Planning Committee (including Former Development Management And Development Quality) - 17/08/2026
At a MEETING of the PLANNING COMMITTEE held remotely on 17th August, 2026.
Present:-
|
Depute Lord Provost Nadia EL-NAKLA |
BAILIES
|
Will DAWSON |
Kevin KEENAN |
Christina ROBERTS |
|
Willie SAWERS |
Helen WRIGHT |
Derek SCOTT |
|
|
Fraser MACPHERSON |
|
COUNCILLORS
|
Jimmy BLACK |
Siobhan TOLLAND |
George McIRVINE |
|
Mark FLYNN |
Georgia CRUICKSHANK |
Wendy SCULLIN |
|
Stewart HUNTER |
Jax FINNEGAN |
Pete SHEARS |
|
Steven ROME |
Dorothy McHUGH |
Daniel COLEMAN |
|
Roisin SMITH |
|
Michael CRICHTON |
Bailie Will Dawson, Convener, in the Chair.
The minute of meeting of this Committee of 29th June, 2026 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) 26-00204-FULL - PROPOSED 80 BED CARE HOME (AMENDMENT TO 22-00302-FULL) TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS WITHIN THE CARE HOME) - BLACKNESS NURSERY, PERTH ROAD, DUNDEE - FOR SIMPLY UK
The Committee acceded to a request for a deputation to address the Committee in support of the application by Derek Scott, Derek Scott Planning. After the deputation had stated their case and answered questions from members of the Committee, they were thanked for their attendance and withdrew.
Thereafter, the Convener, seconded by Councillor Tolland, having considered objections received, moved that the application be approved, subject to the conditions recommended by the Head of Planning and Economic Development.
As an amendment, Bailie Macpherson, seconded by Councillor Coleman, moved that the application be refused on the grounds that whilst the principle of a residential care facility on the site has been established by planning permission 22-00302-FULL, the proposed increase in the scale, massing and height of the care home required to accommodate an increase from 60 to 80 bedrooms represents an unacceptable intensification of development.
The resulting development fails to reflect the scale and massing of adjacent residential buildings and would adversely affect the character and residential amenity of the surrounding area.
The proposal is therefore contrary to criterion 2 of Policy 14 of the Dundee Local Development Plan 2019 and NPF4 Policy 14 - Design, Quality and Place.
There are no material considerations of sufficient weight to justify approval of the application.
On a division, there voted for the motion - the Convener, Bailies Sawers, Keenan, Wright, Roberts and Scott and Councillors Black, Flynn, Hunter, Rome, Smith, Tolland, Cruickshank, Finnegan, McIrvine, Scullin, and Shears (17); and for the amendment - Depute Lord Provost El-Nakla, Bailie Macpherson and Councillors McHugh and Coleman (4) - Councillors Crichton having lost connection during consideration of this item - whereupon the motion was carried and the application approved.
(b) 26-00336-FULL - EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS AND ERECTION OF EXTENSION TO PROVIDE ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION - 7 OSBORNE PLACE, DUNDEE - FOR FRANCES DREYER
The Committee approved the application, subject to the conditions recommended by the Head of Planning and Economic Development.
(c) 26-00371-FULL - SECTION 42 APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE TIME PERIOD FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANNING PERMISSION 24-00415-FULM FOR THE ERECTION OF PURPOSE-BUILT STUDENT ACCOMMODATION BY 18 MONTHS - LAND AT 56 BARRACK STREET, DUNDEE - FOR PROSPECT CAPITAL LTD AND ORCHID STUDENT HOLDINGS LTD
The Committee acceded to a request for a deputation to address the Committee in support of the application by Gary Mappin, Iceni Projects. After the deputation had stated their case and answered questions from members of the Committee, they were thanked for their attendance and withdrew.
Thereafter, the Convener, seconded by Bailie Macpherson, moved that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposed development of student accommodation would not address any identifiable gap in provision and could result in an oversupply of the type of accommodation proposed. The proposal fails to accord with NPF4 Policy 16c and LDP Policy 15. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission, contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
As an amendment, Councillor Flynn, seconded by Depute Lord Provost El-Nakla, moved that the application be approved, subject to the same conditions as the previous planning permission for purpose-built student accommodation on the site (Reference 24/00415/FULM), to provide a further 18 month period to commence development.
On a division, there voted for the motion - the Convener, Bailies Sawers, Keenan, Wright, Macpherson, Roberts and Scott and Councillors Hunter, Smith, Tolland, Cruickshank, McHugh, McIrvine, Scullin, Shears, Coleman and Crichton (17); and for the amendment - Depute Lord Provost El-Nakla, and Councillors Black, Flynn, Rome and Finnegan (5) - whereupon the motion was carried and the application was refused.
III PLANNING APPEAL DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATION 24-00813-FULM: LAND NORTH OF FAIRFIELD PARK, PITKERRO ROAD, DUNDEE
There was submitted Agenda Note AN26-2026 advising that Planning Application 24-00813-FULM sought planning permission for the construction of a 49.99MW Battery Energy Storage System with associated works. The application was refused by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 11th August, 2025 for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development fails to comply with LDP Policy 45 - Energy Generating Facilities which directs such development to sites within the allocated Principal and General Economic Development Areas as defined on the LDP Proposals Map. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
2. The proposed development fails to comply with NPF4 Policy 22a - Flood Risk and Water Management as the site is located within an area which is at high risk of fluvial flooding and the operational justification for the development being 920m away from the nearest sub‑station is not accepted. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
3. The proposed development fails to comply with NPF4 Policy 11c - Energy as the proposal fails to provide a robust demonstration of how net economic impact and socio‑economic benefits will be maximised.
4. The proposed development fails to comply with NPF4 Policy 11e, viii - Energy as the proposal does not adequately demonstrate that flood risk has been fully assessed or appropriately mitigated and the development has the potential to generate an increased discharge of surface water to the Dighty. Furthermore, the development fails to demonstrate that the water environment would be adequately safeguarded from potential pollution risks.
5. The proposed development fails to comply with NPF4 Policy 22c - Flood Risk and Water Management as the applicant has failed demonstrate that the proposals will not increase the risk of surface water flooding, nor do the proposals manage rain and surface water flooding through an appropriate SUDS design. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
6. The proposed development fails to comply with NPF4 Policy 26 - Business and Industry as the BESS is an industrial use and is not located within an area allocated for business or industrial use as defined within the Dundee Local Development Plan Proposals Map. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable sites which are allocated within the LDP. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
7. The proposed development fails to comply with LDP Policy 36 - Flood Risk Management as the proposals are located in an area at high risk of fluvial flooding and the development will result in a land use which is more vulnerable to flooding than the existing use of the site. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission, contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
8. The proposed development fails to comply with LDP Policy 37 - Sustainable Drainage Systems as the proposals fail to demonstrate sufficient management of rain and surface water flooding through an appropriate SUDS design. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
9. The proposed development fails to comply with LDP Policy 38 - Protecting and Improving the Water Environment as the proposal fails to demonstrate that there is an appropriately sized buffer zone between the development and the watercourse. The development therefore has the potential to compromise the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
10. The proposal fails to comply with LDP Policy 33 - Local Nature Conservation Designations as there is potential for pollutants to enter the water environment during an incident, which could impact on the conservation interests associated with the Dighty and Longhaugh Quarry Locally Important Nature Conservation (LINC) sites. Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other suitable sites that could accommodate the development. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which justify the approval of planning permission contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
The applicant submitted an appeal to the Directorate of Planning and Environmental Appeals (Reference PPA-180-2077). The Reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers to consider this appeal issued the decision on 29th June, 2026. The Reporter DISMISSED the appeal and REFUSED planning permission.
The full appeal decision can be accessed via:
https://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?ID=127919
The determining issues in the appeal were flood risk and surface water management; safeguarding of the water environment; the principle of development at the site having regard to Development Plan allocations and alternative site selection; and the potential effects on biodiversity and nearby Local Nature Conservation Sites.
The Reporter concluded that insufficient evidence had been provided to justify the site's location within an area of flood risk; demonstrate appropriate drainage and pollution control measures; establish the absence of suitable alternative sites; or demonstrate that impacts on the Dighty Burn and associated nature conservation interests would be adequately addressed.
The Reporter found that the proposal did not accord with the Development Plan and that there were no material considerations that justified granting planning permission contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan.
Will DAWSON, Convener.