Appendix 5 - Objection Letter - Mark Purnan Charles
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: Mark Purrmann-Charles Sent: 27 August 2024 22:21 To: SPR STL Subject: Objection regarding 13 Grey Row, Ruthvenfield PH13JR STL Application 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. Good evening, I am getting in touch to object to the STL application for 13 Grey Row, Ruthvenfield, PH1 3JR. My objections are as follows: 1) Objection to the method of "public notification". A paper sheet with the application details inside a plastic sleeve has been installed on an out of the way electricity pylon nowhere near the property in question, probably between 80 - 100m away. Why is this not posted at the property seeking the application? There are plenty of good spots at the front of the property, why was this application notification not put there? The sheet can be easily missed where it is and after a day of being up is already getting wet in the rain and difficult to read. This is not giving residents proper notification. 2) This is a residential area and small community, short term lets are not appropriate. PKC is considering approval for a massive new development application in the area. A major justification for this development application is that new housing capacity is needed in Perthshire. How does removing an affordable home from the area and turning it into a holiday let fit into this and stand up to any scrutiny? This is clearly not appropriate and is absurd in the context of what is being proposed for the area. It would be laughable for PKC to approve any STL applications in the Ruthvenfield/Huntingtower area. 2) The sewer and shared septic tank system that serves all 22 properties on the row is incredibly fragile and no amount of signage is going to make short term, unsupervised visitors use it properly. Inappropriate items will be flushed and put into the system. Residents cannot be liable for blockages of a communal system created by commercial guests of 13 Grey Row. I don't see any acceptable way forward on this. 3) Wear and tear on privately maintained road. Residents pay into a joint fund to maintain the private road servicing all properties on the row and pay for repairs/improvements. 13 would be using the road for commercial reasons, other residents can not be expected to be liable for extra wear and tear from commercial visitors. 4) The grey row properties are old and very closely packed together tenemants. If there are issues with disruption, how is this resolved? Any disruption will be borne by residents, not by the owners of 13 who do not live in the community.
Page 2
2 5) Affordable homes a few and far between in Perthshire. Grey Row properties are perfect for first time buyers or people without huge budgets looking for a well located area that is still affordable. Taking such a properties out of the housing pool and moving them into the private STL pool exacerbates the shortage of affordable 1/2 bedroom properties in Perthshire. Approving 13 Grey Row as a STL would increase the shortage and deprive a person or family of a home. I hope my objections will be noted, and that PKC will make the correct decision to reject this STL application. Kind regards, Mark Purrmann-Charles 14 Grey Row, Ruthvenfield, PH1 3JR