Agenda item

Planning Reference – 220772

All documents associated with this application can be found at the following link and enter the refence number above:-

Link.

Planning Officer:  Aoife Murphy

The Committee had before it a report by the Chief Officer – Strategic Place Planning, which recommended:-

That the application for Planning Permission in Principle for the erection of a nursery, including car parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure at site west of Northcote Lodge Care Home, Craigton Road Aberdeen, be refused for the following reasons:-

1. That the proposed development would not be for purposes considered essential for agriculture, woodland, or forestry, it would not be a recreational use associated with the existing agricultural or rural setting and would not be associated with mineral extraction or landscape renewal, nor would the proposal meet any of the exception criteria for development in the Green Belt. Additionally, it is considered that the development would represent an impact on the landscape setting of the Green Belt. Furthermore, the development is considered to represent the erosion of the character and function of the designated existing Green Space Network, as such it is considered that the development has the potential to impact existing habitats, especially given the Green Space Network has been designated to protect, promote and enhance wildlife value. As such, the development is contrary to Policy NE2 - Green Belt and Policy NE1 - Green Space Network of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017, would represent a departure from the adopted Development Plan Strategy, Scottish Planning Policy and National Planning Framework 4. Page 55 Application Reference: 220772/PPP

2. That the development would result in a change of the existing rural landscape character of the site to its detriment. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy D2 - Landscape of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 and the associated Children’s Nurseries Supplementary Guidance.

3. Due to the site’s location within the Pitfodels Conservation Area, while no finalised details of the development have been submitted for assessment, it is considered that a development of any nature would interrupt the open views of this vista which is noted as being a key characteristic of the area within the Pitfodels Conservation Area Character Appraisal. As such, there is a risk that the development would interrupt these views to the detriment of the conservation area, which is contrary to the requirements of Policy D4 - Historic Environment.

4. That due to its location, which is considered removed from the established residential area, the proposal does not constitute sustainable development and is therefore considered contrary to Policy T2 - Managing the Transport Impact of Development and Policy T3 - Sustainable and Active Travel of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017.

The Committee heard from Aoife Murphy, Senior Planner, who spoke in furtherance of the application and answered various questions from members.

The Committee then heard from Ms Kerry Robertson, applicant, who spoke in support of the application.

The Convener, seconded by Councillor Copland, moved:-

           that the application be refused in line with the officer recommendation.

Councillor Alphonse moved as an amendment, seconded by Councillor Boulton:-

that the application be approved subject to conditions to be delegated to officers for the following reasons:-

·       Acknowledges conflict between Policies NE1 and NE2 insofar that this is not one of the forms of development which is allowable within the Green belt; however

·       Given the level of residential development in local area, pressure on other nursery facilities within the area and siting of this piece of land adjoining the built area and the proximity of local public transport links and cycle lanes and pedestrian footpaths. these considerations outweigh the conflict with Policies NE1 and NE2 and does not consider there to be a conflict with Policies T2 and T3; and

·       Do not consider there to be a conflict with Policy D2 and D4 given the current mix of development within the area.

On a division, there voted – for the motion (5) – the Convener and Councillors Blake, Copland, Clark and Thomson – for the amendment (5) – Councillor Alphonse, Boulton, Cooke, McRae and van Sweeden.

There being an equality of votes, in terms of Standing Order 32.7 the Convener used his casting vote in favour of the motion.

The Committee resolved:-

to adopt the motion and therefore refuse the application.