(a) Notice of Review and supporting documents (Pages 269-316)
Perth and Kinross Council · 25 May 2026
Back to Local Review Body — 25 May 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
4(iii)(a) LRB-2026-07 LRB-2026-07 25/00996/IPL - Erection of a dwellinghouse (in principle), land 45 metres west of Lunanbrae, Wester Essendy, Blairgowrie, PH10 6RA Papers Submitted by the Applicant
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
Page 1 of 5 Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street Perth PH1 5GD Tel: 01738 475300 Email: onlineapps@pkc.gov.uk Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid. Thank you for completing this application form: ONLINE REFERENCE 100718057-002 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Agent Details Please enter Agent details Company/Organisation: Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * First Name: * Building Name: Last Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Telephone Number: * (Street): * Extension Number: Address 2: Mobile Number: Town/City: * Fax Number: Country: * Postcode: * Email Address: * Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? * Individual Organisation/Corporate entity Karen Clark Planning Consultancy Karen Clark Brechin Road 69 07930566336 DD8 4DE UK Kirriemuir karen@ktclark.co.uk
Page 4
Page 2 of 5 Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Other Mr and Mrs Jock Perth and Kinross Council McPherson Wester Essendy Lunnanbrae PH10 6RA Land West of Lunanbrae, Wester Essendy, Blairgowrie PH10 6RA UK 743586 By Blairgowrie 313887
Page 5
Page 3 of 5 Description of Proposal Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters) Type of Application What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? * Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions. What does your review relate to? * Refusal Notice. Grant of permission with Conditions imposed. No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal. Statement of reasons for seeking review You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters) Note: you are unlikely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account. You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes No Determination on your application was made? * If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters) Erection of a Dwelling House (in principle) please refer to attached Statement of Appeal and associated Appendices
Page 6
Page 4 of 5 Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters) Application Details Please provide the application reference no. given to you by your planning authority for your previous application. What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * Review Procedure The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case. Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. * Yes No In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion: Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? * Yes No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? * Yes No Checklist – Application for Notice of Review Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid. Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. * Yes No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this Yes No review? * If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name Yes No N/A and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the review should be sent to you or the applicant? * Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what Yes No procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? * Note: You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. You may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on Yes No (e.g. plans and Drawings) which are now the subject of this review * Note: Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice (if any) from the earlier consent. • Appendix 1 Application Forms • Appendix 2 Plans and Location Plan • Appendix 3 Refusal Notice • Appendix 4 Report of Handling • Appendix 5 Photos of Existing Field boundary 25/000996/IPL 19/02/2026 04/07/2025
Page 7
Page 5 of 5 Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mrs Karen Clark Declaration Date: 02/03/2026 Payment Details Pay Direct Created: 02/03/2026 11:35
Page 8
No embedded text on this page.
Page 9
No embedded text on this page.
Page 10
No embedded text on this page.
Page 11
No embedded text on this page.
Page 12
No embedded text on this page.
Page 13
No embedded text on this page.
Page 14
No embedded text on this page.
Page 15
No embedded text on this page.
Page 16
No embedded text on this page.
Page 17
No embedded text on this page.
Page 18
No embedded text on this page.
Page 19
No embedded text on this page.
Page 20
No embedded text on this page.
Page 21
No embedded text on this page.
Page 22
No embedded text on this page.
Page 23
No embedded text on this page.
Page 24
No embedded text on this page.
Page 25
No embedded text on this page.
Page 26
No embedded text on this page.
Page 27
No embedded text on this page.
Page 28
No embedded text on this page.
Page 29
Appendix 2
Page 30
Appendix 2
Page 31
Appendix 2
Page 32
Appendix 3
Page 33
No embedded text on this page.
Page 34
REPORT OF HANDLING DELEGATED REPORT Ref No 25/00996/IPL Ward No P5- Strathtay Due Determination Date 3rd September 2025 Draft Report Date 27th November 2025 Report Issued by Andy Baxter Date 18 February 2026 PROPOSAL: Erection of a dwellinghouse (in principle) LOCATION: Land 45 Metres West Of Lunanbrae Wester Essendy, Blairgowrie, PH10 6RA SUMMARY: This report recommends refusal of an in principle application for a new dwelling on a site at Wester Essendy, outside of Blairgowrie as the development is considered not to comply with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no material considerations apparent which outweigh the Development Plan. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL This planning application seeks to obtain an in principle application for a new dwelling on a site at Wester Essendy, a small hamlet of buildings which is located to the west of Blairgowrie, and within the environmentally sensitive Lunan Valley area. The wider Wester Essendy is a loose group of buildings which is mostly residential which has grown over the years by new dwellings filling in gaps between the more historic smallholding buildings. There remains some agriculture in the area, but this has moved away from crops to a mixture of soft fruit and Christmas trees, as well as some rural businesses and contractors. The area immediately to the west of the site had previously been covered by commercial polytunnels as part of the soft fruit industry, with further polytunnels to the south of the main road. The western polytunnels aren’t however currently in situ. This site is located to the west of two existing dwellings, and to east of a run of other residential dwellings. Between those properties to the east and the site, is a separate field in different ownership, and it is that field which has previously accommodated polytunnels in the past. The public road bounds the site to the south, to the north the side merges straight into part of the larger field in which the site sits, and to the west is a post and wire fence. During the course of the assessment of the application, the applicant has presented some further information relating to the need for a purposely designed dwelling to deal with personal circumstances of a member of the applicants family. Appendix 4
Page 35
SITE HISTORY None specifically relating to this site, however, there has been many a recent planning application within the larger hamlet of Wester Essendy for both residential uses and some other non-residential uses. PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION None relevant to this proposal. DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Development Plan for the area comprises National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) (LDP2) and statutory supplementary planning guidance (SPG). National Planning Framework 4 The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) is the Scottish Government’s long-term spatial strategy with a comprehensive set of national planning policies. This strategy sets out how to improve people’s lives by making sustainable, liveable and productive spaces. NPF4 was adopted on 13 February 2023. NPF4 has an increased status over previous NPFs and comprises part of the statutory development plan. The Council’s assessment of this application has considered the following policies of NPF4: • Policy 1: Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises • Policy 2: Climate Mitigation and Adaptation • Policy 3: Biodiversity • Policy 4: Natural Places • Policy 5: Soils • Policy 9: Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings • Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place • Policy 16: Quality Homes • Policy 17: Rural Homes Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 – Adopted November 2019 The Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) is the most recent statement of Council policy and is augmented by Supplementary Guidance. The site is located within the landward area of the LDP and within the Lunan Valley area, where the following policies are applicable, • Policy 1B: Placemaking • Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions • Policy 1A: Placemaking
Page 36
• Policy 19: Housing in the Countryside • Policy 22: Particular needs housing accommodation • Policy 41: Biodiversity • Policy 45A: Lunan Lochs Catchment Area • Policy 60A: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements Statutory Supplementary Planning Guidance The following statutory SPG are applicable to this proposal, • Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing 2023 • Housing in the Countryside Guide 2020 • Placemaking Guide 2020 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS PKC Corporate Plan Vision and Priorities The proposed raises no conflict with any of the Council’s priorities, and it aligns positively with the following specific priorities, • Tackling climate change and supporting sustainable places • Supporting and promoting physical and mental wellbeing National Planning Guidance The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through, Planning Advice Notes, Planning Guidance, Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and a series of Circulars. Planning Guidance Biodiversity, 2025 National Roads Development Guide 2014 This document supports Designing Streets and expands on its principles and is considered to be the technical advice that should be followed in designing and approving of all streets including parking provision. Non-Statutory Planning Guidance • Loch Leven SPA, the Dunkeld-Blairgowrie Lochs SAC and the River Tay SAC • Planning and Nature Local Place Plans Local Place Plans are community-led plans setting out proposals for the development and use of land and set out a community’s aspirations for its future development. There are no LPP which affect this proposal.
Page 37
EXTERNAL CONSULTATION RESPONSES Scottish Water have commented on this proposal and raised no objections. INTERNAL COUNCIL COMMENTS Transportation And Development have commented on the proposal, and at this stage they have no objections to what is proposed. Finer details will be reviewed at the detailed stage and comments have been made as to what the minimal requirements will be. Development Contributions Officer have commented on the proposal. As this is an IPL application only, model conditions in relation to developer contributions could be used. REPRESENTATIONS None received, ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS RECEIVED Screening Opinion EIA Not Required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not applicable Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations AA Not Required at this stage. The detailed proposal will provide 125% reduction in phosphorus so there will be an improvement made and no adverse impact. Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Supporting statement Report on Impact or Potential Impact None required at this stage. Drainage information will be required at the detailed stage. APPRAISAL Sections 25 and 37 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises NPF4, the LDP2 and statutory SPGs. The relevant policy considerations are outlined in the policy section above and are considered in more detail below. In terms of other material considerations, this involves considerations of the Council’s non-statutory policies and supplementary guidance, these are discussed below only where relevant.
Page 38
Policy Appraisal There are relevant policies contained in all parts of the Development Plan. In terms of the NPF4, Policies 1 (tackling the Climate and Nature Crises) and 2 (Climate Mitigation and Adaptation) look to ensure that all new developments take into account climate change, and its implications. Policy 3 (Biodiversity) looks to ensure that new developments take into account both local and protected wildlife and also provide proportionate level of enhancements. Policy 4 (Natural Places) looks to protect our environmentally sensitive sites, whilst Policy 5 (Soils) looks to ensure that our rich ad important soils are protected from large scale developments. Policy 9 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings) offers support for new homes in the countryside providing they comply with the relevant policies in the LDP2. Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) looks to ensure that all new developments are of a high design standard, and high standard of new homes is encouraged through Policy 16 (Quality Homes) with encouragement for sites which are allocated for residential. Policy 17 (Rural Homes) offers support for new housing in certain instances. In terms of the LDP2, the site lies within the landward area with Policies 1 (Placemaking), 19 (Housing in the Countryside), 22 (Particular needs housing accommodation), Policy 41 (Biodiversity), 45A (Lunan Lochs Catchment Area), Policy 50 (Soils) and Policy 60A (Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements). Policy 1 seeks to ensure that all new developments do not have an adverse impact on the character and amenity of the area concerned, whilst Policy 19 is the LDP version of the Council’s HITCP and offers support for new residential developments in certain instances, such as within building groups and extension to existing building groups. Policy 22 looks to offers support particular and special types of accommodation including residential, subject to some criteria. In terms of Policy 45, this looks to protect the environmentally sensitive Lunan Valley catchment area and requires all new proposals to offer a degree of betterment in terms of phosphorus enter the sensitive lochs. Policy 50 looks to protect prime land and rich soils from large scale developments, whilst Policy 60 looks to ensure that all new developments accord with the standards of the Council and also those of the NRDG. In terms of SPGs, the Council’s policies on Placemaking, Housing in the Countryside and Developer Contributions are all applicable. Land Use Acceptability The rural homes policy of the NPF4 (Policy 17) does not offer any specific policy support for infill opportunities or extension to existing building groups, as this policy is focused more on delivery to allocated sites, on economic need homes, the
Page 39
replacement conversion of existing buildings and the redevelopment of brownfield land. None of these elements are directly relevant to this proposal. However, support for new development within an existing building group and / or development which extends an existing building group is offered by Policy 9 of the NPF4, which essentially says that acceptability of such proposals falls back on whether or not the proposal complies with the relevant LDP policies. Those relevant LDP policies do allow for extension of existing building groups, in certain circumstances. The key test of this proposal from a land use point of view is therefore whether or not the proposals complies and aligns with the Council’s own Housing in the Countryside Policies, which are Policy 19 of the LDP2 and the associated SPG. These polices define a building group as being three or more buildings of at least residential scale. The site is immediately adjacent to two properties, with other properties further to the west. The applicant has put forward an argument that the ‘building group’ which is relevant to this proposal is the wider grouping which contains the two properties to the east, and all other properties and buildings to the west. There is a gap between these two areas of approx. 150m directly east to west, and approx. 100m to the property to the south of the road. These distances are probably more than a close knit area, but not significant enough to be entirely divorced altogether, and there is some degree of relationship and correlation. In light of this, there is a reasonable argument that the two areas could be considered part of a loose grouping, but an opposite argument could equally be made for the areas being two different groups, which would mean that the site is not part of a building group (i.e. 3 or more buildings). PKC corporate aims of encouraging new development and promoting rural growth, perhaps could be used to sway the argument in favour of the site being part of a loose building group, so the question of acceptability of a new dwelling in terms of development within a building group, then moves to whether or not the site is well defined by existing landscape features and is capable of absorbing the development proposed. At the moment two boundaries have solid, natural boundaries the south to the road and to the east the boundary/curtilage of the existing dwelling. The other two boundaries to the south and west are not defined. There is no current boundary to the south, whilst there is a historic post and wire fence to the west. The applicant has suggested that if this application is approved then both these boundaries will be enhanced with new landscaping and trees, which will then form the sites curtilage. The text contained with the SPG makes it clear that even in instances where a site is considered to be within a building group, acceptable sites still need to have a good level of natural containment. Page 8 of the SPG states that, Permission may be granted, subject to the criteria above, for houses which extend the group into a
Page 40
readily definable adjacent site. This will be formed by existing topography, roads or well-established existing landscape features such as a watercourse or mature tree belt which will provide a suitable setting. The question for this application is therefore whether or not ½ of the site’s natural boundaries being either undefined or defined by a post and fire fence is acceptable containment for a new house, within the context of a building group. Having only 50% of the site conforming with the types of existing topography is not ideal, and it is challenging to make an argument that a combination of improving and creating ‘better’ landscaping features on the other two sides is logical and acceptable. The applicant was asked a question about the polytunnels which have in the past been sited immediately to the west of the site, and if they were permanently, would have created a landscape feature along the western boundary. The response was that the polytunnels have not been up for a number of years, and there is no indication that they will be up for any length of time in the future. Ultimately, even with taking an on-balance view on the building group question, the sites boundaries are not sufficient to provide a suitable site and containment, and approval of this proposal on the basis of the physical characteristics could set an undesirable precedent. The applicant has mentioned other sites in the area where they have referenced what they consider to be similar physical characteristics, but the sites mentioned had better contained and had 50% of boundaries defined by typical features, not post and wire fences. For the reasons outlined above, the proposal fails to accord with the relevant HITC policies contained within the LDP and the associated SPG. The applicant mentioned at a late stage in the assessment that the new dwelling is intended to be specifically designed and adapted to accommodate the needs of a family member who has Multiple Sclerosis (MS). It is assumed their current accommodation is not specifically designed for those living with MS, and has been retrofitted / adapted, which often has mixed results. There is some policy support for new homes which are to address specific accommodation needs with supported offered at high level via Policy 16 of the NPF4, and more specific content via Policy 22 of the LDP2 and also a different section of the HITCG. In terms of Policy 22, this policy states that the Council will support proposals for particular needs housing and accommodation which fall into one or more of listed categories, and one of categories is residential developments supporting housing for particular needs (such as housing for frail or elderly people, people with additional support needs, and housing for varying needs) must be suitably located for both residents and visitors, providing both high-quality care and minimal impact on the environment. The policy goes on to day that such developments should be located in residential areas where residents have access to local services and facilities and are integrated within the local community.
Page 41
Very limited information about the existing arrangements have been tabled or reasons why the applicant needs to remain in this rural area, and not in a settlement but even with this information, there does remain some degree of suitable siting and reference back to the HITCG. Section 3.3 of the HITCG does offers some scope for new homes within the countryside for specialised housing (not necessarily a residential area), but this section of the policy still requires some degree of containment for sites. SPG states (page 12), that new homes which are to be supported under this policy shall be on a site with identifiable site with long established boundaries which separates the site naturally from the surrounding ground. For example a dry-stone dyke, a woodland or group of mature trees, or a slope forming an immediate backdrop to the site. The sub-division of a field or other land, for example by post and wire fence or newly planted hedge or tree belt specifically in order to create the site, will not be acceptable. The issue of the acceptably of the west and northern boundary still remains, and unfortunately the proposal remains contrary to Section 3.3 of the HITCG for this reason alone. There are two other land use issues to consider, the impact on the Loch Lochs and also potential loss of agricultural land. The site is located within the environmentally sensitive Lunan Valley Area which is a designated site centred around the Clunie and Craigie lochs. There are various policies in the Development Plan which seek to protect our designated sites, as well as the non-statutory PG. At this stage, the proposal raises no issues with compatibility with the various policies and this development would help to continue the improvements in water quality in the area, which would be to the benefit of the environmental designations. In the event of any approval, conditions relating to the phosphorus mitigation and the need to comply with SEPA requirements should be attached to any permission. The land in question has been identified as prime agricultural land via the land capability classifications. Both the national scale and the 1:50k plans identify the land as 3.1. However the site is now divorced from the surrounding farmland and doesn’t appear to be used for mainstream agriculture or cropping for some time due to its size, and physical / ownership separation from the wider fields and at the southern end the awkward shape surrounding the existing houses. The site looks like it has essentially been a domestic paddock for sometime. In any event, the potential loss of this area would not compromise the availability of genuine agricultural land in the local area which are mostly used for soft fruits, and Xmas trees. It is also worth bearing in mind that the site is on a north facing slope which will impact marginally on the yields of some crops. Bearing all this in mind, there is sufficient justification to take a view that this area is not really a functional area of an
Page 42
agricultural unit, and is therefore not agricultural land and therefore is not really prime ‘agricultural’ land for the purposes of the LDP. The area which would be lost is very small and does not adversely affect the viability of the surrounding agricultural units to function (because it has been separated from these already for some time ago), and ultimately it raises no issues in terms of compatibility with the various Development Plan policies which look to protect our agricultural assets. Visual Amenity, Design and Layout At this stage, there are no detailed matters under consideration. It would however be expected that the details which are brought forward will comply with the relevant requirements in the SPG on Placemaking, and the principles of high design standards contained within the Development Plan. In terms of the impact on the area, as a physical result of the development occurring there would be some impact as most physical development has, however the impact would not necessary be an adverse one. The area is typified by properties along the roadside, and over the years the gaps between the former holdings have narrowed as some infill opportunities arise. Any approval would require the western boundary to be defined with new soft landscaping, and this will, in combination with a suitable house type go some way to negate any adverse impact on the area. As discussed previously, the field adjacent has been used in the short term for polytunnels, and if this was to occur again (which is perhaps likely), then the visual impact would be significantly reduced fairly instantly. Residential Amenity In terms of the impact on existing residential amenity, there are some residential properties in the area – including Lunanbrae, which is immediately adjacent to the east of the site. Whilst there would be some interaction between a new house on this site, and the existing dwelling, it would be unlikely that an unacceptable interaction would occur – if the new dwelling was to be sited appropriately. This can be fully assessed at a detailed planning stage. In terms of being able to provide a suitable level of residential amenity for future occupiers of the dwelling, subject to a suitable size of dwelling, siting and orientation etc there should be no reason why a suitable level of residential amenity cannot be delivered for future occupiers of the dwelling. In all, the full details will be brought forward at the detailed planning stage, but there is no reason why the proposal will raise any conflict with the relevant design or placemaking policies of the Development Plan, or the proposed SPG on Placemaking. Roads and Access This proposal is in principle only, so no details of the access are under consideration as part of this application. Transport Planning have indicated what would be
Page 43
expected to be shown and delivered as part of a detailed application, and there does not seem to be any reason why these requirements cannot be delivered through suitable design and location of the new access point. At this stage, the proposal therefore raises no issues with Policy 60 of the LDP2 and the NRDG, and there will be a full assessment of the acceptability of the details relating to the proposed vehicular access and parking / turning areas. Drainage and Flooding The area is located within the environmentally sensitive Lunan Valley, where there is a requirement for all new proposals to have no adverse impact on the environment (through phosphorus discharges) and that there would be a 125% reduction in existing discharges – which in reality means an upgrade of an existing system within the catchment area. Conservation Considerations There are no listed buildings, conservation areas which are directly affected by the proposal. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity The proposal would have little impact on existing biodiversity, and there would be no loss of trees or habitat. The requirement for 125% phosphorus reduction will ensure that there would be no adverse impact on the sensitivities of the Lunan Loch Climate Change In the event of any approval being forthcoming, a detailed permission should have a requirement for compliance with Policy 32 of the LDP2, which basically means a statement concerning the use of low and zero carbon generating technologies will be requested by condition before any physical build commences. Developer Contributions In this area, there would be no requirement for any Transport Infrastructure related contributions. The proposal would also not generate any affordable housing requirement as it would be a single dwelling. There would however be a requirement for a developer contribution in relation to Primary Education, and to this end a condition has been attached to ensure that this is secured at the detailed planning stage. Economic Impact The economic impact of the proposal is likely to be minimal and limited to the construction phase of the development. VARIATION OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 32A None, the application has not been varied.
Page 44
PLANNING OBLIGATIONS AND LEGAL AGREEMENTS None required. DIRECTION BY SCOTTISH MINISTERS None applicable to this proposal. CONCLUSION AND REASONS FOR DECISION To conclude, the application must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this respect, the proposal is considered to not comply with the Development Plan. Account has been taken of the relevant material considerations and there are none has been found that would justify overriding the Development Plan. Accordingly, the proposal is refused based on the following grounds, 1 The site does not have suitable existing containment and landscape features along either the north and western boundaries. The north is undefined and simply merges into a wider field, whilst the western boundary is a post and wire fence. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy 19 (Housing in the Countryside) of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and Perth and Kinross Council’s statutory supplementary planning guidance on Housing in the Countryside (2020) which requires acceptable sites for new homes within existing building groups, or new homes for local people to have a suitable level of existing containment, and landscape features. 2 As the site is not allocated for the development proposed and the proposal does not accord with the relevant Local Development Plan policies, the proposal is contrary to Policy 9(b) (Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings) not 17(Rural Homes) of the National Planning Framework 4 (2023) which states that proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the Local Development Plan. Justification The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. Informatives None, refusal. Procedural Notes Not Applicable.
Page 45
PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION 1-4 (inclusive)
Page 46
No embedded text on this page.
Page 47
No embedded text on this page.
Page 48
No embedded text on this page.