Council set to throw out apartment plans after 134 objections lodged

Residents complained that the proposed development in Aberdeen would impact wildlife in the area.

Aberdeen City Council to throw out bid to build flats on Park Road after more than 100 objections lodged LDRS
Flats: Controversial plans to build 47 new flats recommended for refusal.

A controversial plan for 47 new flats in Aberdeen could be refused after it attracted more than 100 objections from residents.

Alexander Bonner applied to the city council seeking permission to build the apartments on Park Road –  just a stone’s throw away from Pittodrie.

The proposal looks to build a mix of one and two-bedroom flats over five and seven storeys. The ground is located directly behind the recently built Ocean Apartments and is currently used as a depot by light haulage firm Paterson’s.

It sits next to the Trinity Cemetery and the popular Broad Hill, which offers some of the best views of the Granite City.

Planning documents reveal the building would have an L-shape floor plan with ten parking spaces for prospective residents.

But the plan has received huge backlash from surrounding neighbours, as 134 people wrote to the local authority to object to the development.

They raised various concerns including road safety, overdevelopment and disturbance to existing residents. Many also raised worries about the impact the new flats would have on wildlife at Broad Hill.

George Duthie said it was “ridiculous that this would be crammed into this small area”.

Ben Sim added: “The proposed development will not only impact residents of the area but will impact and overshadow the Broad Hill itself, a publicly accessible viewpoint.

“There will be impact on amenity to the existing developments of Ocean Apartments and Urquhart Court.

“Those on the east and north of those developments respectively will suffer significantly from a loss of light, loss of privacy and overshadowing.

“Countless residents will be affected.”

Meanwhile Alistair Black suggested the site be transformed into a new public space instead.

He said the proposed area could be turned into a “green area” or a “green play area” for the many residents that already live there instead of creating another “residential jungle”.

He added: “Some decent green planning in this area could assist with reducing emissions in the area and make a peaceful area to relax.”

The council’s roads team also said they had “serious reservations” over access to the site and said it would be an “unacceptable public safety risk”.

They said the single road would be “problematic” given the size of the development and the mix of vehicles and pedestrians expected to come and go from the site.

They also said there was a “large shortfall” in proposed car parking.

Meanwhile, its waste and recycling department objected as its collection vehicles would not be able to turn in the site safely.

The application will go before the local authority’s planning committee on Thursday. Planning chiefs have recommended it be refused as they believe it would lead to overdevelopment of the site.

They said the building “has the appearance of being shoehorned into what is a constrained site”.

Officers also said the scale, height and massing of the building is “excessive and inappropriate” and would impact views from Broad Hill.