The Local Review Body of Aberdeen City Council met on Monday 17 August 2026 to review three decisions made by appointed officers. The Body unanimously upheld the refusal of planning permission for three dwelling houses at 86 Queen's Road, Aberdeen, citing detrimental impacts on residential amenity, the setting of a listed building, and overdevelopment. They also unanimously upheld the refusal of planning permission for two semi-detached dwellings at 19 South Avenue, Aberdeen, due to concerns about overdevelopment, adverse impacts on the streetscape, and the character of the area. In contrast, the Body unanimously overturned the refusal of planning permission in principle for a retirement dwelling at South Lasts Farm, Contlaw Road, Aberdeen, granting permission subject to conditions, citing compliance with policies regarding rural homes and succession planning.

86 Queen's Road - Refusal Upheld

The Local Review Body of Aberdeen City Council upheld the refusal of planning permission for the erection of three dwelling houses at 86 Queen's Road, Aberdeen. The decision was based on several key reasons:

• Detrimental impact on residential amenity: The proposed development was found to negatively impact the amenity of residents in the existing six flats at 'Bayview' by encroaching on essential communal garden ground approved under a previous planning permission (211602/DPP). This would result in insufficient outdoor amenity space, contrary to Policy 14 of the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and Policy D2 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan (ALDP). Furthermore, the development would prevent the completion of the extant permission and breach a condition.
• Adverse impact on the setting of a listed building and conservation area: The scale, position, and massing of the proposed houses were deemed to have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the setting of the Category C-listed 'Bayview' and the character of the Albyn Place and Rubislaw Conservation Area. The proposed buildings were considered not to be visually subservient to the existing listed building or its neighbours, disrupting the established rhythm of the streetscape. This conflicted with Policy 7 of NPF4 and Policy D6 of the ALDP.
• Overdevelopment: The number, size, and positioning of the proposed dwellings were considered to be out of character with the area, which is characterised by large houses in substantial grounds. The density and configuration of the development would erode the established pattern of long, spacious gardens, contrary to Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies D1 and H1 of the ALDP.
• Compromised residential amenity: The density and layout would lead to a lack of quality outdoor garden space for one plot, overshadowing, and overlooking between the proposed dwellings and the existing flats, contravening Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies D1, D2, and H1 of the ALDP.
• Impact on protected trees: The positioning of Plot 1 within the root protection area of three mature lime trees, protected by a Tree Preservation Order and within the conservation area, would have an unacceptable impact on their health and lifespan. This conflicted with Policy 6 of NPF4 and Policy NE5 of the ALDP.

19 South Avenue - Refusal Upheld

The Local Review Body unanimously upheld the refusal of planning permission for the subdivision of a feu and the erection of two semi-detached dwelling houses at 19 South Avenue, Aberdeen. The decision was based on the development being contrary to national and local planning policies, including Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies H1 and D1 of the ALDP.

Key reasons for upholding the refusal included:

• Detrimental impact on streetscape and visual amenity: The proposed development was considered to have a significant detrimental impact on the streetscape and visual amenity when viewed from North Deeside Road and South Avenue. The narrow plots, car parking area, and vehicular access onto North Deeside Road were seen to accentuate the scale and massing of the development, relative to the previously approved single dwelling.
• Overdevelopment: The plot proportions and subdivision pattern were deemed inconsistent with the established pattern of development and character of the area, which is characterised by long, spacious gardens and detached dwellings. This was recognised in previous appeal decisions. The resulting density and configuration of development would erode this established pattern.
• Conflict with planning history: The proposal was considered to not adequately address matters raised by Reporters in previous appeal decisions concerning the character of the area and overdevelopment.

South Lasts Farm, Contlaw Road - Refusal Overturned

In a significant decision, the Local Review Body unanimously overturned the refusal of planning permission in principle for a retirement dwelling at South Lasts Farm, Contlaw Road, Aberdeen. The Body granted permission subject to conditions.

The key reasons for overturning the refusal were:

• Compliance with Policy 17 (Rural Homes) of NPF4: The Body considered the application to be for the retirement succession of a farm holding, contributing to its future safeguarding and supporting succession planning in the rural community.
• Association with agriculture: The proposal was considered to be associated with agriculture.
• Minimal impact on Green Belt: The application was deemed to comply with Policy 8 (Green Belts) of NPF4 and have a minimal impact on the Green Belt.
• Acceptable for retirement dwellings: The proposal was considered acceptable under Policy 8 (Green Belts) and Policy 17 (Rural Homes) of NPF4, with the Body noting that suitable alternative accommodation had not been clearly demonstrated to be unavailable.
• Visual impact and scattered housing: The Body had no concerns regarding the visual impact of the proposal and noted the presence of scattered houses in the area.
• Flood risk: Concerns regarding Policy 22 (Flood Risk and Water Management) of NPF4 were considered manageable through additional assessment and drainage plans to be submitted at a later date.

The decision to approve was made subject to several conditions, including requirements for the duration of the permission, approval of detailed matters such as layout, design, landscaping, biodiversity enhancement, and a flood risk statement.