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 210771

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 application for the subdivision of existing detached steading to form two dwellings and formation of parking courtyard at North Steading South Linn, Linn Moor Road, Peterculter, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 210771/DPP. 

Councillor Henrickson 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 thereafter, by Ms Lucy Greene 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, 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.  He 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 the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 31 May 2021; (3) the decision notice dated 8 February 2022; (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; (6) consultee responses submitted by the Environmental Health Team, Roads Development Management Team, Waste and Recycling Team (ACC), INEOS FPS Ltd, Scottish Water, Health and Safety Executive, Shell UK Ltd; and (7) one letter of representation.

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 the site extended to approximately 1.44ha and contained a detached steading building which had previously been converted into residential use as a single dwellinghouse, with its associated curtilage parking areas and private garden ground. The application site boundary also included a large area of agricultural land to the north/north-east, which was within the control of the applicant but did not form part of the domestic curtilage. Access to the site was taken from the south along Linn Moor Road eventually leading to the A93, which was located approximately 1.7km to the south. The site was located within the Green Belt and was surrounded by open fields to the north and east and by residential properties to the west and south. South Linn Cottage was located further to the north. Oil and gas pipelines pass through and adjacent to the application site.

In terms of the appellant’s proposal, Ms Greene indicated that planning permission was sought for the sub-division of an existing dwellinghouse contained within a detached steading to form two dwellings with associated alterations and formation of courtyard. The external alterations proposed would include a new door and two rooflights on the south-west elevation, two new doors on the north-east elevation, and two “sun tunnels” on the north-west and southeast elevations. A flue was also proposed on the roof of the northeast elevation. The existing garden ground would be split between the properties and a parking area/courtyard would be provided to the front of the dwelling. Access arrangements would not change, which would be taken from the existing track to the west. No other changes were indicated on the area of land to the north and east, which were also in control of the applicant. The extents of the domestic curtilage would not be altered through the proposal and did not include any change to the ‘rear field’ area within the red line boundary.

She indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal stated in the decision notice was that the proposal would see the provision of an additional residential unit within the Green Belt, the principle of which did not fall within any of the specified types of acceptable development, nor did it meet any of the exceptions set out in Policy NE2 Green Belt of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy NE2 (Green Belt) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan. For similar reasons, the proposal would also be contrary to Policy NE1 (Green Belt) of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020. There were no material planning considerations that would warrant the approval of planning permission in this instance.

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

·       The property had two living rooms and six double bedrooms;

·       The proposal was to split it into two units with minimal external alterations, resulting in two 3 bed properties of more standard size;

·       The properties would house fewer people; and

·       That it did not harm the character of the Green Belt nor contravene policy.

Ms Greene made reference to consultee responses, and also advised thatone objection had been received.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that the review could be considered without the need of any further procedure.

At this point in the proceedings, the LRB considered whether they had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review.

The Chairperson and Councillors Thomson and van Sweeden 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:-

·       H1 – Residential Areas;

·       D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design;

·       D5 – Our Granite Heritage;

·       I1 – Infrastructure Delivery and Planning Obligations;

·       T2 – Managing the Transport Impact of Development;

·       T3 – Sustainable and Active Travel;

·       NE2 – Green Belt;

·       NE8 – Natural Heritage;

·       R6 – Waste Management Requirements for New Development;

·       CI1 – Digital Infrastructure; and

·       B6 – Pipelines Etc

Ms Greene responded to questions from members in relation to sustainable travel, policy exception criteria and sun tunnels.

The Chairperson and Councillors Thomson and van Sweeden each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to reverse the appointed officer’s earlier decision and to grant the planning permission 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:-

The proposal would relate to an existing activity within the green belt. It is within the boundary of the existing activity; of small-scale; it is considered that the intensity of activity is not significantly increased as no additional floorspace would be provided with  the addition of doorways and sun tunnels and the like being  ancillary to what exists.

The proposal therefore complies with Policy NE2 Green Belt of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017. For similar reasons, the proposal would accord with Policy NE1 (Green Belt) of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020.

CONDITIONS

(1)    Removal of PD rights:

That notwithstanding the provisions of Classes 1A - 3E and 7; of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended) the proposed dwellinghouses shall not be altered in any way nor any building and/or means of enclosure erected within the curtilage of the dwellinghouses 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.

(2)    INEOS pipeline:

That the permission shall not be implemented and the premises not used as two separate dwellinghouses unless there has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the planning authority, evidence of consultation having taken place with INEOS FPS to ensure that any works take full cognisance of the Forties Pipeline, and confirmation that the works are acceptable.

Reason: To ensure the continued safety and engineering integrity of the INEOS FPS Forties Pipeline.