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 220021.

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 partial change of use of agricultural field to residential curtilage, erection of garage, and formation of new access with associated works at Kingshills House, C128c from junction With Countesswells Park Rd and north Countesswells Rd to Kingswells Roundabout, Kingswells Aberdeen, planning reference 220021.

The Chairperson stated that although the Planning Adviser for the LRB 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.

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 11 January 2022 (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (4) consultee comments from Roads Development Management and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the agent. 

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.    The application site

The application site was an irregular area measuring c.2200m2 and included part of the residential curtilage of Kingshill House and part of the agricultural fields to its north and south, which fell within the same ownership. Kingshill House was a substantial detached dwelling set in a residential curtilage extending to c.1600m2, which contained a detached double garage building granted planning permission following application 190967/DPP. To its west was a stables block, which was located outwith the residential curtilage; to the north and south were agricultural fields, some falling within the same ownership; and to its east was a dead-end road, which previously linked the Kingswells roundabout and Countesswells prior to the opening of the new Western link road to Countesswells. Beyond that were more agricultural fields. The plot has two vehicular accesses, both providing access and egress onto the road.

In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene advised that the application could be split into three distinct parts:

1.    Change of use of an area extending to c.1850m2 from agricultural land to residential curtilage to the north and south of the existing residential garden ground;

2.    Construction of a new vehicular access into the plot. The vehicular access would be located; and

3.    Construction of a detached double garage. The building would measure c.8.3m by c.5.8m, would have a flat roof and an overall height of c.2.8m. Proposed finishes included smooth white render, a dark grey sarnafill roof, timber eaves and fascias, segmented metal garage doors, and a timber pass door in the west side elevation.

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

·       The application was contrary to Green Belt policy to extend residential curtilage and create access;

·       Consideration given to potential permitted development;

·       The visual difference between residential curtilage and agricultural fields;

·       The flat roof garage was not of high quality as required by Green Belt policy;

·       The proposal would not protect or enhance the character of Green Belt and was contrary to Scottish Planning Policy;

·       There would be a loss of trees; and

·       Visual impact of the tree loss would be contrary to Policy on Trees and Woodland and Design.

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

·       The proposal does not harm the character of Green Belt nor contravene policy, due to being:

• Located within boundaries of the residential development

• The development was small scale

• There would not be an increase in the intensity of activity

• It was ancillary to residential use

·       The design demonstrated six qualities of successful places;

·       It complied with policies on transport, sustainable & active travel, flooding and drainage and trees and woodlands in adopted and proposed plans;

·       They felt it was sustainable development in terms of Scottish Planning Policy;

·       There were no objections to the application;

• There were benefits of the proposed access.

In terms of Consultations, no letters of representation were received and no consultee comments.   

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that a site visit should take place before determination.

The Chairperson and Councillor van Sweeden indicated  that they each had enough information before them to proceed without further procedure.  Councillor Clark felt that a site visit would be beneficial.  By majority,  the LRB agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without any further procedure.

In terms of relevant policy considerations, Ms Greene referred to relevant planning policies contained in the Local Development Plan.

Ms Greene responded to various questions from members.

Members each advised in turn and they unanimously agreed to uphold the officers earlier decision and 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 were as follows:-

1.    The extension of the residential curtilage of Kingshills House and creation of a further access into the site would be contrary to Policy NE2 (Green Belt) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (ALDP) which has an embargo on all development except for that which is essential for agriculture, woodland and forestry, recreational uses compatible with an agricultural or natural setting, mineral extraction/quarry restoration or landscape renewal. Further, it doesn't comply with the specific exceptions listed in the policy as it would be located outwith the boundary of existing activity within the site and would result in an increase in activity. Consideration is given to the potential of additional development as an increase in the size of residential curtilage would allow an increase in the area to which residential permitted development rights would apply and the visual difference between residential curtilage and agricultural fields in relation to the vegetation grown, amount of landscaping and level of maintenance undertaken. Finally, it is considered that the use of a flat roof for the proposed garage would not contribute positively to the appearance of the surrounding area, and would not constitute development of the highest quality as required under Policy NE2 (Green Belt) The proposal would thus not comply with exception 1 and the final clause of Policy NE2 (Green Belt) of the 2017 ALDP; or Policy NE1 (Green Belt) of the 2020 Proposed Local Development Plan. In addition, the proposal is considered not to protect or enhance the character and landscape setting of the green belt and could result in inappropriate development in the proposed wider residential curtilage, contrary to paragraph 49 of Scottish Planning Policy, nor would it constitute any of the types of development which might be considered in the Green Belt under paragraph 52.

2.    The creation of an additional gap in the tree/shelter belt along the eastern boundary of the site would have a detrimental visual impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and would result in tree loss and loss of visual amenity that has not been sufficiently justified through the exploration of alternative access arrangements, e.g. the widening of the existing accesses into the site. The proposal would thus not comply with Policy NE5 (Trees and Woodlands) and Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the 2017 Aberdeen Local Development Plan and Policy NE5 (Trees and Woodlands) and Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking) of the 2020 Proposed Local Development Plan.

-       Councillor Henrickson, Chairperson