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 210657.

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 Detailed Planning Permission for the installation of a security fence at Wooland and Henry site, Stoneywood Park, Aberdeen, planning reference 210657.

The Chairperson stated that although the Planning Adviser for the LRB 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 and decision notice by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 11 May 2021 (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report, (4) the Notice of Review submitted by the agent and (5) various consultee comments and four letters of objection.

Mr Evans then described the application site and noted the application site, noting it comprised existing industrial premises (workshop, yard, parking) together with adjacent undeveloped woodland areas. The industrial premises was accessed via Stoneywood Park within an industrial estate. The woodland formed part of a larger woodland area which was required to be retained as public open space in association with the adjacent housing development but had been purchased by the applicant. To the east of the site was a public path within a wooded area which functioned as an important link in the recreational pathway network along the River Don.

The site was bounded to the south by a SUDS pond developed as part of the adjacent housing development. To the south of this lay a suburban housing development (allocated as OP17 – Stoneywood in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan).  A mature woodland / tree belt extended west from the site, parallel to Cedar Avenue and towards Stoneywood Road.  This was protected by a Tree Preservation Order (No.257) and was understood to have been part of the woodland policies originally associated with Stoneywood Estate. A separate TPO (No. 259) was served on the mature woodland within the site in 2020.

In terms of the proposal, Mr Evans advised that Detailed Planning Permission was sought for the erection of a metal chain-link mesh security fence within the woodland area, approximately 3m to the east of the boundary of the industrial site (i.e. the original fence line), running parallel to the original eastern boundary. The fence would be topped with 3 horizontal strands of barbed wire and would have a maximum height of 2.32m. The southern end of the proposed fence line would taper to join the existing south boundary. The area of open space that would be enclosed / encroached on would be around 180 square metres. A blackthorn hedge was proposed to be planted along the outer (eastern) boundary of the fence, adjacent / to the west of the footpath within the woodland area.

Ms Greene indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal outlined in the report of handling was as follows:-

1.     Impact on Residential Amenity - Due to the industrial character and appearance of the development and its proximity to a well-used recreational path forming an integral amenity within a designated open space associated to a residential area, the fence was considered to have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of the area and therefore conflict with policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017.

2.     Loss of Access to Greenspace / Open Space - Notwithstanding that the site had been purchased by the applicant, the position of the proposed fence would result in loss / severance of public access to the woodland area within the site, which forms part of a consented housing development, in conflict with the objectives of policies NE1 (Green Space Network), NE3 (Urban Green Space) and NE9 (Access and Informal Recreation) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 and PAN 65. Although some mitigatory planting was proposed, it was considered that this was not sufficient to warrant approval of the proposal or justify the loss of access to the open space. No replacement public open space was proposed. By preventing public access to existing open space which was required to be delivered as part of the Stoneywood housing development, which was a valued open space resource for the wider community, the proposal would conflict with the Stoneywood Development Framework and Masterplan approved by the Council in 2011; and

3.     Precedent - Approval of this application would establish an undesirable precedent for further / similar proposals that would be likely to erode the extent and purpose of established public open space / woodland areas within housing and industrial areas

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

•       Provided background on the business, past works and applications, and the importance of site security;

•       Notes that the previous approval of a footpath in such close proximity to the existing industrial use departed from the original Masterplan, brings members of the public closer to this industrial edge and gives rise to security concerns for the applicants;

•       Highlighted that the proposed alignment of fencing would allow for a landscaped buffer between an existing footpath and the adjoining industrial use;

•       Contends that the fencing design had been altered to address issues raised in the earlier appeal decision and avoid impact on trees, also introducing hedge planting to offer some screening/softening where its route remained close to the path;

•       A similar style of fence could be seen within the Green Space Network on Cedar Avenue; and

•       Contends that the proposed fencing was more compatible with the character of the adjoining residential area whilst offering security and enclosure for the applicants.

In terms of consultation responses, a response was received from Environmental Health and four letters of objection.  

Mr Evans advised that the applicant had expressed the view that no further procedure should take place before determination. 

In terms of the further procedure, the Chairperson and Councillors Donnelly 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.

Mr Evans responded to various questions from members.

Members each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to overturn the appointed officers  decision.  Planning permission was therefore granted conditionally.     

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:-

Members of the Local Review Body (LRB) unanimously resolved to reverse the appointed officer’s decision and grant planning permission, subject to conditions. Members noted that the proposed new fence would provide adequate security for the applicants’ industrial premises, but would be set back from the nearby footpath and would be accompanied by hedge planting to reduce its visual impact and ensure an appearance which is sympathetic to residential amenity and the woodland setting. Whilst it was recognised that the wider area of woodland and its associated footpath have value as a recreational route and area of urban green space, and enclosure with fencing would prevent public access, members were satisfied that this application relates to a relatively modest area of land, the loss of which would not be significant in the context of the wider area of woodland, and represents an appropriate compromise. Members specified that barbed wire should be omitted from the approved fence, and that the mesh fencing should be appropriately coloured to further reduce its visual impact and ensure it is appropriate to recreational woodland within a residential area.

                                                      CONDITIONS

1.    Omission of barbed wire

Notwithstanding the fencing detail shown on the approved plans, the barbed/razor wire shown above the mesh portion of the fencing shall be omitted from the fence hereby granted planning permission.

Reason: in order to ensure that the fencing is appropriate to its woodland context within a residential area.

2.    Removal of unauthorised fence

The development hereby approved shall not be undertaken unless the existing unauthorised fence, subject to an enforcement notice under case ref. ENF0169, has first been removed in accordance with the terms of that notice or any related terms as agreed in writing with the planning authority.

Reason: to ensure that the woodland setting is not adversely affected by the presence of multiple fences enclosing the same premises.

3.    Colouring of mesh fencing

The development hereby approved shall not be undertaken unless details of a coloured coating to the mesh fencing (green or black) have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority.

Thereafter, the fencing shall be installed in full accordance with the details so agreed.

Reason: to reduce the visual impact of the fencing in this woodland setting.