(a) Notice of Review and supporting documents (Pages 7-36)
Perth and Kinross Council · 22 June 2026
Back to Local Review Body — 22 June 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(i)(a) LRB-2026-08 LRB-2026-08 25/01529/FLL - Erection of 2 dwellinghouses and associated works, land 30 metres north west of 65 Feus, Auchterarder 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 100711501-006 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 RICHARD HALL ARCHITECTS RICHARD HALL SUITE 3/16 KING JAMES VI BUSINESS CENTRE 07973 701025 PH2 8DY UNITED KINGDOM PERTH FRIARTON ROAD rick@hallarchitects.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 Mr ADAM Perth and Kinross Council SAFFERY 713178 295005
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 2 DWELLINGHOUSES AND ASSOCIATED WORKS SUPPORTING DOCUMENT ACCOMPANIES THIS APPLICATION SETTING OUT OUR REASONS FOR APPEAL
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. Local Review Board APPEAL DOCUMENT 25/01529/FLL 13/01/2026 20/10/2025
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: Mr RICHARD HALL Declaration Date: 01/04/2026 Payment Details Pay Direct Created: 01/04/2026 12:26
Page 8
Suite 3/16 King James VI Business Centre, Friarton Road, PERTH PH2 8DY T 07973 701025 W hallarchitects.co.uk E rick@hallarchitects.co.uk LOCAL REVIEW BOARD APPEAL DOCUMENT FOR REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION NO 25/01529/FLL for 2 NEW DWELLINGS at Land 39 Metres North West of 65 FEUS AUCHTERARDER PH3 1DG 1LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03
Page 9
CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Reason for Refusal 3. Reasons for Appeal 4. Conclusion LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 2
Page 10
1.0 Introduction 1.1 This appeal is against the Refusal of Planning Permission No 25/01529/FLL, for 2 new semi-detached dwellings, on a vacant plot opposite number 67A Feus, Auchterarder. 1.2 There have been 5 applications for residential development on this application site: 1. 22/00465/IPL – Application for Planning Permission in Principle for 3 terraced houses orientated north to south, parallel with the existing access lane – WITHDRAWN 2. 22/00698/IPL – Application for Planning Permission in Principle for 3 terraced houses orientated north to south, parallel with the existing access lane – REFUSED 3. 22/01483/FLL – Application for Detailed Planning Permission for 1no dwelling house, orientated east to west, perpendicular to the access lane – APPROVED 4. 25/00699/FLL – Application for Detailed Planning Permission for 2 no semi- detached dwelling, orientated north to south, parallel with the existing access lane – WITHDRAWN 5. 25/01529/FLL – Application for Detailed Planning Permission for 2 no semi- detached dwellings, orientated east to west perpendicular to the existing access lane - REFUSED LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 3
Page 11
1.3 The application site was previously occupied by a building running north to south, which we believe was a dwellinghouse, with a series of 5 garages and lock-ups, actively used. That building is fully demolished, and little of the garages remain. 1.4 The application for the detached dwelling No 22/01483/FLL was approved in February 2023. The Officer’s Report of Handling recommended approval “as the development is considered to comply with relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no material considerations apparent which outweigh the Development Plan. Planning Permission was granted 14th February 2023. 1.3 A further application for 2 semi-detached dwellings No 25/00699/FLL was withdrawn due to objections from the Planning Officer, regarding the siting of the proposed houses, although the principal of the site occupying 2 semi-detached houses was never disputed. The guidance received from the Planning Officer was that the layout for the new houses should be sited east to west, rather than north to south. This refused application is therefore a redesign of the withdrawn layout, siting the proposed houses east to west to comply with the Planning Officer’s advice. LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 4
Page 12
extract from the 1971 OS MAP showing building and garages - application site outlined in red LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 5
Page 13
2.0 Reason for Refusal 2.1 The Application was refused on 2 points as follows: 1. This is a brownfield site with existing dwellinghouses and rear gardens on all sides. The proposal for a semi-detached development of two 2-storey dwellinghouses will have a detrimental effect on existing residential amenity in terms of overbearing physical impact, increased overlooking and from vehicle movement along a narrow track. The proposal is inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places and contrary to NPF4 Policy Design, Quality and Place and LDP2 Policy 1 Placemaking and related Placemaking Supplementary Guidance (2020). 2. The proposal is for a poorly designed semi-detached development of two 2-storey 3- bedroom dwellinghouses and the design and layout does not respect the character and a amenity of the place. The proposal is inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places and contrary to Policy 14 Design, Quality and Place and LDP2 Policy 1 Placemaking and related Placemaking Supplementary Guidance. LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 6
Page 14
3.0 Reason for Appeal 3.1 Introduction - Application 22/01483/FLL confirmed that residential development of this site complies with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. That approval establishes that the site can accommodate built development of a defined scale, orientation and relationship to neighbouring properties without unacceptable impact. The current proposal follows the same east–west orientation advised by the Planning Officer and occupies substantially the same footprint area as the previously approved dwelling, but with reduced massing and lower eaves height. The acceptability of built development in this position has therefore already been established in principle. LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 7
Page 15
3.2 Response to Refusal Point 1 (Residential amenity – overbearing impact, overlooking, vehicle movement and Planning Policies) (a) Overbearing Physical Impact The approved dwelling under 22/01483/FLL established the acceptable scale, massing and siting parameters for development on this plot. The proposed semi-detached building: - Occupies a comparable footprint; - Has reduced massing when compared to the previously approved single dwelling; - Has a lower eaves height; - Maintains comparable boundary distances. LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 8
Page 16
It is therefore not reasonable to conclude that a building of reduced vertical and volumetric impact would now give rise to unacceptable overbearing effects when a larger building was previously considered acceptable under the Development Plan. The proposal has been carefully shaped to reduce perceived bulk from the lane and neighbouring gardens, with articulated elevations and offset positioning. The visualisations submitted (page 10) demonstrate that only limited, glancing views of the gable will be experienced within the lane, and long views north and south are retained. In amenity terms, the proposal does not exceed the envelope of development already accepted on the site. LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 9
Page 17
Photo looking north showing proposed dwelling in place on the right showing minimum physical impact on lane LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 10 Photo looking south showing proposed dwelling in place on the right showing minimum physical impact on lane
Page 18
(b) Overlooking No objections were received from adjoining neighbours in respect of overlooking or loss of privacy. Window positions have been carefully arranged to avoid direct overlooking of neighbouring principal habitable room windows or private garden areas. The orientation of the building, combined with the limited width of the access lane and the presence of intervening boundary treatments, ensures there are no direct opposing windows. In this case: - There are no opposing habitable room windows within such distances - Relationships to neighbouring properties are oblique or screened by existing boundaries and the lane - The proposal reflects the established backland development pattern, where tighter relationships are characteristic and accepted - the previously approved dwelling (22/01483/FLL) established that similar spatial relationships are acceptable on this site LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 11
Page 19
Furthermore: - The site is surrounded by existing residential properties and gardens - No neighbouring objections have been raised - The Council previously accepted comparable relationships in granting permission for the dwelling on this site - In these circumstances, and with reference to the Council’s own guidance, there is no policy or evidential basis to conclude the proposal would result in unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 12
Page 20
(c) Vehicle Movements The existing access lane is an historic and established traffic thoroughfare. Transport Planning as a statutory Consultee, have raised no objection to any of the 5 applications. Their only Condition was to request a Traffic Management Plan to be implemented during construction. The mention of reducing residential amenity by “vehicle movement along a narrow access track” in the Refusal document, is therefore completely at odds with the Council’s own Transport Planners recommendations, with the historic use of the lane, the continuing use by other residents for vehicle access to their homes, and the legal right of vehicle access, the application site possesses. Historically the application site provided parking and garaging. Previously, there were 6 garages with 2 additional parking spaces. The proposed number of parking spaces is 4, essentially reducing the potential traffic flow by 50%. LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 13
Page 21
(d) Compliance with Policy – Placemaking and Design The refusal asserts inconsistency with NPF4 Policy 14 and LDP2 Policy 1 (Placemaking). However, no specific element of measurable non-compliance has been identified. The proposal: - Completes a gap site within an established residential block; - Reinforces the established grain of development; - Respects existing building lines; - Maintains the character of the lane defined by walls, fences and gable ends; - Introduces new landscaping and planting; - Occupies a sustainable location within walking distance of local services and public transport. - The proposal therefore contributes positively to the surrounding built environment and satisfies the requirements of Policy 1A and 1B. LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 14
Page 22
3.3 Response to Refusal Point 2 (Design and Planning Policies) (a) Design The refusal states, the “proposal is for a poorly designed semi-detached development”. On the contrary, the proposed building has been meticulously designed to minimise its impact on the neighbouring properties and gardens. The outline shape of the proposed building, on every surface, has been interrogated and considered, to reduce the physical impact on its immediate neighbour. Rather than follow a pastiche style, the proposed building has been designed in direct response to the physical restrictions of the site, which is what architecture is about. LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 15
Page 23
(b) Planning Policies The Refusal states the proposal is contrary to LDP Policy 1 Placemaking. 1A which states : Development must contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment. All development should be planned and designed with reference to climate change, mitigation and adaptation. The design, density and siting of development should respect the character and amenity of the place, and should create and improve links within and, where practical, beyond the site. Proposals should also incorporate new landscape, and planting works appropriate to the local context and the scale and nature of the development. The proposed building will contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment. The proposal has been meticulously designed to consider and respect the character and amenity of the “place” and will enhance the existing lane with new landscaping. LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 16
Page 24
LDP Policy 1B asks that all proposals should meet all the following placemaking criteria: (a) Create a sense of identity by developing a coherent structure of streets, spaces, and buildings, safely accessible from its surroundings. (b) Consider and respect site topography and any surrounding important landmarks, views or skylines, as well as the wider landscape character of the area. (c) The design and density should complement its surroundings in terms of appearance, height, scale, massing, materials, finishes and colours. (d) Respect an existing building line where appropriate or establish one where none exists. Access, uses, and orientation of principal elevations should reinforce the street or open space. (e) All buildings, streets, and spaces (including green spaces) should create safe, accessible, inclusive places for people, which are easily navigable, particularly on foot, bicycle and public transport. (f) Buildings and spaces should be designed with future adaptability, climate change and resource efficiency in mind wherever possible. (g) Existing buildings, structures and natural features that contribute to the local townscape should be retained and sensitively integrated into proposals. (h) Incorporate green infrastructure into new developments to promote active travel and make connections where possible to blue and green networks. (i) Provision of satisfactory arrangements for the storage and collection of refuse and recyclable materials (with consideration of communal facilities for major developments). j) Sustainable design and construction. LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 17
Page 25
The existing lane has a sense of identity created by the long views and the edging of walls and fences and the punctuation of the various buildings along the way. The long view north focuses on the gable of the new house on Strathallan Way, and the view south on the opening onto the Feus. Occasional trees protrude into the lane to add to the character. The proposed development will add in a positive way, by completing the boundary with built form and with further trees and landscaping. The proposed development has been meticulously designed to respect the design and density of its surroundings, in terms of appearance, height, scale, massing, materials, finishes and colours, and respects all existing building lines. The gable addresses the lane, while the principal entrance elevation addresses the proposed entrance court, with a mix of parking and landscaping, typical of “backland” development, where lanes are punctuated by small open spaces. LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 18
Page 26
NPF4 Policy 13 (Sustainable Transport) – The proposed development is fully consistent with the requirements of this Policy, in seeking to reduce reliance on private cars and prioritises walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport. NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) - The Refusal states the proposal is inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places and contrary to NPF4 Policy 14 which requires all applications to: a) be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale b) applications will be supported where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places; Healthy; Pleasant; Connected; Distinctive; Sustainable and adaptable. The proposal is meticulously designed to improve the quality of the surrounding area – every surface has been designed to respond to its setting and to reduce impact on its neighbours. Contrary to the Refusal statement, the proposal IS consistent with the six qualities of successful places as follows; LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 19
Page 27
Healthy – the application site is within the central area of Auchterarder and encourages walking to the local amenities and facilities; Pleasant – the proposed development significantly increases the amenity of the existing lane with new landscaping; Connected – the application site is within minutes walk of a bus stop, both east and west, which connect to the national transport networks; Distinctive – the proposed new semi-detached houses are distinctive in design and have been meticulously designed for their intimate setting; Sustainable – the proposed building will be constructed in accordance with the strict requirements of the Scottish Building regulations which require compliance with current sustainability regulations; Adaptable - the open plan design of the new houses supports the ability to adapt the properties during their lifetime. The proposed roofs are fully supported by the outside walls, so changes are easy to make with room partitions and wet areas are clustered to reduce internal drainage. Policy 15 (Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods) - This application complies with the requirements of this policy in seeking to create safe, pleasant and connected environments. LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 20
Page 28
4.0 Conclusion 4.1 The Refusal states the proposed development is either inconsistent with, or contrary to, LDP2 Policy 1 Placemaking and related Supplementary Guidance, and NPF4 Policy 14 Design, Quality and Place. This appeal clearly shows the proposals are consistent with all of the requirements of these Policies and indeed with the other relevant Policies in these documents, as set out in the Supporting Design Statement (LDP2 Policy 4 Transportation and Active Travel, Policy 17 Residential Areas, NPF4 Policies 1 & 2, Policy 9 Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land, Policy 13 Sustainable Transport, Policy 15 Local Living and 20minute Neighbourhoods, Policy16 Quality Homes, Policy 22 Flood Risk and Water Management, Policy 26 Business and Industry – Home Working. 4.2 The proposed new houses are sited to respond to the grain of the surrounding area. They are of a scale and proportion to provide a comfortable fit in the surrounding environment. The proposal brings significant increase in the amenity of the area. The new houses have been meticulously designed to preserve the privacy and amenity of the existing neighbouring properties and have raised no objections from immediate neighbours. LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 21
Page 29
4.3 Since the grant of planning permission under 22/01483/FLL in February 2023, construction costs have risen significantly due to increased labour and material costs. While that scheme was financially viable at the time of approval, current build cost levels mean the single dwelling scheme is no longer realistically deliverable. 4.4 The current proposal enables redevelopment of this brownfield site to proceed and ensures delivery of much-needed housing in a sustainable town centre location. In the absence of an economically deliverable scheme, the site is likely to remain vacant and underutilised. (The site currently attracts illegal dumping of waste and anti-social behaviour). This is a material consideration in favour of the revised proposal. 4.5 Auchterarder is crying out for small starter homes. These small family starter homes are urgently needed. Current market evidence demonstrates a clear shortage of housing at an affordable level within the town. A review of active property listings indicates there are very limited properties available under £225,000, with only a small number of properties currently marketed within this price range. These are often limited in size, type or suitability for family occupation. (Source: OnTheMarket property listings March 2026) LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 22
Page 30
By Contrast, the majority of homes currently available in Auchterarder are marketed at significantly higher values, with typical asking prices for family housing in excess of £240,000 and extending well beyond this level (Source: OnTheMarket property listings March 2026). This reflects the wider housing market in the area, where average house prices in Auchterarder are approximately £350,000+ with even semi-detached properties in excess of £240,000, placing them beyond the reach of many first-time buyers and young families (Source: OnTheMarket property listings March 2026). These sources indicate a clear imbalance in the local housing market, with a clear shortage of smaller, affordable homes, relative to demand. Backland development is supported by Councils across Scotland and actively encouraged by Scottish Government, as it promotes efficient use of land within existing settlements, supports walking and reduced travel, and contributes to the delivery of sustainable communities. The proposed development directly addresses this identified gap in the market by providing modest, accessible homes within the heart of the community. These are precisely the type of houses required to support young families and first-time buyers in Auchterarder. This application should therefore be supported, and we respectfully request this application be approved. LRB APPEAL DOCUMENT Version 2 26.03.03 23