a large Business and Industrial land allocation in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, further identified as an opportunity site (OP2 Berryhill, Murcar) with a flood risk being noted.  Immediately to the east were four lanes of the now de-trunked A92 Ellon Road, with the exception of a small number of dwellings in two pockets of development which lay between this site and the road.  It also stated that beyond the A92 was the Denmore Industrial Estate.

 

The report also advised that to the north and east was land in agricultural use, and this was allocated for future business/industrial development.  The area to the north-east had seen various planning permissions granted for such development, with a number of plots further to the north-east and north already developed along with various elements of related infrastructure.  The northern allocation was also an opportunity site (OP1 Murcar) and had a flooding potential.  The associated policy (LR1 Land Release Policy) indicated that this area was not likely to see development until post 2027.

 

The report explained that to the south and east was agricultural land allocated for business and industrial use with a residential property towards the northern end, access to which was taken from Ellon Road.  The southern portion of the eastern boundary was adjoined by land which was subject to an extant planning permission in principle for an extension to the Aberdeen Energy Park, the existing developed extent of which was a short distance further south-east.

 

The report also advised that further east was the coastline of the North Sea, towards which the land generally fell.  The existing landscape comprised open agricultural fields enclosed by fences/dry stone walls/hedgerows and a number of trees at various points along these divisions.  The Silver Burn passed through the southern extent.

 

The proposal was classed as a residential led-mixed use development of circa 500 homes, community facilities, retail with associated landscaping, open space and infrastructure and it would constitute a major development.

 

The Forum heard from Richard Campbell, Cognito Oak LLP and Michael Westwater, Halliday Fraser Munro, in regard to the proposed application.  Mark Peters, Craig Scott, Kim McLaren and Cliff Campbell were also in attendance to answer any questions from members.  Mr Campbell explained that this was a 10 year development and was marked as business land in the Local Development Plan.  However, Mr Campbell explained that there was an overprovision of business land in Aberdeen and as a result they hoped that the land could be used to build over 550 houses which would be a great addition to Bridge of Don.  Mr Campbell also advised that they were dedicated to realising their mission and were working proactively with relevant stakeholders. 

 

The Forum then heard from Mr Michael Westwater, Halliday Fraser Munro, who explained that the site was fully deliverable and that the drainage issues could be mitigated.  In regard to public engagement, Mr Westwater explained that Cognito had held two separate consultation events at St Columbus Church, which were both well attended.  They also did a leaflet drop and advertised both events.  The feedback received was very positive and Mr Westwater highlighted the enthusiastic responses and comments received on the lack of sport facilities and affordable housing in Bridge of Don.

 

In regards to opportunities, Mr Westwater advised that they wished to (a) support and deliver of the ambitions of Energetica; (b) deliver much needed affordable housing in Bridge of Don, (c) enhance local community and sports facilities, (d) create new parkland and a high quality landscape corridor between Denmore and the coast; (e) slow traffic on the A92 and improve on local connectivity and (f) enhance the quality of place as a key gateway into Aberdeen.

 

In regards to the proposed land-uses, Mr Westwater explained that there would be (1) 500-600 new mixed tenure homes with up to 30% of these affordable housing, (2) a community hub building and a UEFA sized football pitch for local junior teams, (3) new parkland and open space which would be over 40% of the total site area and (4) local convenience retail and services. 

 

For the design concept, Mr Westwater highlighted their vision for high quality placemaking, high quality landscaping, complementary mixed-uses and a sustainable new development. 

 

Mr Westwater concluded the presentation by advising on the next steps and proposed delivery.  Firstly they were still in active discussions with housing providers, secondly an application for planning permission in principle was due to be submitted in June 2019.  For the main issues report they were seeking a revised allocation within the proposed Local Development Plan and finally to continue to work with relevant stakeholders, which included Aberdeen City Council and Bridge of Don Thistle Football Club. 

 

The Forum then heard from Mr Gavin Evans, Case Officer, who addressed the Forum and provided details regarding the planning aspects of the application and responded to questions from members.  Mr Evans explained that the site occupied 23ha of a wider 68.4ha site allocated in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan for Business and Industrial use and explained that should the application be submitted, a Pre Determination Hearing would be required to be held due to there being a significant departure from the Local Development Plan and this would go to Full Council for determination and not the Planning Development Management Committee.

 

Mr Evans highlighted that as part of the application, the applicant had been advised that the following information would need to accompany the formal submission:-

·         Pre-Application Consultation Report;

·         Flood Risk Assessment;

·         Analysis of Business/Industrial and Housing Land supply;

·         Details of mitigation of potential conflict between housing and business/industrial uses;

·         Masterplan;

·         Design and Access Statement;

·         Landscape Strategy and Management Plan;

·         Retail Impact Assessment (depending on the scale of retail offering)

·         Commentary on sequential test to site selection (depending on the scale of significant footfall generating use)

·         Transport Assessment;

·         Travel Plan;

·         Noise Impact Assessment;

·         Affordable Housing Delivery Strategy;

·         Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan;

·         Drainage Impact Assessment;

·         Protected Species Surveys and Mitigation Plans; and

·         Low and Zero Carbon Buildings and Water Efficiency Statement.

 

Mr Evans also explained that the Aberdeen Local Development Plan allocated land for residential developments to meet the needs of the area, and a Housing Land Audit for Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire was published each year to determine if there was sufficient land available for housing development in the area, with a requirement set out in Scottish Planning Policy for authorities to provide at least a five year land supply at all times.  Consideration of any housing proposal on this site would include assessment of the extent to which the full realisation of the allocated employment use would be precluded, and also whether there was sufficient land allocated and available for residential development.

 

Mr Evans also provided details on the relevant planning policies for this application and they were noted as:-

o   Policy LR1 – Land Release Policy;

o   Policy LR2 – Delivery of Mixed Use Communities;

o   Policy D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design

o   Policy D2 – Landscape

o   Policy NC4 – Sequential Approach and Impact

o   Policy NC5 – Out of Centre Proposals

o   Policy NC8 – Retail Development Serving New Development Areas

o   Policy I1 – Infrastructure Delivery and Planning Obligations

o   Policy T2 – Managing the Transport Impact of Development

o   Policy T3 – Sustainable and Active Travel

o   Policy T5 – Noise

o   Policy B1 – Business and industrial Land

o   Policy B4 – Aberdeen Airport

o   Policy H3 – Density

o   Policy H4 – Housing Mix

o   Policy H5 – Affordable Housing

o   Policy CF2 – New Community Facilities

o   Policy NE1 – Green Space Network

o   Policy NE4 – Open Space Provision in New Development

o   Policy NE5 – Trees and Woodlands

o   Policy NE6 – Flooding, Drainage and Water Quality

o   Policy NE8 – Natural Heritage

o   Policy NE9 – Access and Informal Recreation

o   Policy R6 – Waste Management Requirements for New Development

o   Policy R7 – Low and Zero Carbon Buildings, and Water Efficiency; and

o   Policy CI1 – Digital Infrastructure.

 

Members then asked a number of questions of both the applicant and the case officers and the following information was noted:-

1.    In regards to the flood risk, Mr Westwater explained that Fairhurst had carried out the assessment and it would be evaluated by the relevant Council officer when the application was submitted;

2.    The applicant would welcome the opportunity to attend the Bridge of Don Community Council to outline and discuss the planning application;

3.    They hoped to deliver the shop units after the Council Housing aspect was delivered and the Community Hall would be a part of phase 2 or 3.  They also hoped that the Community Hall could be used by a local charity for a few days a week as a base;

4.    The applicant was to look at the bungalow provision for the overall site and look at incorporating bungalow style housing within the Council Housing section.  The applicant would discuss this with the relevant Council officers;

5.    The applicant was also to look at the phasing plan and investigate whether the facilities could be done at the same time as the Council Housing, in order for the facilities to be available to tenants as soon as possible;

6.    The applicant was in discussions with Roads Development Management officers to reduce the speed limit on Ellon Road;

7.    Education capacity within the local schools was being looked at;

8.    The applicant was looking at incorporating electric vehicle charging points within the site;

9.    They hoped to provide a walkable sustainable development, and buses would be able to enter the site so no layby provision would be needed;

10.In regard to the factoring for properties to maintain the green space and parks etc, the applicant advised they were in discussions with Council officers, in relation to the Council Housing and who would pay for the factoring;

11.A Play Strategy would be submitted with the formal application which would indicate the range of facilities to be provided.

 

The report recommended:-

That the Forum –

(a)          Note the key issues identified;

(b)          If necessary, seek clarification on any particular matters; and

(c)        Identify relevant issues which they would like the applicant to consider and address in any future application.

 

The Forum resolved:-

(i)            to request that the applicant look at the bungalow provision throughout the site and also to enter discussions with Council officers, to look at incorporating bungalow style housing to the Council Housing element of the site;

(ii)          to request that the applicant liaise with Council officers in regard to the factoring for the site and how this would be utilised within the Council Housing element of the site;

(iii)         to request that the applicant continue to look at the phasing of the development and whether the shop units could be delivered at the same time as the Council Housing element; and

(iv)         to thank Mr Westwater and Mr Campbell for their informative presentation.

-       Councillor Marie Boulton - Convener