Agenda item

Members, please note that all plans and supporting documents relevant to the review can be viewed online here and by entering the application reference number 200463.

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 erection of a detached 1.5 storey dwellinghouse at Glendale, Kirkton of Skene, Tyrebagger Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 200463/DPP. 

 

Councillor Boulton, as Chairperson advised that Ms Lucy Greene would again be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the following case under consideration this day and reiterated that although the Planning Adviser 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 the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council (ACC); (2) the original application dated 10 April 2020; (3) the decision notice dated 5 November 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 responses submitted by the Environmental Policy Team, Flooding and Coastal Team, Roads Development Management Team and Waste Services Team (ACC); Forestry and Land, Scottish Government; Scottish Environment Protection Agency; Shell UK Ltd; and INEOS FPS Ltd

 

The LRB was then addressed by Ms Greene 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 Greene then described the site advising that it was located in the relatively remote Clinterty Woods and was accessed via a forest track from the B979, approximately 1km to the north-west of the site, at a point close to the public car park provided for recreational users of the forest. The main part of the site included the ruined remains of a small cottage which appeared to be of 19th century origin and various associated outbuildings and ancillary abandoned garden ground. The cottage was last occupied in 2008 when it was fire damaged. The walls of the cottage were constructed of locally sourced granite. No part of the roof of the cottage remained. The outbuildings were constructed of various materials, including, granite rubble, timber, concrete blockwork and corrugated iron, with sections of roofing remaining. The majority of the historic house site was undeveloped land, and the boundaries were somewhat unclear. Mature trees of amenity value lie to the north and east of the site beyond a burn.

Most of the site was level, there was a steep north facing slope to the south and it was surrounded by mature conifer forest / trees. This resulted in considerable shading of the site, particularly during the winter. Core path 36 (Clinterty Woods to Brimmond Hill) runs along the eastern site boundary.

 

In terms of the appellant’s proposal, Ms Greene advised that the house would be erected on the site following the demolition of the remains of the cottage and outbuildings. The proposed house would be sited at the north end of the footprint of the existing, slightly overlapping. Plans showed a house of 1½ storeys and contemporary in design with a simple massing and footprint. The ground level would be similar to that of the former cottage, and would sit approximately 1.5m above the stream channel to the east. Measuring 6m wide by 17m it would provide 3 bedrooms at the upper level and would be clad in larch. A new septic tank and surface water soakaway would be located within the former walled garden to the west of the house and a new car parking and turning area would be provided to the east of the house, with the access to the site provided at its eastern extremity adjacent to a mature Sequoia tree. The existing access to the public road via the forest track would be retained, with a new section of access track created within the forest to the north of the site, outwith the area controlled by the applicant. This would provide improved access to the house, but it would be largely reliant on use of the forest track. The site boundaries of the house site would be defined by new post and wire fencing / existing blockwork walls. A total of three trees within the main part of the site would be removed as a result of construction works, including a mature copper beech, a willow and a western red cedar. In order to create a new section of access track outwith the site, trees were likely to be impacted, however, the extent of this was unknown.

 

She indicated that the Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal stated in the decision notice was as follows:-

·       The existing house had not been used since 2008 and no essential need established. The proposal did not therefore accord with Green Belt policy;

·       It would detract from landscape character and conflict with recreational use by public;

·       The introduction of vehicular traffic along track would conflict with use as waymarked trail and erode function of the Green Space Network;

·       The remote location would likely cause dependence on car travel, not constituting sustainable development and contrary to policy on active travel; and

·       There was insufficient information on impact on trees of access (through the forest).

 

Ms Greene outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review as follows:-

·       The proposal is of scale and character previously indicated as acceptable and no grounds to conclude that residential use had been abandoned;

·       The proposal consisted of sustainable redevelopment of brownfield site, supported by the Strategic Development Plan and the Scottish Planning Policy – presumption in favour of sustainable development;

·       It confirmed compliance with all other policies in the adopted Local Development Plan (LDP), including on trees;  and

·       The Green Belt policy in the Proposed Plan allowed for the replacement of vacant houses in poor condition. There were no objections to this policy and Proposed Plan outweighed the extant LDP in this regard.

 

 

In terms of consultee responses, Ms Greene advised:-

·       Aberdeen City Council Roads Development Management Team had no objection; advised that adequate parking provision was proposed and that the new access was acceptable given it woukd be onto a private road;

·       The Council’s Waste Strategy Team had no objection;

·       The Council’s Structures, Flooding and Coastal Engineering Team had no objection; advised that the site lay within the 1 in 200 year surface water flood risk as identified in the SEPA maps; noted that the green burn runs within the site and that a flood risk assessment (level 2) was required;

·       Forestry and Land Scotland advised that the proposed access for this development passed though Forestry and Land Scotland property. The access route shown on the plans was an agreement in principle only. The grant of access rights were conditional and required compliance with a range of stipulations regarding the upgrade and maintenance of the core path at the applicants expense;

·       Scottish Environment Protection Agency had no objection; advised that the site was adjacent to a small watercourse so that the application site may be at risk of flooding. They recommended that consideration was given to obtaining a flood risk assessment for the site to establish that the risk was low prior to proceeding with development;

·       Shell UK LTD had no objection; advised that the development and associated construction works would not directly affect the pipeline servitude strip or the safety and integrity of the pipeline;

·       INEOS forties pipeline system had no objection; considered that their pipeline would not be affected by the proposed development;

·       HSE had no objection in relation to pipeline proximity risk; and

·       Dyce and Stoneywood Community Council – no response received; and there were no further representations.

 

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that the review may proceed on the basis of the information provided.

 

The Chairperson and Councillors Macdonald 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, Ms Greene referred to the following in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017:-

·       Green Belt policy – NE2:

·       Policy NE9;

·       Policy NE1 – Green Space Network;

·       Policy NE5 – Trees and Woodland;

·       Policy T2 – Managing the Transport Impact of Development;

·       Policy T3 – Sustainable and Active Travel; and

·       Scottish Planning Policy.

 

 

Ms Greene responded to questions from members in relation to waste collection, sustainable living and transport and the current condition of the buildings.

 

The Chairperson and Councillors Allan and Mason each advised in turn and by a majority of two to one, agreed to reverse the appointed officer’s earlier decision and to grant the planning permission conditionally.

 

The Chairperson and Councillor Mason indicated that they believed that in this instance and as a result that no objections had been received from consultees, that on balance, they were comfortable with the proposed development and any policy concerns could be mitigated with conditions.

 

Councillor Macdonald agreed with the appointed officer’s decision 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:-

That if the former house, the ruins of which remain, had not been destroyed by fire, it is likely that residential use would still remain on this site. Taking into account the impact of the pandemic and intermittent contact with the planning authority since the fire, it is considered that the intervening time period is, relatively, not so long as to consider the use abandoned. These factors are material considerations that overcome the tension with Policies NE2: Green Belt, T3: Sustainable and Active Travel and NE9: Access and Informal Recreation in the extant Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 and similar policies within the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020.

 

The proposed house is of a design, scale, massing and character that would fit within the Green Belt in terms of Policy NE2. With the attachment of conditions, the proposal would be acceptable in its impact on trees, flooding, drainage, carbon emissions reduction, water efficiency in accordance with Policy NE5: Trees and Woodland, NE6: Flooding and R7: Low and Zero Carbon in the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 and similar policies in the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020.

 

CONDITIONS

(1)            That the development shall be implemented only in complete accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment by Fairhurst, dated September 2020, or such other as may be subsequently approved, in particular in terms of the ground level of the house.

Reason: In the interests of avoiding flooding and managing water.

(2)            That no development shall take place unless there has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the planning authority details of the reuse within the site, of granite from the downtakings of the remains of the building on site. Reason: in the interests of preserving the granite heritage of the city.

(3)            That no development shall take unless there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority details (including samples where necessary) of all external finishing materials to the building, including any hard landscaping and boundary treatments.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to preserve the character of the green belt.

(4)            That notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1, Part 1A, and Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended) the proposed dwellinghouse shall not be altered in any way nor any building and / or means of enclosure erected within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse without an express grant of planning permission from the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to retain effective planning control of the character and appearance of the development.

(5)            That no development shall take place unless the tree protection barriers shown on the approved plans, or such others as shall be subsequently approved, remains in place on site.

Reason: To protect trees.

(6)            The driveway shall be laid only in accordance with the no dig method shown on the approved plans and documents, or such other as may be subsequently approved.

Reason: In the interests of protecting trees.

(7)            That any tree work which appears to become necessary during the implementation of the development shall not be undertaken without the prior written consent of the planning authority; any damage caused to trees growing on the site shall be remedied in accordance with British Standard 3998:2010”Recommendations for Tree Work” before the building hereby approved is first occupied .

Reason: in order to preserve the character and visual amenity of the area.

(8)            That no materials, supplies, plant, machinery, spoil, changes in ground levels or construction activities shall be permitted within the protected areas specified in the aforementioned scheme of tree protection without the written consent of the Planning Authority and no fire shall be lit in a position where the flames could extend to within 5 metres of foliage, branches or trunks.

Reason:  in order to ensure adequate protection for the trees on site during the construction of the development.

(9)            That the building hereby approved shall not be occupied unless a scheme detailing compliance with the Council’s ‘Low and Zero Carbon Buildings’ supplementary guidance, including in terms of water efficiency, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, and any recommended measures specified within that scheme for the reduction of carbon emissions have been implemented in full.

Reason: to ensure that this development complies with requirements for reduction in carbon emissions.