(c) Representations (Pages 145-164)
Perth and Kinross Council · 3 August 2026
Back to Local Review Body — 3 August 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)(c) LRB-2026-11 LRB-2026-11 - 26/00461/IPL - Erection of dwellinghouse (in principle), land 50 metres south east of Craigburn House, Flawcraig, Rait, Perth, PH2 7RY Representations
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
Comments to the Development Management & Building Standards Service Manager on a Planning Application Planning Application ref. 26/00461/IPL Comments provided by Alasdair Finlayson Service/Section Place Strategies Contact Details Development Contributions Officer: Email: DevelopmentContributions@pkc.gov.uk Description of Proposal Erection of dwellinghouse (in principle) Address of site Land 50 Metres South East Of Craigburn House Flawcraig Rait Perth PH2 7RY Comments on the proposal Primary Education With reference to the above planning application the Council Developer Contributions Supplementary Guidance requires a financial contribution towards increased primary school capacity in areas where a primary school capacity constraint has been identified. A capacity constraint is defined as where a primary school is operating at over 80% and is likely to be operating following completion of the proposed development, extant planning permissions and Local Development Plan allocations, at or above 100% of total capacity. This proposal is currently within the catchment of Abernyte Primary School. At present, there is no identified capacity constraint at this school (Appendix 1 of the Supplementary Guidance). However, the need for a Primary Education contribution will be re-assessed at the time of any further application. A condition to reflect this should be attached to any planning application granted. Recommended planning condition(s) Primary Education CO01 The development shall be in accordance with the requirements of Perth & Kinross Council’s Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing Supplementary Guidance 2023 in line with Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions of the Perth & Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) with particular regard to primary education infrastructure, or such subsequent Guidance and Policy which may replace these. RCO00 Reason – To ensure the development is in accordance with the terms of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and to comply with the Council’s policy on Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing Supplementary Guidance 2023. Recommended informative(s) for applicant N/A Date comments returned 15 April 2026
Page 4
SW Business Wednesday, 22 April 2026 Local Planner Planning and Development Perth and Kinross Council Perth PH1 5GD Dear Customer, Land 50 Metres South East Of, Craigburn House Flawcraig Rait, Perth, PH2 7RY Planning Ref: 26/00461/IPL Our Ref: DSCAS-0153773-YYV Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse (in principle) Please quote our reference in all future correspondence Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application. The applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced. Please read the following carefully as there may be further action required. Scottish Water would advise the following: Water Capacity Assessment • There is currently sufficient capacity in the Clatto Water Treatment Works to service your development. However, please note that further investigations may be required to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted to us. Waste Water Capacity Assessment According to our records there is no public waste water infrastructure within the vicinity of this proposed development therefore we would advise applicant to investigate private treatment options. Please Note The applicant should be aware that we are unable to reserve capacity at our water and/or waste water treatment works. When planning permission has been granted and a formal Development Operations The Bridge Buchanan Gate Business Park Cumbernauld Road Stepps Glasgow G33 6FB Development Operations Freephone Number - 0800 3890379 E-Mail - DevelopmentOperations@scottishwater.co.uk www.scottishwater.co.uk
Page 5
SW Business connection application has been submitted, we will review the availability of capacity at that time and advise the applicant accordingly. Surface Water For reasons of sustainability and to protect our customers from potential future sewer flooding, Scottish Water will not accept any surface water connections into our combined sewer system. There may be limited exceptional circumstances where we would allow such a connection for brownfield sites only, however this will require significant justification from the customer taking account of various factors including legal, physical, and technical challenges. In order to avoid costs and delays where a surface water discharge to our combined sewer system is anticipated, the developer should refer to our guides which can be found at https://www.scottishwater.co.uk/Help-and-Resources/Document-Hub/Business-and- Developers/Connecting-to-Our-Network which detail our policy and processes to support the application process, evidence to support the intended drainage plan should be submitted at the technical application stage where we will assess this evidence in a robust manner and provide a decision that reflects the best option from environmental and customer perspectives. Asset Impact Assessment Scottish Water records indicate that there is live infrastructure in the proximity of your development area that may impact on existing Scottish Water assets. • 250mm Di main • 200mm DI main within your site boundary. The applicant must identify any potential conflicts with Scottish Water assets and contact our Asset Impact Team via our Customer Portal for an appraisal of the proposals. The applicant should be aware that any conflict with assets identified will be subject to restrictions on proximity of construction. Please note the disclaimer at the end of this response. Written permission must be obtained before any works are started within the area of our apparatus Next Steps: Single house developments; unless utilising private water or drainage sources, are required to submit a Water Connection Application and Waste Water Application via our Customer Portal to allow us to fully appraise the proposals. Please note that Single House developments are not required to submit a Pre-Development Enquiry form (PDE) however local network capacity will be assessed on receipt of application forms.
Page 6
SW Business Further information on our application and connection process for Single Household development can be found on our website https://www.scottishwater.co.uk/Business- and-Developers/NEW-Connecting-to-Our-Network/Single-Household-Customers I trust the above is acceptable however if you require any further information regarding this matter, please contact me on 0800 389 0379 or via the e-mail address below or at planningconsultations@scottishwater.co.uk. Yours sincerely, Ruth Kerr Development Services Analyst PlanningConsultations@scottishwater.co.uk Scottish Water Disclaimer: “It is important to note that the information on any such plan provided on Scottish Water’s infrastructure, is for indicative purposes only and its accuracy cannot be relied upon. When the exact location and the nature of the infrastructure on the plan is a material requirement then you should undertake an appropriate site investigation to confirm its actual position in the ground and to determine if it is suitable for its intended purpose. By using the plan you agree that Scottish Water will not be liable for any loss, damage or costs caused by relying upon it or from carrying out any such site investigation." Supplementary Guidance • Scottish Water asset plans can be obtained from our appointed asset plan providers: • Site Investigation Services (UK) Ltd • Tel: 0333 123 1223 • Email: sw@sisplan.co.uk • www.sisplan.co.uk • Scottish Water’s current minimum level of service for water pressure is 1.0 bar or 10m head at the customer’s boundary internal outlet. Any property which cannot be adequately serviced from the available pressure may require private pumping arrangements to be installed, subject to compliance with Water Byelaws. If the developer wishes to enquire about Scottish Water’s procedure for checking the water pressure in the area, then they should write to the Development Operations department at the above address. • If the connection to the public sewer and/or water main requires to be laid through land out-with public ownership, the developer must provide evidence of formal approval from the affected landowner(s) by way of a deed of servitude. • Scottish Water may only vest new water or waste water infrastructure which is to be laid through land out with public ownership where a Deed of Servitude has been obtained in our favour by the developer.
Page 7
SW Business • The developer should also be aware that Scottish Water requires land title to the area of land where a pumping station and/or a Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS) proposed to vest in Scottish Water is constructed. • Please find information on how to submit application to Scottish Water at our Customer Portal
Page 8
Comments for Planning Application 26/00461/IPL Application Summary Application Number: 26/00461/IPL Address: Land 50 Metres South East Of Craigburn House Flawcraig Rait Perth PH2 7RY Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse (in principle) Case Officer: John Williamson Customer Details Name: Mr Stuart Rose Address: Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: - Contrary to Development Plan Policy Comment:Dear Sir/Madam, I write to object to the above planning application and would be grateful if you would take my views into consideration. This site has previously been the subject of two refused applications for residential development (06/00793/FUL and 09/00634/FUL), both of which were also dismissed on appeal. A key reason for refusal of the first application was that the site, which is located within the countryside, was not considered self-contained. Subsequently, a fast-growing, non-native Lylandii boundary hedge was planted, and a further application was submitted in 2009. This proposal was also refused. The reasons for refusal are still relevant today. In my view, the proposal conflicts with National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) specifically Policies 5b (Soils), 9b (Greenfield Sites), and 17a (Rural Homes), as well as Policies 19 (Housing in the countryside) and 50 (Prime agricultural land) of the PKC Adopted Local Development Plan 2 and the associated Housing in the Countryside Supplementary Guidance (March 2020). I note that NPF4 is more recent than the adopted local plan therefore the policies it contains carry the most weight in the decision making process. The site is classified as Class 3.1 prime agricultural land. Development would therefore conflict with NPF 4 Policy 5b, and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal is essential to a rural business in this location. Furthermore, there is no policy support for housing development under NPF4 Policy 9 as it represents development of a greenfield site in the countryside without being explicitly supported in the local development plan. The proposal also
Page 9
fails to meet any of the criteria for housing development in the countryside under Policy 17a as it is unrelated to a rural business or not linked to a historical asset and is not sited within a remote area. In relation to local policy, this subdivision has effectively engineered a self-contained plot where one previously did not exist. Policy 19 of the Local Development Plan 2, along with the Housing in the Countryside Supplementary Guidance, states that such subdivision, whether by fencing, hedging, or tree planting to create development sites is unacceptable. It explicitly discourages overly engineered solutions and the use of fast-growing, non-native conifers for this purpose such as the Leylandii that has been used in this case. The previously refused 2009 application included representations and photographic evidence indicating that this hedge was planted to subdivide the field and create a self contained site. This representation was submitted to the Council on 07/05/2009 and is contained within application 09/00634/FUL. Approval of this application may set an undesirable precedent, suggesting that the the remainder of the field could be deliberately subdivided and, over time, presented as individual development plots. Finally, the proposal conflicts with Policy 50 of the PKC Local Development Plan 2, which seeks to protect prime agricultural land. The development would result in the permanent loss of Class 3.1 land without sufficient justification. For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that planning permission be refused.
Page 10
No embedded text on this page.
Page 11
Comments to the Development Quality Manager on a Planning Application Planning Application ref. 26/00461/IPL Comments provided by Alasdair Kay Transportation Development Officer Service/Section Transportation & Development Contact Details TransportPlanning@pkc.gov.uk Description of Proposal Erection of dwellinghouse (in principle) Address of site Land 50 Metres South East of Craigburn House, Flawcraig, Rait Perth, PH2 7RY Comments on the proposal The applicant is proposing to erect a single dwellinghouses on land 50 metres South East of Craigburn House, Flawcraig, Rait, Perth, PH2 7RY. Vehicle access to the proposed property will be from an existing access lane. The applicant should consider the following when submitting a detailed planning application: • The number of car parking spaces being provided for the dwellinghouse should be in accordance with The National Roads Development Guide. • Should a garage be proposed for parking, the size of space within the garage must be a minimum of 7.0m x 3.0m (internal dimensions), as set out in the standards defined in The National Roads Development Guide. • Turning facilities shall be provided within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave in a forward-facing gear. • The applicant shall detail the intention for waste collection and a suitable location and hardstanding for the presentation of wheelie bins. • Drainage infrastructure shall be detailed by the applicant. • The site shall be served by the existing private access which shall be provided with intervisible passing places at approximately 100m centres. Insofar as the Roads matters are concerned, I have no objections to this proposal on the following condition. Recommended planning condition(s) The development shall not commence until the following specified matters have been the subject of a formal planning application for the approval of the Council as Planning Authority: the siting, design and external appearance of the development, the hard and soft landscaping of the site, all means of enclosure, means of access to the site, vehicle parking and turning facilities, levels, drainage and waste management provision. Reason - This is a Planning Permission in Principle under Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by Section 21 of the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. Recommended informative(s) for applicant Date comments returned 6 May 2026
Page 12
To: John Williamson, Planning Officer From: Sophie Nicol, Senior Archaeologist Tel: Email: Date: 7th May 2026 26/00461/IPL Erection of dwellinghouse (in principle) Land 50 Metres South East Of Craigburn House Flawcraig Rait Perth PH2 7RY Thank you for consulting PKHT on the above application. With respect to archaeology and the planning process, as outlined by NPF4, the proposed development does not raise any significant issues. No further archaeological mitigation is required in this instance
Page 13
Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to express my objections to appeal LRB-2026-11. A total of 6 (six) separate attempts to gain permission for a dwelling on this site have been submitted by the applicant over the years (3 planning applications, 2 appeals to the Scottish government and this LRB review). All proposals have been refused up to this point. The site has been engineered in an opportunistic manor, in an attempt to allow development at the end of a building group on greenfield land. The council’s most recent decision clearly states that the application fails to comply with a number of national and local policies, these being; National Planning Framework 4, Policy 9b (Geenfield Sites) and Policy 17 (Rural homes) PKC Local Development Plan 2, Policy 19 (Housing in the Countryside), PKC Housing in the countryside supplementary guidance. The appeal submitted by the applicant largely avoids addressing these national and local policies and argues that because time has passed, a hedge planted specifically to create a self- contained site in response to a previous refusal, now constitutes an existing landscape feature in compliance with policy. However, the council's guidelines in “Housing in the Countryside Supplementary Guidance” explicitly state that “hedging planted with the specific intention of creating a site will not be accepted as existing landscape features for the purposes of this supplementary guidance.” This document also discourages the use of fast growing, non native hedging, which is exactly what has been used here, presumably to minimise the time required to become established. There is no longevity clause in these guidelines or other policy that validates boundaries that were specifically planted to create a self contained site after a period of time has elapsed. The use of fast-growing, non-native Leylandii hedging for this purpose is precisely the type of artificial manipulation the supplementary guidance is designed to prevent. If approved, this would set a precedent to allow for opportunistic building on greenfield land by planting fast growing hedges, waiting a period of time then building on the land. The appeal also attempts to justify the development by referencing Scotland’s housing emergency and the Scottish Government publication “Tackling Scotland’s Housing Emergency, September 2025.” This document however, relates primarily to affordable housing. This proposal is for a single private dwelling on a substantial greenfield plot, with no indication whatsoever that it would contribute to affordable housing supply. It is therefore not relevant to reference this document when no indications have been made that this property will benefit affordable housing supply. In any case, at no point does the Scottish Government document suggest that national and local planning policies should simply be disregarded. The appeal mentions the site would likely be developed by local builders and links to a Scottish government document supporting local construction. This document does not state that support for local construction activity should override clear breaches of planning policy. The applicant argues that the planning history of the site should carry no weight in the decision making process, while simultaneously relying on the planted hedge’s age to justify the site. This is a contradiction. The hedge was planted as a direct response to a failed appeal to the Scottish
Page 14
Government in order to attempt to create a compliant site, therefore its origin is inseparable from the planning history. I have included a photograph at the end of this letter which clearly shows the hedge being planted to self contain the site shortly after a previous application appeal was refused by the Scottish government. I would also like to note that the large number of attempts at obtaining planning approval on this site over many years places an unnecessary and avoidable burden on limited public resources, requiring repeated assessment, reporting and review of a development that continues to conflict with established policy despite no material changes. The reality of this site has not changed across six attempts to gain approval for a dwelling. It is an engineered attempt to circumvent the policies that form opportunistic development on greenfield land. The proposal fails to meet the criteria of NPF4 and LDP2, along with local supplementary guidelines. I respectfully request that the Local Review Body upholds the original decision and dismisses this appeal. Stuart Rose
Page 15
No embedded text on this page.
Page 16
Gordon Frew Springside Cottage Fingask by Rait PH2 7SA 14.06.2026 Addendum: Supplementing information submitted in objection to planning application: Ref: 26/00461/IPL Erection of dwellinghouse (in principle) Land 50 metres south of Craigburn House Flawcraig Rait Perth PH2 7RY 1 I have been resident at the above address for twenty six years and feel able to comment on matters relating to the surrounding land with reasonable authority. The planting of Leylandii trees has been used to systematically create false boundaries, with the intention of submitting planning applications for dwelling houses.. Subsequent applications have been refused locally and on appeal to Scottish government on two occasions. The use of Leylandii has the benefit of fast growth but is deemed an ‘invasive species’ in the national plan.it was obvious to the reporter from Scottish government that this was the case and she commented to that effect at a site visit during the appeal process. A site visit would clearly show that the planting of these trees, in their current formation, is for one purpose only. To create false boundaries and take agricultural land on which to surreptitiously build dwelling houses. The length of time these falsely constructed boundaries have been in situ should bear little relevance in this case. The practice, if encouraged, would only serve to give the green light for substantial areas of agricultural land to be arrogated resulting in unsightly, incongruous and alien woodland permeating the countryside.
Page 17
2 The final point I would address is the access to the proposed site. A lane runs through my garden providing access to Burnside house, my property and North Lodge. Another property would mean an increase in traffic with very specific hazards.. In the absence of any thorough risk or impact assessment I would highlight the following: The lane is only the width of a car, in places. As my garden and that of North Lodge have a small wooded area between the lane and the burn, it is secluded and emerging from the ‘woods’ can be quite dangerous as it is easy to step directly in front of a car. Any new properties would result in an increase in traffic using the lane and an increase to the risks to residents and visitors. The risk is further exacerbated if children are playing in the wooded area which is part of the gardens of North Lodge and my property.This would be in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Articles 15 and 31 the right to play safely. It is difficult to see how the risk to children could be mitigated sufficiently to have an acceptable level of risk to children playing in the gardens. The increase in traffic on the lane would make that safety of children and the risk harm, unacceptably high. I would also assert that any increase in traffic on the lane would be in breach of my rights as laid out in article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998. While it is encouraging to have the applicant invoke the crisis of housing in Scotland, the type of housing that is required to fix the crisis bears little resemblance, I suspect, to any proposed dwelling on the site in question. Thank you for considering my views on this matter. Gordon Frew
Page 18
Please find an accurate photograph of the access lane in question. showing its unsuitability and risk areas for children and adults.
Page 19
SPR Planning Local Review Body From: Sent: 03 July 2026 10:31 To: SPR Planning Local Review Body Subject: RE: LRB-2026-11 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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. Dear Ms Simpson, The only comments the applicant wishes to make are as follows. 1. The housing emergency is not just about aƯordable housing. It is about all housing including housing in the countryside and self-builder plots. 2. The Scottish Government has stated that the housing emergency is a significant material consideration in planning decision-making. As such, it could justify a departure from local and national planning policy on its own. 3. A small increase in the use of the road will not cause undue harm to neighbours. Notwithstanding that, however, if all users wanted traƯic calming on the road, then the applicant would be prepared to accept that as a planning condition. Regards Paul Paul Houghton MRTPI Houghton Planning Ltd
Page 20
No embedded text on this page.