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 230969.

With reference to article 1 of the minute of the Local Review Body meeting of 9 July 2025, whereby members agreed to adjourn the meeting and determination of the application until such time that they received a Species Protection Plan for badgers, that would be in line with NatureScot guidance,  the Local Review Body (LRB) of Aberdeen City Council met to consider a review of the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation for the refusal of the application for Detailed Planning Permission for the redevelopment of vacant industrial site, including erection of four detached houses, associated garaging/ car parking, pedestrian access paths, infrastructure and open space at Scotstown Moor Base, Shielhill Road Aberdeen, planning reference number 230969.

Councillor McRae as Chair for the meeting, gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken, advising that the LRB would be addressed 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.

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 7 August 2023; (3) the decision notice dated 13 February 2025, (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the draft delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant/agent; and (6) consultee correspondence from various consultees. 

Ms Greene had previously described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal for detailed planning permission, as well as the relevant planning policies, the reasons for refusal and also the applicant’s case.  Ms Greene spoke in regards to the Species Protection Plan for badgers which had been submitted. 

In terms of procedure by which the review would be conducted, Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that a site visit should take place before determination. 

The Chairperson and Councillors Copland and Clark, and 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.

Ms Greene responded to questions from Members. 

Members each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to uphold the officers earlier decision.  Planning permission was therefore refused.  

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 –

01.Ecology Impact

Due to the presence of protected species on and adjacent to the site, the nature of development and extent of groundworks / excavation, in the absence of acceptable mitigation details or measures to avoid disturbance to protected species resulting from the development, the proposal was anticipated to have direct adverse effects on a Protected Species.

Thus it had not been demonstrated that the development would accord with Policy 4 (Natural Places) part f) within National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and Policy NE3 (Our Natural Heritage) within the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023 (ALDP).

02.Design / Overdevelopment

As the proposed development would not relate well to the semi-rural context and its poor relationship to the public road, by reason of the proximity and orientation of the proposed detached buildings, the arrangement, positions and sizes of the houses, the prominence of proposed fencing and the location of the private gardens for Plots 1 and 4 next to Shielhill Road, it conflicted with the design quality aspirations of NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and

ALDP Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking) and D4 (Landscape).

-       COUNCILLOR MCRAE, Chairperson