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 201307.

The LRB 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 change of use from amenity land to garden ground

At 25 Seaview Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 211307/DPP. 

The 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; (2) an application dated 7 September 2021; (3) the decision notice dated 9 December 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) a consultee response submitted by the Environmental Policy Team.

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 part of a wider area of open space that was laid out as part of a large residential development in 1995. It included a small section of an informal footpath which was described as being little used by people, and overgrown. To the south was the garden of 25 Seaview Place, which was bounded by timber fencing. There was a two storey house in a row of similar houses. With the exception of number 34, none of these houses had been extended into the open space. The north boundary of the site was formed by a dry stone dyke and to the east and west of the area in question there were shrubs, natural grassland and vegetation.

Ms Greene provided details in terms of the planning history of the site and indicated that the application before members today was for change of use of the area from amenity space to garden, associated with 25 Seaview Place.

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

·       There would be an adverse impact on biodiversity – Open Space Audit showed site to be of value;

·       There would be a loss of public open space causing loss of amenity and character;

·       There would be an adverse effect on wider space, creating irregular boundary and constraining maintenance to stone dyke;

·       A precedent may be set which could cause cumulative erosion of open space;

·       The proposal would be therefore contrary to policy on open space, design, landscape, natural heritage, residential reas, granite heritage, and the Householder Design Guide, as well as national advice on open space and policies in the Proposed Plan; and

·       An adverse impact cannot be mitigated with design or conditions, it being contrary to public interest in the long term to allow conversion of the garden to private space.

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

·       The proposal would not result in loss of an area that is of amenity, recreational, landscape or wildlife value, and it would improve quality of life of the occupiers of the house;

·       It complied with the aim of Strategic Development Plan to make the city a more attractive place for residents;

·       The proposal satisfied the criteria in the Householder Design Guide for change of use of amenity ground, and therefore accords with Policy H1: Residential Areas;

·       The proposal complied with various other policies on design, landscape, granite heritage, green space network, natural heritage and access;

·       The proposal was supported by national policy as it contributed to sustainable development, supported health and wellbeing, and open space; and

·       The informal footpath which previously crossed the site was now disused and overgrown and an alternative exists.

In terms of consultee responses, Ms Greene advised that no response had been received from Bridge of Don Community Council and there were no representations received.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that that a site visit should be carried out in order to view the site and the review should not proceed only on the basis of the information provided.

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, Ms Greene referred to the following in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017:-

·       Policy H1 – Residential Areas; and

·       Supplementary Guidance:  Householder Development Guide

Ms Greene responded to questions from members in relation the reinstatement process to a neighbouring property, the impact of tree removal in the area and sought confirmation whether the dyke was being maintained.

The Chairperson and Councillors Bell and Mason 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 proposed change of use from amenity land to garden ground would result in the loss of part of an area of public open space, which was identified as such in the Council’s Open Space Audit of 2010 and is of biodiversity value. It would also result in the fragmentation of a wider area of open space that contributes to the character, biodiversity and amenity of the surrounding area.

The proposal would adversely affect the wider open space in that it would result in an irregular residential boundary whereby the northern boundary of 25 Seaview Place would extend beyond the established northern boundary line of the adjacent residential properties and encroach into an established amenity area. Domestic development within the revised boundary could detract from the amenity, biodiversity and recreational value of the wider open space. Extending the residential curtilage to the dyke at the north boundary of the site would not allow for its future maintenance / repair as access to it would be likely to be unduly constrained and this may lead to its eventual removal. 

The proposal would result in an undesirable precedent that would make it difficult to resist similar proposals in the future. This could cumulatively result in the gradual erosion of the open space, which would have a significant adverse impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area.

The proposal would therefore conflict with the principles of Scottish Planning Policy; Planning Advice Note (PAN) 65 : Planning and Open Space;  Policies D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design; D2: Landscape; D5: Our Granite Heritage; H1 – Residential Areas; NE3 – Urban Green Space; NE8: Natural Heritage of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan; the Supplementary Guidance: ‘The Householder Development Guide’ and ‘Green Space Network and Open Space’; and Policies D1- Quality Placemaking, H1 – Residential Areas and NE2 – Green and Blue Infrastructure of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

There are no material planning considerations that warrant the grant of planning permission in this instance. It is considered that the potential adverse design and amenity impact of the development cannot reasonably be addressed by imposition of conditions. Given the valuable role which public open space / greenspace provides, as recognised by relevant planning policies, in this case it is not in the long-term public interest to allow its conversion to private garden ground.