Agenda item

The Local Review Body (LRB) 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 partial change of use from office with workshop to restaurant (Class 3) with hot food takeaway (sui generis) including installation of fence with gate and associated works at Graphix House, Wellington Circle, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 191800/DPP.

Councillor Boulton as Chair, gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken, advising that the LRB would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mr Mark Masson with regards to 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 following 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 Mr Masson, Assistant Clerk in regard to the procedure to be followed, at which time reference was made to the procedure note circulated with the papers calling the meeting and to more general aspects relating to the procedure.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Aoife Murphy, Senior Planner; (2) the application dated 4 December 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 13 February 2020; (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement with further information relating to the application; and (6) letters of representation submitted by consultees.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Evans 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.

Mr Evans then described the site advising that it was located on the southern side of Wellington Circle, immediately opposite the car park serving Ikea and just along from a Starbucks drive-through which was within that car park. Immediately to the east is Wellington Business Park, a collection of smaller industrial units arranged around a central yard space, with Lochside Academy located approximately 300m away to the north east. He intimated that the site itself accommodated a 2-storey pitched roof commercial building, containing a workshop, offices and a car park. The premises were historically occupied solely by XIC, a commercial graphic design and printing company, however it was understood from the applicants’ submissions that XIC’s demands for space had reduced over time, leading to part of the building being let to others and a further area being unsuccessfully marketed for rental since May 2019, with no viewings in that time. He explained that the applicants’ statement in support of their application also highlighted that the reception area was now redundant, with limited prospect of rental for business and industrial use. The building fronted Wellington Circle, and access was gained directly off the road. The site was within an area zoned for principally business and industrial uses, where policy B1 would apply. The land to the north, including Ikea, Makro, Pure Gym and Starbucks, was identified as an opportunity site in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, with potential for change of use to class 1 (retail) noted.

The Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal were that the proposal fails to comply with the principle policy, Policy B1 - Business and Industrial Land, in that there was no requirement of this development and there was sufficient provision and range of food and drink establishments within the surrounding area to serve the existing business parks. In addition, the development, due to its location could detract from the viability and vitality of the existing city centre, which was against the requirements of Policy NC4 - Sequential Approach and Impact, Policy NC5 - Out of Centre Proposals of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017.

The appellant had submitted a statement in support of the application for Local Review, and Mr Evans referred directly to the reasons for refusal and the main points put forward were as follows:-

·     Argued that the development complied with the relevant policies of the Local Development Plan;

·     Contended that, whilst not specifically listed as an exception under policy NE2, the proposal would not undermine the aims of green belt designations;

·     The site was well located relative to the facilities and services to be provided in future as part of the Countesswells development;

·     Highlighted lack of landscape impact due to existing tree cover, and noted that Aberdeen City Council (ACC) could serve a Tree Protection Order to ensure long-term retention of those trees if considered essential; and

·     Highlighted lack of objection from consultees.

In relation to the consultation submissions, Mr Evans made reference to the following:-

·     ACC - Waste Strategy Team –Standard response received, setting out requirements and raising no concerns;

·     ACC - Flooding and Coastal Protection – No comments provided;

·     ACC - Roads Development Management Team – No objection;

·     Cults, Bieldside & Milltimber Community Council – Neutral response. Did not object to the current application but were concerned that this proposal, if consented, may result in further incremental development of the area. (The land under the applicant’s control was considered for five dwellinghouses in the recent 2022 Aberdeen Local Development Plan housing bid assessments under bid reference B0925 but was considered unsuitable for inclusion in the next local development plan).

Mr Evans advised that one representation had been received and was summarised as follows:-

·     Proposal not consistent with the provisions of Policy NE2 (Greenbelt) in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017;

·     The proposed curtilage split would have an unacceptable effect on the character and local identity of the rural locale;

·     Proposal would not be consistent with the provisions of Policy D2 (Landscape) in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017; and

·     Proposed curtilage-split would set a bad precedent for similar development in the semi-rural area.

.

The Chairperson and Councillors Henrickson and Macdonald advised in turn that they each had enough information before them and agreed that a site visit was not required and that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.

Mr Evans highlighted the relevant policy considerations, making reference to the following:-

·     the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 - NE1 (Green Space Network); NE2 (Green Belt);  and D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design;

·      Supplementary Guidance: Sub-division and Redevelopment of Residential Curtilages.

Other relevant policies raised by Mr Evans included Policy D2 – Landscape; Policy NE5 – Trees and Woodlands; Policy NE6 – Flooding, Drainage and Water Quality; Policy R7 – Low and Zero Carbon Buildings, and Water Efficiency; Policy T2 – Managing the Transport Impact of Development; and Policy T3 – Sustainable and Active Travel.

Mr Evans also referred to other Supplementary Guidance including:-

·     Flooding, Drainage and Water Quality;

·     Green Space Network and Open Space;

·     Transport and Accessibility; and

·     Resources for New Development

Mr Evans advised that 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:

·     direct planned growth to the most appropriate locations and support regeneration;

·     protect and enhance the quality, character, landscape setting and identity of towns and cities; and

·     protect and give access to open space within and around towns and cities.

Mr Evans indicated 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, including the location to the nearby Academy and potential footfall, road safety concerns, the type of food to be sold and potential operating hours which could not be confirmed at this time.

The Chairperson and Councillors Henrickson and Macdonald each advised in turn and unanimously agreed 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 considerations 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:-

The proposal fails to comply with the principle policy, Policy B1 - Business and Industrial Land, in that there is no requirement of this development and there is sufficient provision and range of food and drink establishments within the surrounding area to serve the existing business parks. In addition, the development, due to its location could detract from the viability and vitality of the existing city centre, which is against the requirements of Policy NC4 - Sequential Approach and Impact, Policy NC5 - Out of Centre Proposals of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017.