(c) Representations (Pages 61-116)
Perth and Kinross Council · 27 January 2025
Back to Local Review Body — 27 January 2025 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-2024-49 LRB-2024-49 24/00957/IPL - Erection of dwellinghouse (in principle), land 40 metres south west of Witchill, Kinnoull Terrace, Perth REPRESENTATIONS
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
No embedded text on this page.
Page 4
No embedded text on this page.
Page 5
No embedded text on this page.
Page 6
No embedded text on this page.
Page 7
No embedded text on this page.
Page 8
Mr Andrew Wood (Objects) Comment submitted date: Mon 29 Jul 2024 Dear Sirs Application 24/00957/IPL Objection and comment on planning application We hereby object to this planning application on a number of grounds. Access The site does not have a suitable access that will facilitate construction traffic or an appropriate access on an ongoing basis if approved. Kinnoull Terrace is not an adopted highway and is in the ownership and control of the residents. The access to Bowerswell Road has no visibly spays that meet current road standards and therefor intensification of the use of this access would be contrary to policy and road safety. Conservation Area and Heritage The site is in a conservation area and is highly visible both from the A85 and the wider city centre and Tay Street area. Development of this area would be contrary to the current status as a conservation area. The proposed new structure would be out with the established building line and character of the conservation area would be significantly altered by any development on this site on this elevated and highly visible site. It is acknowledged that the site is partly screened by trees (Leylandii or Western Red Cedar) These are planted right on the top of the cliff overlooking the A85/ Dundee Road and any future resident on a development of this site is most likely to seek removal if these which currently represent a hazard in any case due to the proximity to the cliff edge. When removed the site will be highly visible to the city centre. Listed building The site is in the curtilage and garden of an important listed building and any development on this site would impact significantly on the setting of the listed building. Technical Constraints In addition to not having a suitable access for construction traffic there is a significant local drainage constraint both for foul and surface water. There is currently no servitude available for a foul water discharge through neighbouring properties
Page 9
Due to the geology and topography of the site we do not believe it will not be possible to deliver a SUDS solution to the surface water discharge from any development. Yours sincerely Andrew Wood FRICS and Rosemary Wood
Page 10
Mr Iain Anderson (Objects) Comment submitted date: Tue 30 Jul 2024 Dear Sirs This planning application appears to differ little from the 6 previous Planning Applications submitted for this site by the applicant, all of which were refused permission. There have been 5 appeals raised on these planning refusals and all appeals have been dismissed. The site does not have a suitable access. The access road is in the ownership and control of others. Road safety concerns regarding additional traffic and construction traffic at the Kinnoull Terrace - Bowerswell Road junction The site is in a conservation area and is highly visible and development would be detrimental to the character of the conservation area. The site would also overlook Kinnoull primary School and playground. The building line and character of the conservation area would be significantly altered by any development on this site. The site is in the curtilage and garden of an important listed building. This objection is submitted on behalf of Iain Anderson & Hazel Anderson.
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
Mr John Charles Dernie (Objects) Comment submitted date: Tue 30 Jul 2024 Road Safety. I strongly disagree with the statement that the junction with Bowerswell Rd is very safe. Quite the opposite and more traffic can only make that worse. There is no turning point on Kinnoull Terrace so delivery vans and refuse lorries etc have to reverse in or out. This is a conservation area and this development would be unsuitable. The access to the proposed site is not suitable. The character of the current architecturally and historically important Terrace would be spoilt by this development. Parking. If cars are parked on Kinnoull Terrace it can make entry and exit to the current properties difficult. More vehicles would make the problem worse. J C Dernie
Page 16
Mr Jeremy Duncan (Objects) Comment submitted date: Tue 30 Jul 2024 Dear Sir/Madam, Planning Application 24/00957/IPL - Erection of Dwellinghouse (in principle): Land 40 Metres South-West Of Witchhill, Kinnoull Terrace, Perth We wish to voice our objections to the above planning application. Our first concern is the quality of the application itself with its poor sketches and barely legible writing. For example, it is difficult, if not impossible, to work out precisely which trees would have to felled or trimmed, and how, say, the development would look from Kinnoull Church were it to go ahead. Secondly, it seems that no consideration has been given to the wider impact of removing/reducing trees on this site. The applicant appears to have overlooked the fact that the trees provide a beautiful backdrop to Kinnoull Church - described as a 'landmark building' in the conservation area appraisal - as seen from both the Queen's Bridge and, more importantly, from Tay Street which is frequented by large numbers of Perth residents and tourists alike. The removal or reduction of any trees on the site would have a significant impact on the view across to lower Kinnoull from Tay Street. Thirdly, the proposed two-storey house on the site, seemingly a rather ordinary- looking one, sandwiched between the very significant Category B-listed property of Witchhill and the Category C-listed Kinnoull Primary School, would be utterly out of place. It is worth making the point that when the trees eventually succumb to old age or disease, the building on the site will be highly visible. We would argue that any development on such a prominent site should be in sympathy with the immediate and wider surroundings, and it seems to us that this proposal is not. We urge the planning authorities to reject it - as they have already done twice in previous years. Yours faithfully, Jeremy and Wendy Duncan
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
No embedded text on this page.
Page 30
No embedded text on this page.
Page 31
No embedded text on this page.
Page 32
No embedded text on this page.
Page 33
No embedded text on this page.
Page 34
No embedded text on this page.
Page 35
No embedded text on this page.
Page 36
No embedded text on this page.
Page 37
No embedded text on this page.
Page 38
No embedded text on this page.
Page 39
No embedded text on this page.
Page 40
No embedded text on this page.
Page 41
No embedded text on this page.
Page 42
No embedded text on this page.
Page 43
No embedded text on this page.
Page 44
Mr Philip Laing (Objects) Comment submitted date: Wed 31 Jul 2024 The access for this proposed project is not suitable as there is no access to the site except through a garden gate. The private road access to the site is very narrow and all vehicles are unable to turn with ease unless they use driveways. Living in ( REDACTED ) our driveway pillars have been hit by vehicles on numerous occasions. There is no pavement at the proposed development end of the street which would be a public safety concern. Insufficient parking area for a further development in the street. Safety concerns for pedestrians and vehicles at the main entry point into Kinnoull Terrace at Bowerswell Road due to limited visibility at the junction.
Page 45
No embedded text on this page.
Page 46
No embedded text on this page.
Page 47
No embedded text on this page.
Page 48
No embedded text on this page.
Page 49
No embedded text on this page.
Page 50
No embedded text on this page.
Page 51
No embedded text on this page.
Page 52
M e m o r To Development Management & Building Standards Service Manager Your ref 24/00957/IPL Date 07/08/2024 Communities a n d u m From Regulatory Services Manager Our ref CHF Pullar House, 35 Kinnoull Street, Perth, PH1 5GD Consultation on an Application for Planning Permission 24/00957/IPL RE: Erection of dwellinghouse (in principle) at Land 40 Metres South West Of Witchill Kinnoull Terrace Perth for John Munro I refer to your letter dated 17 July 2024 in connection with the above application and have the following comments to make. Contaminated Land Comments A search of the historical records has shown that the quarry adjacent to this site has previously been investigated by Perth & Kinross Council. The investigation identified the quarry as low risk in terms of contamination. Recommendation A search of the historic records did not raise any concerns regarding ground contamination and therefore I have no adverse comments to make on the application.
Page 53
2 December 2024 Planning & Development Perth & Kinross Council Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street Perth Dear Sir/Madam, OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION: 24/00957/IPL | Erection of dwellinghouse (in principle) | Land 40 Metres South West Of Witchill Kinnoull Terrace Perth My wife and I (Siobhan & Peter Gouw), living at , understand that the refusal notice of 6th September 2024 has been challenged by the proposer. With this letter we want to note that we still support in full our original objection letter dated 31st July 2024. In addition, we fully agree with the refusal notice of 6 September 2024. In particular we would highlight that the proposed development would fundamentally change the character of the Kinnoull Conservation Area. The development would detract from the current built environment of (listed) properties as it would not fit with the historic pattern and density of the area. The application made reference to a “vacant plot” – that is most definitely not the case. The proposed development is in a small area of the garden of Witchill and therefore would create a severe detriment to the current Conservation Area. Please take our letter into consideration. Thank you. Yours Sincerely, Signed: Peter & Siobhan Gouw
Page 54
1 SPR Planning Local Review Body From: JOHN MUNRO Sent: 09 December 2024 15:49 To: SPR Planning Local Review Body Subject: LRB 2024 -49 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, Thank you for your letter of 6/12. It is noted that the officials responsible for the refusal have not sought to explain/justify the reasons given for their decision or refute my contentions regarding these . Thus it may reasonably be assumed that they accept the latter. Only one of the eleven external objectors responded to the opportunity to comment. However this party did not address any of the matters described in my "reasons for refusal" submission nor relate his comments to any official policies and criteria. The assertions are not supported by any factual justification and are without merit . In my submission I referred to these issues in some detail, noting that the proposed building would have a "footprint" of only about 130 m 2 and its distance from nearby buildings would be similar to that of these to each other. Since it would scarcely be possible to see, from any public place, both the new building and nearby ones together, due to the presence of high trees on the frontages of the land no existing views would be changed . Thus the claim that there would be a negative effect on the nearby "listed " buildings is baseless. Nor would the existing pattern of widely separate buildings be altered since the new building would be on a "gap site". As already noted in my submission the historic character of the area has already been radically changed by the conversion of what was once a minor road carrying only horse-drawn vehicles and pedestrians into a busy main road carrying high traffic volume, including heavy vehicles. This objector was the only one to express any of the above opinions. He said that the land is not a vacant plot but part of that containing the nearby house. That is not the case. It was legally excised from the latter in 1973 and has been in different legal ownership since then. A planning application cannot be accepted without agreement by the landowner so if what this party says was right the application would not have been registered. None of the few objectors referred to the development plan or other official policies so it may be reasonably assumed that they were unaware of these and the fact that the HRA states that decisions must be based on official policies and criteria which were adopted before the application
Page 55
2 was lodged . The onus is upon the authority to show with evidence that a proposal does not conform to these. That has not happened in this case. As was already pointed out the issues referred to by both officials and objectors are ones which cannot legitimately be used to refuse an application for "approval in principle" but only to decide the conditions which a "full" application will require to meet. In the light of the above I find no reason to change any of the opinions i have already expressed and strongly hold to the view that this proposal conforms to all relevant provisions of the PKC development plan and transport strategy , "Tayplan " and national policies , in particular NPF 4 , which all authorities are bound to apply. The refusal is thus deemed to be unjustified and "ultra vires" The above completes my response . Yours sincerely John Munro
Page 56
1 SPR Planning Local Review Body From: JOHN MUNRO Sent: 20 December 2024 15:40 To: SPR Planning Local Review Body Subject: 20 24 49 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. In my last message I said that the HRA requires refusals to be based on policies/criteria adopted previously by the authority . but such were not used in this case. Earlier I had noted that even if there was justification for refusal an applicant must be allowed to make some beneficial use of his/her property (the only such here is housing) so there must be a "fair balance" between public and private interests. It is assumed that the solicitor involved here will advise the LRB on the above contentions John Munro