Planning Committee (including Former Development Management And Development Quality) - 10/03/2025
At a MEETING of the PLANNING COMMITTEE held remotely on 10th March, 2025.
Present:-
|
Depute Lord Provost Kevin CORDELL |
BAILIES
|
Will DAWSON |
Willie SAWERS |
Fraser MACPHERSON |
|
Christina ROBERTS |
Kevin KEENAN |
Derek SCOTT |
|
|
Helen WRIGHT |
|
COUNCILLORS
|
Heather ANDERSON |
Steven ROME |
George McIRVINE |
|
Jimmy BLACK |
Siobhan TOLLAND |
Wendy SCULLIN |
|
Stewart HUNTER |
Jax FINNEGAN |
Daniel COLEMAN |
|
Lee MILLS |
Dorothy McHUGH |
Michael CRICHTON |
Bailie Will DAWSON, Convener, in the Chair.
The minute of meeting of this Committee of 13th January, 2025 was held as read.
Unless marked thus * all items stand delegated.
I DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
II PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(a) 22-00463-FULL ERECTION OF EIGHT DWELLING HOUSES LAND WEST OF 404-494 AND NORTH OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE, DUNDEE FOR H & H PROPERTIES UK LTD
The Committee acceded to requests for a deputation to address the Committee relative to objections to the application by Dave Martin and Gail Stirling. After the deputations had stated their cases and answered questions from members of the Committee, they were thanked for their attendance and withdrew.
The Committee then acceded to requests for a deputation to address the Committee in support of the application by Tony Thomas of APT Planning and Development. After the deputation had stated their case and answered questions from members of the Committee, they were thanked for their attendance and withdrew.
Thereafter, having considered objections received, the Committee approved the application, subject to the conditions recommended by the Head of Planning and Economic Development.
(b) 24-00236-FULL PROPOSED AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS AT DWELLING HOUSES 51 MAGDALEN YARD ROAD, DUNDEE - FOR F & H DEVELOPMENTS
The Committee acceded to requests for a deputation to address the Committee relative to objections to the application by John Cape and Cara Fraser. After the deputations had stated their cases and answered questions from members of the Committee, they were thanked for their attendance and withdrew.
Thereafter, having considered objections received, the Committee approved the application, subject to the conditions recommended by the Head of Planning and Economic Development.
(c) 24-00703-FULL ERECTION OF EIGHT HOUSES AND ASSOCIATED WORKS FORMER COMMUNITY CENTRE, ANGUS STREET, DUNDEE FOR ABERTAY HOUSING ASSOCIATION
The Committee acceded to requests for a deputation to address the Committee relative to objections to the application by Emma Robson and Christina Schilde. After the deputations had stated their cases and answered questions from members of the Committee, they were thanked for their attendance and withdrew.
The Committee then acceded to requests for a deputation to address the Committee in support of the application by Stephen McPhail, Wellwood Leslie Architects and Barry Moore, Abertay Housing Association. After the deputations had stated their cases and answered questions from members of the Committee, they were thanked for their attendance and withdrew.
Thereafter, having considered objections received, the Committee approved the application, subject to the conditions recommended by the Head of Planning and Economic Development.
(d) 24-00712-S42 SECTION 42 APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE TIME PERIOD FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANNING PERMISSION 23/00311/FULM FOR THE ERECTION OF PURPOSE BUILT STUDENT ACCOMMODATION BY 18 MONTHS 19-21 SOUTH WARD ROAD, DUNDEE FOR NEWTIDE INVESTMENT LTD
The Committee approved the application, subject to the conditions recommended by the Head of Planning and Economic Development.
(a) LAND TO SOUTH OF WEST GREEN PARK AND EAST OF DYKES OF GRAY ROAD (HOUSING SITE H42)
There was submitted Agenda Note AN6-2025 where it was reported that planning application 23/00617/PPPM sought planning permission in principle for residential development (up to 58 residential dwellings) with associated landscaping, open space, access, infrastructure, and other associated works. The application was refused by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 12th February, 2024 for the following reasons:
(i) the applicant has not provided a Statement of Community Benefit. The proposal therefore fails to explain the proposal's contribution to local housing requirements, local infrastructure and residential amenity contrary to Policy 16b of National Planning Framework 4. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight to justify approval of the application; and
(ii) the proposal fails to consider the need for affordable homes and does not propose any form of affordable housing. The proposal therefore fails to demonstrate compliance with Policy 16e of National Planning Framework 4. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight to justify approval of the application.
Planning appeal reference PPA-180-2072 was submitted to Planning and Environmental Appeals Division on 23rd April, 2024, and the Reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers issued a notice of intention to ALLOW the appeal and GRANT planning permission in principle on 6th August, 2024.
Prior to the appeal Decision Notice being issued, a planning obligation relating to primary education contributions and a road upgrade required to be in place. The required planning obligation had now been completed and the Decision Notice granting planning permission in principle was issued on 13th January, 2025.
The full appeal decision could be accessed via:
23/00617/PPPM | Residential development with associated landscaping, open space, access, infrastructure, and other associated works | Land To South Of West Green Park And East Of Dykes Of Gray Road Dundee
Claim for Award of Expenses
The appellant submitted a claim for an award of expenses during the appeal process. The applicants appeal for an award of expenses was based on matters including the reasons for refusal not being relevant, sound or clear cut, and that the Council did not have reasonable planning grounds to refuse the planning application contrary to recommendation.
With regards to the first reason for refusal, the appellant stated that the requirement for a stand alone Statement of Community Benefit was not expressed by the Council and that the information submitted with the application relating to the potential community benefits of the proposed development was included within the original application. Furthermore, the appellant considered that the requirements of NPF4 Policy 16 (Quality Homes) Part b) had been broadly met to the Councils satisfaction.
The Reporter found that by not submitting a Statement of Community Benefit, the appellant failed to comply with the wording as required under NPF4 Policy 16 b). The Council as decision maker was entitled to form an opinion on whether it considered the information submitted by the appellant satisfied the expectations of the policy. The provisions and expectations of NPF4 Policy 16 Part b) were available for the appellant to read and to ensure the application complied accordingly. Therefore, the Reporter found that that Council did not act unreasonably with regard to the first reason for refusal.
With regards to the second reason for refusal, the appellant considered that the Council incorrectly applied the provisions of NPF4 Policy 16 e) in the determination of the application, and that it was unreasonable for the Council to refuse the planning application on the basis of non-compliance with this policy. The appellant submitted that the proposal was brought forward in accordance with local policy and guidance, which identifies in the Dundee Local Development Plan 2019 and Developer Contributions Supplementary Guidance that there was no requirement for housing developments to make provision for affordable homes.
The Councils position was that it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that the LDP and NPF4 were incompatible. The position was that the approach towards affordable housing in its LDP was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the lower affordable housing contribution exceptions illustrated in NPF4 Policy 16 (e).
The Reporter found that the Councils approach Towards the Delivery of Affordable Housing as set out in its Adopted LDP And Statutory Supplementary Guidance was sufficient to be taken into consideration under the provisions of NPF4 Policy 16 e). The Reporter considered the Council did not provide substantive evidence to support its position that the LDP and Statutory Supplementary Guidance were no longer appropriate or had been superseded by an alternative approach to delivering affordable housing. The Reporter considered that the Council failed to clearly support its second reason for refusal and demonstrate that it had reasonable planning grounds for its decision, failing to provide sound reasons and demonstrate rational planning grounds for its decision on this matter. The Council was therefore found to have acted unreasonably with regards to reason 2.
In concluding assessment for the Claim for Award of Expenses, the Reporter stated that the Council did not act unreasonably by refusing the application on the first reason, therefore the appellant would have incurred costs in bringing the matter before the Scottish Ministers by appealing this first reason for refusal. In addition to this, the appellant had not provided any information regarding unnecessary expenses that had been incurred solely in relation to their appeal on the second reason for refusal. In conclusion, the Reporter found that the unreasonable behaviour from the Council regarding reason 2 had not resulted in the appellant incurring unnecessary expense. Therefore, no award of expenses was made.
The Committee agreed to note the position as outlined.
(a) LAND TO SOUTH OF LINLATHEN GROVE, ARBROATH ROAD, BROUGHTY FERRY
There was submitted Agenda Note AN7-2025 advising that Planning application 23/00789/FULM sought planning permission for a residential development of 38 dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping. The application was refused by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 12th August, 2024 for the following reasons:
(i) The application site is designated as Open Countryside on the Dundee Local Development Plan 2019 Proposals Map. The proposed residential development fails to meet any of the criteria outlined by LDP Policy 31 and would result in development within the Open Countryside. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
(ii) The development fails to demonstrate that residents would be able to meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options, contrary to the principles of local living. The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of NPF4 Policy 15a. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission, contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
(iii) The application fails to demonstrate the development would be accessible by public transport. The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of NPF4 Policy 13b and LDP Policy 54. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission, contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
(iv) The application site is not allocated for housing in the LDP and fails to meet the criteria contained within NPF4 Policy 16f. The application is therefore contrary to NPF4 Policy 16a and Policy 16f. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
(v) The development would not form part of a well-connected network, does not make moving around easy or reduce car dependency as required by the Six Qualities of a Successful Place. The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of NPF4 Policy 14b and LDP Policy 1. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
Planning appeal reference PPA-180-2073 was submitted to Planning and Environmental Appeals Division on 30th September, 2024. Following review, the Reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers concluded that the proposed development failed to demonstrate the principal of housing in this location could comply with the Development Plan. This included failing to comply with LDP Policy 9 and NPF4 Policy 16f in relation to not adhering to the Councils spatial strategy and failing to improve the tenure mix in an area where existing choice was limited.
The proposal was also considered contrary to NPF4 Policy 9 as the applicant did not clearly address the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy nor would the development significantly reduce the need to travel unsustainably due to factors including the distances to local facilities, the overall quality of key active travel connections, and the lack of certainty over improved public transport accessibility.
Lastly, the proposal was considered contrary to LDP Policy 31 as the site was designated Open Countryside and the proposal failed to meet the relevant criteria.
The Report upheld the decision to REFUSE planning permission and dismissed the appeal. The full appeal decision could be accessed via:
23/00789/FULM | Residential development with associated infrastructure and landscaping | Land To South Of Linlathen Grove Arbroath Road Broughty Ferry Dundee
Claim for Award of Expenses
The appellant submitted a claim for an award of expenses during the appeal process. The applicants appeal for an award of expenses was based on matters including the Councils handling of the application and reasons for refusal not being relevant or justified.
The Reporter did not consider there to be any evidence that the Council acted unreasonably in its handling of the application, nor that the Council failed to give relevant and fully justified reasons for refusal. The committee report set out valid planning grounds for each of its reasons. The Reporter concluded an award for expenses was not justified and dismissed the claim.
The Committee agreed to note the position as outlined.
(a) LAND TO SOUTH OF LINLATHEN GROVE, ARBROATH ROAD, BROUGHTY FERRY
There was submitted Agenda Note AN8-2025 advising that planning application 18/00115/FULM for the erection of 150 houses was approved at appeal in June 2019, subject to a Section 75 Legal Agreement. The Legal Agreement required Kirkwood Homes to provide financial contributions towards education provision and road upgrades.
The residential development was within the catchment area of Forthill Primary School, which was at 91% capacity when planning application 18/00115/FULM was submitted. The education contributions were to be used by Dundee City Council to support the provision of primary education within the community, including potential expansion of Forthill Primary School.
Application 24/00485/MDPO which sought to remove the requirement for primary education contributions from the Legal Agreement was received in July 2024. The applicant submitted evidence which demonstrated the school roll at Forthill Primary School had reduced, with capacity presently at 71%. The applicant considered there to be sufficient capacity within existing primary education facilities to serve the approved residential development, and therefore the requirement to provide education contributions was no longer reasonable.
The application was under consideration, however, prior to the application being considered by Planning Committee, the applicant submitted an appeal to Planning and Environmental Appeals Division. The applicant made the appeal on the basis of non-determination by the Planning Authority.
Planning appeal reference POA-180-2006 was submitted to Planning and Environmental Appeals Division on 23rd September, 2024. Following review, the Reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers has issued a notice of intention allowing the appeal, subject to the amendment of the Legal Agreement to remove reference to education contributions.
The full appeal decision could be accessed via:
24/00485/MDPO | Modification of Section 75 Agreement to remove all references to primary education contribution ( 18/00115/FULM) | Linlathen Road Broughty Ferry Dundee
The Committee agreed to note the position as outlined.
(b) LINLATHEN VILLAGE, LINLATHEN ROAD, BROUGHTY FERRY
Planning application 19/00799/FULM for the erection of 100 houses was approved at appeal in October 2020, subject to a Section 75 Legal Agreement. The Legal Agreement required Kirkwood Homes to provide financial contributions towards education provision. The education contributions were to be used by Dundee City Council to support the provision of primary education within the community, including potential expansion of Forthill Primary School.
Application 24/00494/MDPO, seeking to discharge the requirement for primary education contributions, was received in July 2024. The applicant provided evidence which demonstrated the school roll at Forthill Primary School had reduced since 19/00799/FULM had been approved. The applicant therefore considered there was existing capacity to provide primary education within the community and the requirement to provide education contributions was no longer reasonable.
The application was under consideration, however, prior to the application being considered by Planning Committee for determination the applicant submitted an appeal to Planning and Environmental Appeals Division. The applicant made the appeal on the basis of non-determination by the Planning Authority.
Planning appeal reference POA-180-2007 was submitted to Planning and Environmental Appeals Division on 7th October, 2024. Following review, the Reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers allowed the appeal and discharged the Planning Obligation.
The full appeal decision could be accessed via:
24/00494/MDPO | Discharge of the primary education contribution planning obligation (ref 19/00799/FULM) | Linlathen Village Linlathen Road Broughty Ferry Dundee
The Committee agreed to note the position as outlined.
Will DAWSON, Convener.
(a) LAND TO SOUTH OF LINLATHEN GROVE, ARBROATH ROAD, BROUGHTY FERRY
There was submitted Agenda Note AN7-2025 advising that Planning application 23/00789/FULM sought planning permission for a residential development of 38 dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping. The application was refused by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 12th August, 2024 for the following reasons:
(i) The application site is designated as Open Countryside on the Dundee Local Development Plan 2019 Proposals Map. The proposed residential development fails to meet any of the criteria outlined by LDP Policy 31 and would result in development within the Open Countryside. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
(ii) The development fails to demonstrate that residents would be able to meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options, contrary to the principles of local living. The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of NPF4 Policy 15a. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission, contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
(iii) The application fails to demonstrate the development would be accessible by public transport. The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of NPF4 Policy 13b and LDP Policy 54. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission, contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
(iv) The application site is not allocated for housing in the LDP and fails to meet the criteria contained within NPF4 Policy 16f. The application is therefore contrary to NPF4 Policy 16a and Policy 16f. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
(v) The development would not form part of a well-connected network, does not make moving around easy or reduce car dependency as required by the Six Qualities of a Successful Place. The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of NPF4 Policy 14b and LDP Policy 1. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
Planning appeal reference PPA-180-2073 was submitted to Planning and Environmental Appeals Division on 30th September, 2024. Following review, the Reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers concluded that the proposed development failed to demonstrate the principal of housing in this location could comply with the Development Plan. This included failing to comply with LDP Policy 9 and NPF4 Policy 16f in relation to not adhering to the Councils spatial strategy and failing to improve the tenure mix in an area where existing choice was limited.
The proposal was also considered contrary to NPF4 Policy 9 as the applicant did not clearly address the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy nor would the development significantly reduce the need to travel unsustainably due to factors including the distances to local facilities, the overall quality of key active travel connections, and the lack of certainty over improved public transport accessibility.
Lastly, the proposal was considered contrary to LDP Policy 31 as the site was designated Open Countryside and the proposal failed to meet the relevant criteria.
The Report upheld the decision to REFUSE planning permission and dismissed the appeal. The full appeal decision could be accessed via:
23/00789/FULM | Residential development with associated infrastructure and landscaping | Land To South Of Linlathen Grove Arbroath Road Broughty Ferry Dundee
Claim for Award of Expenses
The appellant submitted a claim for an award of expenses during the appeal process. The applicants appeal for an award of expenses was based on matters including the Councils handling of the application and reasons for refusal not being relevant or justified.
The Reporter did not consider there to be any evidence that the Council acted unreasonably in its handling of the application, nor that the Council failed to give relevant and fully justified reasons for refusal. The committee report set out valid planning grounds for each of its reasons. The Reporter concluded an award for expenses was not justified and dismissed the claim.
The Committee agreed to note the position as outlined.