Agenda item

The LRB then considered the second 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 change of use from amenity land to residential curtilage to form a paved area (retrospectively), at 3 Wellington Park Aberdeen, planning reference 210517.

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.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 12 April 2021; (3) the decision notice dated 22 July 2021 ; (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; and (6) consultee comments from Roads Development Management and also a letter of representation received, who objected to the application. 

Mr Evans then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal which sought planning permission retrospectively for the change of use of the site from amenity space to residential curtilage, which would be associated with 3 Wellington Park, and retrospectively for the installation of the block paving in the area.  This application considered the principle of the use of the site as residential curtilage. Land ownership and use rights were a separate legal matter for any parties concerned.

The application site comprises a c.27qm area to the west of 3 Wellington Park, a recently constructed semi-detached dwelling in a recently constructed residential area of the Charleston development, allocated as OP56 – Cove in the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan.  Until recently, the space was covered in soft landscaping and planting and was an intended and required area of amenity open space as part of the wider residential development (Ref:

161279/DPP), which had a significant quantity and variety of planted species, including a tree.

The application site had recently been the subject of an unauthorised change of use from open space to residential curtilage, the unauthorised removal of the required planting on the site and the installation of block paving. It now functioned as an extended area of driveway serving 3 Wellington Park.

The application site was bounded immediately to the northwest and north by Wellington Park, beyond which was open space, Wellington Road and thereafter the Loirston Loch Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS); to the east and southeast by the residential curtilage and driveway of 3 Wellington Park; and to the southwest by a c.0.5m wide strip of open space beyond which is the

driveway and curtilage of 4 Wellington Park.

Mr Evans indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal outlined in the decision notice was as follows:-

•      Resulted in the loss of an area of open space, required as part of the landscaping scheme for the wider OP56 Cove development (ref 161379).

•      Notes that landscaping in this location would have contributed to landscape character as it matured, but the proposal has resulted in removal of a tree

•      Identifies conflict with policies H1 (residential areas) and NE3 (Urban

•      Green Space) of the ALDP, as well as associated Supplementary Guidance documents and equivalent policies from emerging Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan;

•      Created an irregular residential boundary that did not correspond with the wider pattern of development.

•      Conflicted with policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design);

•      Resulted in over-provision of car parking, contrary to policy aims to promote sustainable and active travel.

•      Conflicted with policy T2 (Managing the Transport Impact of Development)

•      Change of use and physical works detract from the designed outlook and

•      adversely affect the residential amenity.

Mr Evans outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review as follows:-

·         Contends that the proposal complies with all relevant policies of the ALDP (H1, T2, D1, NE1, NE3, NE4 and NE5) – included detailed commentary on each, as well as a response to the reasons for refusal;

·         Notes that the report of handling raised no concerns regarding policies D2, NE8, NE9, so compliance was assumed;

·         Report of handling advised that, if minded to approve, conditions might have been used to address matters relating to boundary treatments and drainage. Applicants conclude that the application could therefore not be refused on those matters;

·         Clarified that the area in question allowed for only one additional car, not two as intimated in the report of handling;

·         Application also complied with equivalent policies from the emerging Proposed ALDP;

Mr Evans advised that the applicant had expressed that a site visit should take place before determination.

The Chairperson and Councillors Bell and Mason all indicated in turn that they each had enough information before them and therefore agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without any further procedure.

In terms of relevant policy considerations, Mr Evans referred to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 and the following policies:-

Policy H1 – Residential Areas

Policy D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design

Policy NE1 - Green Space Network

Policy NE3 - Urban Green Space

Policy NE4 - Open Space Provision in New Development

Policy NE5 - Trees and Woodlands. 

He also made reference to Supplementary Guidance – Householder Development Guide, Greenspace Network and Open Space and Transport & Accessibility, as well as the proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2020) and the Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan.   

Mr Evans responded to various questions from members which included the drainage, enforcement issues and also Roads Development Management’s position on the application.

Members each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to uphold the appointed officer’s earlier decision to refuse the planning permission.

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 are as follows:-

1.    The proposed change of use from amenity land to garden ground would resultin the loss of valued and valuable open space, which was required as part of theLandscaping Scheme of the wider residential development of OP56 - Cove (Ref:161379/DPP). Prior to the unauthorised change of use, the application site had andas it matured would have continued to have significantly landscape character andamenity value and, given the significant quantity and variety of species required inthis particular space in the landscaping scheme approved in for application reference: 161279/DPP, the proposal had and would have continued to have substantial natural environment value worthy of retention as it matured. The proposal results in the loss of a tree worthy of retention, in conflict with the aims of Policy NE5 - Trees and Woodlands. As such, the proposal would therefore conflict with the principles of Scottish Planning Policy; Policies H1 - Residential Areas, NE3 – Urban Green Space, of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan, and the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide', 'and 'Green Space Network and Open Space'; as well as Policies H1 - Residential Areas, and NE2 - Green and Blue Infrastructure of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020.

2.    The proposal results in an irregular residential boundary, in conflict with the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide' whereby an areaof land to the east of the boundary is incorporated into the curtilage of 3 WellingtonPark. This does not correspond with the boundary layouts and plot proportions andthus the established pattern of development in the surrounding area nor reflect localurban form. The proposal would therefore conflict with the principles of Policies H1 -Residential Areas, D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design, the SupplementaryGuidance: 'The Householder Development Guide', and Policies H1 – ResidentialAreas and D1 - Quality Placemaking of the Proposed Aberdeen Local DevelopmentPlan.

3.    The proposal results in an over-provision of parking for a recently constructedresidential dwelling, which would encourage the usage of unsustainable travel interms of the private car and disincentivising sustainable and active travel, whichwould conflict with the principles of Policy T2 - Managing the Transport Impact ofDevelopment of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan; the SupplementaryGuidance: 'Transport and Accessibility' and Policy T2 - Sustainable Transport of theProposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020.

4.    The change of use and paving of the open space detracted from the designed outlook and thus the residential amenity afforded to 4 Wellington Park in that as thespace matured, the vegetation would have provided soft landscaped setting to theedge of that residential property. The proposal would therefore conflict with theprinciples of Scottish Planning Policy; Policies H1 - Residential Areas and D1 -Quality Placemaking by Design, of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan;and Policies H1 - Residential Areas and D1 - Quality Placemaking, of the ProposedAberdeen Local Development Plan.