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 221307.

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 the change of use from public open space to private gated communal garden and erection of associated enclosure fence with gate (retrospective) at land to rear of 6 Craigden, Aberdeen.

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 31 October 2022; (3) the decision notice dated 2 June 2023; (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) six letters of representation.

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal which sought planning permission for the change of use from public open space to private gated communal garden and erection of associated enclosure fence with gate (retrospective).

She indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal outlined in the decision notice was as follows:-

·       Loss of public open space, required as part of earlier planning permission;

·       Affected the character and amenity of surrounding area;

·       Prevention of access for recreation and general access rights and right of way;

·       Therefore reduced access and recreation value of Green Space Network;

·       Contrary to aims to enhance access in Local Development Plan and National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) - health and wellbeing;

·       Precedent setting – result would be gradual erosion of open space;

·       Contrary to design policies seeking inclusive layout and passive surveillance;

·       Contrary to policies on design, green infrastructure, Green Space Network, Residential Areas;

·       Access rights related to Land Reform Act – not an exception;

·       Many locals would not have access to space; and

·       Crime was not a material consideration.

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

·       Notes that area was accessible to all residents with a combination lock on gate;

·       Encampment on land – by owner – and with 3 caravans etc;

·       Permission granted for works in association with allotments on land to north, access road created and steel fencing erected;

·       Back garden of no6 was exposed to bridge and experienced littering;

·       Trees planted previously were vandalised and people congregated under bridge;

·       Tree removal by previous owner of land;

·       Fencing and maintaining area had transformed it;

·       Objectors did not stay in the area;

·       Open Space Audit identified need for better quality and accessible space – requirements should be flexible. Hazlehead was well provided for;

·       Age of Open Space Strategy and Audit, query reason for refusal;

·       Appeal on allotments found loss of g/s minor, with enough remaining;

·       Site could be considered forestry – use would not constitute development; it remains o/s;

·       Held in separate ownership to house – not part of garden – reference to title deeds;

·       Sufficient amenity space continued to be provided as area was accessible;

·       Fence matches other fences and was not detrimental to amenity or character;

·       Allowing trees to establish would improve amenity;

·       Area was not valued open space, it was brambly and rubbish filled;

·       Private, gated communal garden was a form of open space and there was no loss;

·       Proposal would allow delivery of nature restoration and biodiversity in support of Policy 20 and NE2 on green infrastructure;

·       No core paths were impacted;

·       Precedent – each case decided on merits, this area had its own issues and benefits from the proposal;

·       Although fence required permission due to road, road was 20m above site with no relationship or impact on visibility;

·       Passive surveillance was not referred to in Policy 14 of NPF4 – not reason for refusal;

·       Area was not Council owned; cameras would not stop vandalism; and

·       Applicant would accept temporary approval, or condition for fence to be removed when trees mature.

Ms Greene advised that Police Scotland were consulted, however, no response was received. She indicated that there were two objections and four letters of support. No comments were submitted by Woodend Community Council.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that the review should proceed on basis of a site visit and not solely on the basis of the information submitted, this was because it was considered appropriate to view the fence in context and see the benefits.

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

The Chairperson indicated that he had enough information before him and the review under consideration should be determined without any further procedure, however Councillors Macdonald, Radley and Farquhar each indicated that a site visit would be beneficial, therefore the LRB agreed by majority that a site visit be held prior to determining the review.

The review under consideration was therefore adjourned for a site visit to be arranged.