Appendix 2 - Objection Letter - Jane Hamilton
Perth and Kinross Council · 9 December 2024
Back to Licensing Committee — 9 December 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
1 SPR STL From: Jane Hamilton Sent: 20 November 2024 00:25 To: SPR STL Subject: Replacement Objection to STL Application at 13 Grey Row, Ruthvenfield PH1 3JR Categories: CAUTION: This email originated from an external organisation. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I am getting in touch to submit an replacement objection to the Short Term Let application for 13 Grey Row, Ruthvenfield, PH1 3JR. This is to replace an objection I submitted on 2 September as I have been advised by Karen Engelberts, Licensing Manager, that I cannot add to this first objection but should instead submit a replacement one. My objections to the short term let are as follows: 1) This is a residential area and small community with 22 properties (mostly flats) living in close proximity. It is not an appropriate area for a short term let. The flats are small and closely packed together. Issues with disruptions are likely and these will be felt by the other residents of the row, particularly those in the surrounding flats (our property included), and not by the owners of No.13 who do not live on the row. 2) We are concerned for our privacy and for that of other immediate neighbours. The properties on the row are compact terraced flats with shared access to gardens and shared parking. We are on the first floor but you can see into our house from the communal access areas for the properties. Number 13’s garden looks directly onto our bedroom and their driveway looks directly onto our home office. You can hear things between the properties and the gardens are closely compact. When you live here you learn to be considerate and how to respect your neighbour’s privacy but guests of a short term let will not know how to do that. The current owners of No. 13 do not appreciate this as they have never lived here. Frequent strangers coming and going to access a commercial property would have a significant impact on our privacy in our day-to-day life. 3) The sewer system for the properties consists of a shared, old and fragile sewer system and septic tank – this system can be easily damaged or blocked. It is expensive to maintain and care must be taken not to flush inappropriate items into this system. When the system blocks, the residents are the ones to sort these issues and pay for any damage. No amount of signage would ensure that unsupervised visitors use the system appropriately. The owners of No.13 do not live here, they do not live nearby, and would not be able to help with blockages which must be dealt with urgently. They have never helped with this system. Inappropriate items will end up flushed into the system and it will then be on the residents to fix this. Residents should not be liable for blockages of a communal system caused by commercial visitors at 13 Grey row and should not be liable for costs of damages either. There is no acceptable way forward on this - the property is not suitable for a short term let.
Page 2
2 4) Similarly, there would be wear and tear on the privately maintained road. Residents pay into a joint fund to maintain the private road which services all 22 properties on the row, this fund pays for repairs and improvements. Other residents of the row should not be liable for the extra wear and tear from commercial visitors to 13 Grey Row. 5) We are concerned the value of our property (the flat above 13 Grey Row) would decrease if a short term let was operating below us. As stated previously, a short term let would likely cause disruption to other residents and impact privacy – this would make the property less desirable to buyers and would decrease its value. 6) A short term let would impact the character of the neighbourhood. There are no other short term lets or commercial properties or businesses in the immediate area which is a quiet neighbourhood on the outskirts of Perth. As already stated, this is a close-knit community living in a historic and listed buildings. The intrusion of a commercial business bringing people in and out of that community will inevitably change the character of the neighbourhood. 7) PKC is considering approval for a massive new development application in the area. A major justification for the development is that greater housing capacity is needed in Perthshire. If No. 13 was approved for a Short Term Let, this would be removing an affordable home in the area and turning it into a holiday let. It would be hypocritical on behalf of the council to approve development of prime agricultural land around Ruthvenfield and Huntingtower to increase housing capacity, only to then approve homes for commercial use in the same area. Perthshire does not need greater housing capacity - it needs fewer second homes and short term lets. Measures the council are currently taking to reduce second homes are completely insufficient and approving their use for short term lets only increases the incentive to own second homes in Perthshire. PKC should not approve any STL applications in the Ruthvenfield/Huntingtower area considering that this community and neighbourhood is bearing the brunt of new developments. 8) Affordable homes are difficult to find in Perthshire. Grey Row has affordable properties that are perfect for first term buyers, lower income households, small families and retirees. It is a well located area that is still affordable with both primary and secondary schools in the area - ideal for single parents or small families. By taking these properties out of the housing pool and moving them into private SLT, PKC would be exacerbating the shortage of affordable small properties in Perthshire, effectively depriving someone of an afforable home. 9) The loss of this residential accommodation would not be outweighed by any demonstrable economic benefits – indeed, there are not likely to be any economic benefits to the local area. The only people likely to benefit economically are the owners who do not live in the Perth and Kinross area. Number 13 Grey Row is clearly ineligible for a short term let by PKC’s own guidance on the matter – it would impact the character of the neighbourhood and result in the loss of a residential property with no benefit to the local community or local businesses. It would impact residents both in terms of causing disruptions and impacting privacy, reducing property values and almost certainly cause damages to the shared septic tank for the row. I hope these objections and those of my neighbours on Grey Row will be taken seriously and the application will be rejected. Kind regards,
Page 3
3 Jane Hamilton 14 Grey Row, Ruthvenfield, PH1 3JR