(a) Notice of Review and supporting documents (Pages 153-208)
Perth and Kinross Council · 24 February 2025
Back to Local Review Body — 24 February 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(iii)(a) LRB-2025-03 LRB-2025-03 - 24/00872/FLL - Erection of dwellinghouse and associated accommodation unit, erection of poly tunnel, installation of waste water treatment system, installation of water storage and associated works, land 300 metres south east of Dalrannoch Farm, The Ross, Comrie, Crieff, PH6 2LE PAPERS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
Page 1 of 4 NOTICE OF REVIEW UNDER SECTION 43A(8) OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED)IN RESPECT OF DECISIONS ON LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCHEMES OF DELEGATION AND LOCAL REVIEW PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013 THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (APPEALS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2008 IMPORTANT: Please read and follow the guidance notes provided when completing this form. Failure to supply all the relevant information could invalidate your notice of review. Use BLOCK CAPITALS if completing in manuscript Applicant(s) Name Rose Reid Address Postcode Contact Telephone 1 Contact Telephone 2 E-mail* Agent Name Howard Sargent Address The Old School Dundas Street Comrie Postcode PH6 2LN Contact Telephone 1 Contact Telephone 2 E-mail* Mark this box to confirm all contact should be through this representative: *Do you agree to correspondence regarding your review being sent by e-mail? Yes Planning Authority Perth and Kinross Planning authority’s application reference number 24/00872/FLL Site address Land 300 Metres South East Of Dalrannoch Farm, The Ross Comrie Crieff PH6 2LE Description of proposed development Erection of dwellinghouse and associated accommodation unit, erection of poly tunnel, installation of waste water treatment system, installation of water storage tanks and associated works Date of application 27th June 2024 Date of decision (if any) 17th November 2024
Page 4
Page 2 of 4 Note. This notice must be served on the planning authority within three months of the date of the decision notice or from the date of expiry of the period allowed for determining the application. Nature of application 1. Application for planning permission (including householder application) 2. Application for planning permission in principle 3. Further application (including development that has not yet commenced and where a time limit has been imposed; renewal of planning permission; and/or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition) 4. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions Reasons for seeking review 1. Refusal of application by appointed officer 2. Failure by appointed officer to determine the application within the period allowed for determination of the application 3. Conditions imposed on consent by appointed officer 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. Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the handling of your review. You may mark more than one box if you wish the review to be conducted by a combination of procedures. 1. Further written submissions 2. One or more hearing sessions 3. Site inspection 4. Assessment of review documents only, with no further procedure If you have marked box 1 or 2, please explain here which of the matters (as set out in your statement below) you believe ought to be subject of that procedure, and why you consider further submissions or a hearing are necessary: The applicant considers that the planning department has failed to fully consider the integrated, cohesive and sustainable nature and elements of the application, and it's very limited visual and environmental impact within the landscape. The applicant considers that the application should also be reviewed within the context of the extensive envromental and landscape enhancements contained within the landholding, of which it is a part, and in which it is framed. Site inspection
Page 5
Page 3 of 4 In the event that the Local Review Body decides to inspect the review site, in your opinion: 1. Can the site be viewed entirely from public land? Yes 2. Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely, and without barriers to entry? Yes If there are reasons why you think the Local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here: N/A Statement 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. Note: 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. If the Local Review Body issues a notice requesting further information from any other person or body, you will have a period of 14 days in which to comment on any additional matter which has been raised by that person or body. State here the reasons for your notice of review and all matters you wish to raise. If necessary, this can be continued or provided in full in a separate document. You may also submit additional documentation with this form. Please refer to the attached document: Statement of Reasons for Review: Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the determination on your application was made? Yes No If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising new material, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should now be considered in your review. N/A List of documents and evidence 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. Notice of Review - Covering Letter Statement of Reasons for Review Design and Access Statement Existing and Proposed Site Plan-Site Entrance Existing Site Plan-East Existing Site Plan-West
Page 6
Page 4 of 4 Location Plan-Existing Proposed Elevations Proposed North Elevations Proposed Plan and Elevation-Polytunnel Proposed Plan and Sections-West Cabin Proposed Plan and Sections-East Cabin Proposed Roof Plans Proposed Site Plan-Polytunnel Proposed West Elevations Report of Handling Revised Location Plan Revised Site Plan Report of Handling Note. The planning authority will make a copy of the notice of review, the review documents and any notice of the procedure of the review available for inspection at an office of the planning authority until such time as the review is determined. It may also be available on the planning authority website. Checklist Please mark the appropriate boxes to confirm you have provided all supporting documents and evidence relevant to your review: Full completion of all parts of this form Statement of your reasons for requiring a review All documents, materials and evidence which you intend to rely on (e.g. plans and drawings or other documents) 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 from that earlier consent. Declaration I the agent [delete as appropriate] hereby serve notice on the planning authority to review the application as set out on this form and in the supporting documents. Signed: Date: 16th January 2025
Page 7
Statement of Reasons for Review: 24/00872/FLL This statement refers to the Perth and Kinross (PKC) Report of Handling, which summarises the reasons for the planning refusal. For ease of consideration, relevant extracted comments from within the report have been inserted in the document below, and the applicant’s comments, and reasons for review, have been inserted immediately underneath each of these comments. 24/00872/FLL: Report of Handling CONSULTATION RESPONSES PKC Comments: Internal Consultees Transportation and Development - are unable to support the application. They have noted that the visibility requirements of the new access onto the U195 may not be achievable, due to objects obstructing visibility. Applicant Comments: It is understood that the obstructed visibility relates to trees (as noted elsewhere). The applicant will address this issue if/when requested to do so by PKC. PKC Comments: Additional comments have also been provided in respect of minimum Building Standard (Scotland) Regulations in relation to emergency vehicle and desludging lorry access requirements at the site. The details of which may necessitate revisions to the layout and access specifications. Applicant Comments: The applicant will address such issues if/when requested. The applicant has consulted with the fire department, and it has been proposed that a sprinkler system could effectively negate the requirement for fire access. PKC Comments: Structures and Flooding – representatives have made comment in respect of proposals, seeking clarification/further information in respect of the potential need for a Drainage
Page 8
Impact Assessment, ground suitability for percolation (no evidence to confirm BRE Digest 365 has been undertaken or that the soil is suitable). Applicant Comments: Clarification/further information, including suitability for percolation, can be provided if/when requested by PKC. The application was submitted in June 2024. It is noted that it is best practice for such drainage impact assessments is during the winter months. PKC Comments: The applicant to address ‘the extent of fluvial flooding at the site and the impact of the burn relative to catchment size, topographic and property levels.’ Applicant Comments: The topographic and drainage factors mean that flooding risk is highly unlikely to be an issue. SEPA flood maps confirm this view. The applicant will confirm this through further consultation with SEPA if/when requested. PKC Comments: There is a ‘potential need for a Flood Risk Assessment and flooding at vehicle access point. Additional information is therefore required in respect of flood risk and drainage.’ Applicant Comments: The applicant will provide additional information if/when requested. COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION Housing in the Countryside, Part 3.3. PKC Comments: In respect of part 3, while a market garden is proposed, this is yet to be established and, it would, in any event, be for the landowner’s own personal use. Applicant Comments: The applicant notes that the ‘3.5 Houses for Sustainable Living’ criteria within the PKC guidance ‘Housing in the Countryside’ requires that such horticulture activity (including fruit and vegetable crop production) is for the applicant’s own use, as integrated within sustainable lifestyle. It is not rational or reasonable, therefore, to refuse the application based upon this criteria. The applicant notes that, in Scotland, it is generally understood that viable and sustainable year-round food crop production requires the use of a polytunnel, which is included within the current application. The applicant notes that elsewhere, the polytunnel element of the application is dismissed on similar grounds i.e. that it is for the landowners use, rather than for commercial production.
Page 9
PKC Comments: The agent has indicated that the applicant will require to live on site to be directly involved with the extensive tree planting proposals on the landholding. The purpose of the woodland is however for wildlife/biodiversity measures rather than a commercial undertaking. Applicant Comments: 3.5 ‘Houses for Sustainable Living’ does not require a full engagement in commercial activities. The requirement is to live and work sustainably on the land, which the applicant intends to achieve through a balanced mix of farming and agroforestry activities and practices. PKC Comments: Notwithstanding, whilst it may be easier to live on site to manage the woodland, it is not essential on a daily basis and could be done remotely, as occurs in other areas. Applicant Comments: The applicant notes that the proposal is for the management of the new native woodland development, for horticultural/livestock production, and for sustainable lifestyle and accommodation, in order to provide a ‘largely self-sufficient lifestyle’ as supported in the ‘3.5. Houses for Sustainable Living’ criteria of the LDP, and which is the intended outcome. The applicant contends that the overall proposal, including accommodation, is fully compatible with being ‘essential as an integral part of an overall scheme for the management or use of land, which will allow its occupants to be largely self-sufficient’. This intended self- sufficiency includes the use and management of the land, and of the associated accommodation. PKC Comments: There is also the option with silviculture plantations to pursue a building for the storage of machinery and tools under Prior Notification Regulations. No such storage building is included in the current proposals. Applicant Comments: An application under Prior Notification for a storage building for silviculture currently in preparation. PKC Comments: ‘the site can readily be reached from Comrie where the applicant currently resides.’ Applicant Comments: The applicant has been living with her parents for the previous two years, which will likely be unsustainable in the longer term.
Page 10
Within the wider context of the current housing, climate and environmental crisis, the applicant is proposing to construct modest, environmentally sustainable and culturally contextual accommodation, set within a major landscape and environmental enhancement project, and to live sustainably within and from the landholding. The applicant’s family is from the west of Scotland, where clearances were once commonplace. Equally, Glen Artney, which used to support a population of thousands, is now largely deserted, apart from the occasional farm. The applicant would like to restore and maintain a reconnection with the land based upon balanced farming, ecology and sustainability, and within the wider community. PKC Comments: Given the modest scale and nature of the proposals which excludes livestock, it is unlikely that there could be a viable argument which would justify approving a new house under economic need. Applicant Comments: The ‘modest scale and nature’ of a planning proposal is not typically considered grounds for refusal. The proposal is modest because horticulture, which will be a primary sustainable activity, is intensive, and so occupies a relatively small footprint. It should be noted that, although vegetarian, the applicant has been keeping, and will continue to maintain, livestock, including sheep, on the landholding. It is intended that livestock, including sheep and pigs, will roam extensively through the woodland and meadow areas, as a part of an agroforestry farming practice. The proposals cannot therefore be supported under the terms of NPF4 Policy 17 Rural Homes or LDP2 Policy 19, Houses in the Countryside, part 3.3. 3.5, Houses for Sustainable Living. PKC Comments: To be acceptable under this category……, the supplementary guidance requires not only a “lifestyle approach” to be clearly evident; but also for it to be demonstrated that any new house is essential as an integral part of an overall scheme for the management or use of land, which will allow its occupants to be largely self-sufficient. Applicant Comments: The applicant’s sustainable lifestyle approach is described in detail within the Design and Access Statement. The applicant has a long and varied background of living and working in the sustainable and organic horticulture sector, and has been involved in landscape scale environmental enhancement schemes and projects. This has been her primary activity for
Page 11
many years, and her desire is for this environmentally sustainable lifestyle approach to be maintained. The proposed accommodation, which PKC recognises to be ‘modest in scale and form’, is a key element of this lifestyle approach, and is within the spirit of the ‘Houses for Sustainable Living’ guidance. The nature, design and approach of both the accommodation and the management of the landholding will permit the applicant to be largely self-sufficient, as the criteria requires. Currently the applicant lives with her parents. PKC Comments: The scheme forwarded has understandably placed much emphasis on the lifestyle credentials of the applicant and intentions to improve biodiversity, reduce flooding and carbon, through the planting of trees, cycling where possible to/from Comrie and being largely self-sufficient by growing organic vegetables. These aspects while all commendable, are currently future aspirations and are not in themselves sufficient to confirm that a dwelling is either essential or an integral component to the management of the land or longer term, self-sufficient practices. Applicant Comments: It is intimated by PKC that the intentions of the applicant (although commendable), are future aspirations only. The applicant notes that, before the submission of this application, contracts were agreed with the Scottish Government for the construction of deer fencing and for the planting of 15,000 native woodland trees for landscape and biodiversity enhancement and climate capture on the landholding. This work will commence in February 2025. The applicant notes that horticulture (year round intensive food crop production) cannot practically proceed until permission is granted for the construction of a polytunnel for this purpose. The Scottish climate, and the very high deer numbers within Glen Artney, preclude any other realistic options for horticulture. There is a requirement within ‘3.5 Houses for Sustainable Living’ for year round food production for the maintenance of a self sustaining lifestyle. PKC, while supporting this policy in theory, does not, it would appear, permit the essential infrastructure, i.e. a polytunnel, to achieve this. The general theme of 3.5 ‘Houses for Sustainable Living’ is that of living and working on a landholding, and is primarily for the purposes of environmental sustainability. The fabrication of environmentally sustainable, site specific and architecturally contextual cabins, which are designed specifically for this purpose, would appear to be a reasonable aspiration and proposal within this context. PKC Comments: ‘The proposed accommodation pods are unique due to their isolation. While each unit is inoffensive in terms of overall design and there is merit to be had in breaking up the mass of
Page 12
a building, it could be argued that to separate the key components of a dwellinghouse into 2 distinct parts is both impracticable and inefficient in terms of resources and sustainable living, especially during winter months and unfavourable climatic conditions. The cabins as a result are likely to operate as 2 distinct residential units.’ Applicant Comments The applicant’s intention in breaking up the mass of the proposed accommodation is to provide structures which, as PKC recognises, appear ‘inoffensive’ within the landscape. This design strategy includes referencing the scale, forms, and articulation of the local agricultural vernacular, and in particular that of small agricultural buildings. The applicant has lived and worked in a similar two cabin arrangement for a ten year period on Holy Isle in the Hebrides, and found it very beneficial for maintaining a good and productive work/life balance. There are draught lobbies included in both cabin floorplans, ensuring effective energy conservation. The applicant also prefers their sleeping accommodation to be cold, making separate accommodation for the sleeping area a logical choice. However, if there are concerns from the council regarding subletting of accommodation, the applicant is open to review the design and to consider the integration of the cabins into a single unit. PKC Comments: While the cabins are intended to be made locally and insulated to a high standard, incorporating a ground source heat pump for hot water and solar panels for energy, this is technology which is relatively mainstream now, in terms of availability and necessity via building standards requirements As a result, the development fails to be viewed as at the “forefront of sustainability” and is as a result, contrary to LDP2, Houses in the Countryside Policy 19 as well as NPF4 Policy 9 Brownfield, Vacant & Derelict Land and Empty Buildings. Applicant Comments: The applicant requests more guidance and information from the council on what technologies may be currently considered to be at the forefront of sustainability. Without such guidance, the applicant will find it difficult or impossible to meet a required standard. PKC Comments: Design, Layout, Landscape Setting & Visual Amenity ‘Policy 39 of the LDP2 seeks to ensure that the local distinctiveness, diversity and quality of the landscape character area, associated historic and cultural interests, or visual and scenic attributes are not eroded. The adjacent public road forms the boundary of the Upper Strathearn Local Landscape Area. The holding nonetheless – as is the case with the rest of Glen Artney and lowlands around the Comrie, provide a scenic landscape backdrop.’ ‘The cabin buildings are of a modest scale and have been designed as a modern interpretation of traditional agricultural buildings. They will share a similar footprint and metal clad, black
Page 13
finished, pitched roof form. The walls will be composed of vertically clad Larch timber and a small storage area and deck will be attached to each unit. Window frames will feature the same dark recessive colouring and sliding wooden screens will afford additional weather protection to the glazed doors.‘ ‘The cabins in themselves are acceptable in terms of scale, design and visual appearance.’ ‘The location is however relatively open and exposed in nature. It will take time for any proposed tree planting to be established to a level which would create a sense of containment. The landform character is such that a degree of openness is an established attribute, adding to the setting of the Water of Ruchill and opening views beyond.’ Applicant Comments: PKC comments that the location is relatively open and exposed in nature. Scottish Forestry, under the guidance of the Scottish government, has approved, and fully supports, the creation of the extensive native woodland development on the landholding for the purposes of biodiversity, landscape enhancement, and carbon capture. Visually and ecologically, the proposed project connects with the adjacent Comrie Community Native Woodland creation scheme immediately above the landholding. The applicant recognises that the present landform ‘openness’ is an established attribute of the Scottish landscape. It should, however, be noted that this openness is a consequence of the relatively recent clearance of the pre-existing natural and native woodland landscape and ecology. As a result of such activity, Scotland possesses a nature-depleted environment, with one of the lowest percentages of native woodland cover in Europe. The Scottish Government recognises the urgency of this issue, and is actively attempting to mitigate this through projects such as the planned native woodland planting. The proposed native woodland scheme is also fully supported by PKC. The applicant will be planting a mixture of rowan, alder and willow between the road and the proposed cabins. These are fast growing trees, as is evidenced from the adjacent native woodland project, and can be expected to fully screen and contain the proposed site within a few years. PKC Comments: As noted elsewhere, the layout and use of the cabins is questionable and unlikely to sit well within the wider site and landscape given the location, lack of containment, isolation and poor relationship to other aspects of development. Applicant Comments: The proposal will, within a few years, be effectively invisible within the wider landscape. Full containment will be provided by the extensive native woodland planting and by the existing topography and mature woodland.
Page 14
The applicant notes that small, isolated single storey cottages, bothies, cabins and farm buildings are a characteristic element of the Scottish landscape, as well as locally. These buildings are often in exposed locations, and are rarely ‘contained’ within woodlands or landscape. The ‘poor relationship to other aspects of development’ comment is not understood by the applicant and they would appreciate some clarity on this. As noted elsewhere, if the proposed general layout of the cabins is a cause for concern, the applicant is happy to address this through dialogue, if provided with an opportunity. The cabins are solely for the applicant’s living and working activities, and for no other purpose. However, the applicant is open to address any concerns in relation to this, for instance through the physical connection of the two structures. PKC Comments: The polytunnel plan indicates that a typical c- shaped unit will extend to around 20 x 9 x 3.7 metres in size. It will be located within the lower section of pastureland closer to Comrie and The Water of Ruchill. This area is visible from the adjacent public road and there are no other such structures evident in the immediate area. The proposals as a result are likely to be out of keeping with the established landscape character and visually intrusive within the surrounding area, contrary to the aims of the placemaking criteria set out in LDP2 Policies 1A & 1B, Landscape 39 and NPF4 Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place. Applicant Comments: The applicant notes that the surrounding area includes the adjacent Cultybraggan Farm at a distance of approx. 400m, and that the farm contains substantial and highly visually intrusive collection of industrial/agricultural outbuildings, which are prominent in the landscape. The applicant’s proposal for a polytunnel for horticultural purposes offers a negligible visual impact in comparison. Equally, the applicant can provide screening for this structure in the form of tree planting if required. The applicant notes that the neighbouring Cultybraggan Camp contains roughly 60 buildings of a similar shape, form and profile to that of the proposed polytunnel, though generally these structures cover a substantially larger footprint. These c-shaped units utilise corrugated zinc as cladding, rather than transparent polythene. The camp also includes a nuclear bunker and various large industrial sheds. PKC Comments: Roads and Access Transportation planning officers have requested additional information be provided in respect of the new access which is proposed to be taken onto the U195 public road.
Page 15
The information is required to detail the visibility splays in accordance with the speed limit of the road. They have noted that the existing and proposed site plans suggest that trees may obstruct visibility, and the applicant would therefore need to demonstrate that adequate visibility standards can be achieved. Applicant Comments: Additional information can be provided on request. PKC Comments: Additional comment has been provided in respect of the internal access roads and need to comply with current Building Standards in respect of road width, specification and turning facilities for large vehicles such as fire engines and desludging lorries. Applicant Comments: As noted elsewhere, the applicant has consulted with the fire department, which indicates that a sprinkler system may be acceptable (hence the provision of water storage above the cabins). Further information can be provided on request. PKC Comments: Given the other concerns noted with the development and negative recommendation, additional information has not been pursued at this time. As Transport Planning Officers cannot support the proposals as submitted, the proposals fail to accord with the intent of NPF4 Policy 13: Sustainable Transport and LDP2 Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals on the grounds of insufficient information. Applicant Comments: As above, additional information can be provided on request. PKC Comments: Drainage and Flooding There are areas alongside the Water of Ruchill and to the outer edges of the site boundary, including part of the access which are identified as at risk of flooding. The flood risk potential and suitability of the land for drainage has been questioned by consultees. As the proposals are not being supported, the applicant has not been asked to provide any further information at this stage given the resource implications. The comments can however be viewed online. A precautionary approach is being taken in line with policy requirements due to the lack of suitable information. The development is as a result contrary to NPF4, Policy 22: Flood Risk & Water Management as well as LDP2, Policies 52: New Development & Flooding and 53: Water Environment & Drainage. Applicant comments: As above, additional information can be provided on request.
Page 16
1 Report of Handling Delegated Report Ref No 24/00872/FLL Ward No P6- Strathearn Due Determination Date 26th August 2024 Extended to 26th October 2024 Draft Report Date 9th October 2024 Report Issued by Alma Bendall Date 16/10/24 Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse and associated accommodation unit, erection of poly tunnel, installation of waste water treatment system, installation of water storage tanks and associated works Location: Land 300 Metres South East of Dalrannoch Farm The Ross Comrie Crieff PH6 2LE Summary This report recommends refusal of the application as the development is considered to be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no material considerations apparent which justify setting aside the Development Plan. Background and description of proposal Planning application site relates to an elongated, linear section of undulating grazing land, centrally located within the applicant’s holding which is situated to the Southwest of Cultybraggan Camp on the outskirts of Comrie. The minor public road leading to Glen Artney forms the southeastern border of the landholding, the Water of Ruchill forms the northwestern edge of the land title, while pockets of woodland and riverside pastureland abut either side of the unit. Consent is being sought to form a new vehicular access and private track that will serve centrally located accommodation units as well as a polytunnel and market garden area envisioned for the northeastern corner of the site. Associated work includes the installation of a wastewater treatment plant, reed bed filtration areas, together with private water connection points from the Ruchill and a water storage area. Separate works, not forming part of this proposal include the formation of a new pond area and the planting of woodland and wildflower meadows. The supporting statement intimates that the ethos behind the project is to create an ecologically sustainable living and working environment which will restore native woodland, enhance biodiversity, reduce flooding, help capture carbon and provide the applicant with a sustainable supply of organic vegetable crops. The proposed accommodation units are split into 2 separate parts, comprising “East” and “West” cabins. Plans indicated that the west cabin would be used as the main bedroom/living area, while the east one, approximately 19 metres away would
Page 17
2 contain the kitchen/dining and WC/showering facilities. The residential units are deemed as an essential and integral component of the development, allowing the applicant and her partner to live on site and directly manage and develop their aspirational objectives for the wider land holding. Site history Nothing on record. Pre-application consultation Pre application Reference: none undertaken Development plan The Development Plan for the area comprises National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) (LDP2). National Planning Framework 4 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 5: Soils Policy 12: Zero Waste Policy 13: Sustainable Transport Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place Policy 17: Rural Homes Policy 18: Infrastructure First Policy 22: Flood Risk and Water Management Policy 29: Rural Development 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 principal policies are: Policy 1A: Placemaking Policy 1B: Placemaking Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions Policy 8: Rural Business and Diversification Policy 19: Housing in the Countryside Policy 39: Landscape Policy 41: Biodiversity Policy 51: Soils Policy 52: New Development and Flooding
Page 18
3 Policy 53A: Water Environment and Drainage: Water Environment Policy 53B: Water Environment and Drainage: Foul Drainage Policy 53C: Water Environment and Drainage: Surface Water Drainage Policy 55: Nuisance from Artificial Light and Light Pollution Policy 56: Noise Pollution Policy 57: Air Quality Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals Statutory Supplementary Guidance - Supplementary Guidance - Air Quality (adopted in 2020) - Supplementary Guidance - Delivering Zero Waste (adopted in 2020) - Supplementary Guidance - Developer Contributions & Affordable Housing (adopted in 2020) - Supplementary Guidance - Flood Risk and Flood Risk Assessments (adopted in 2021) - Supplementary Guidance - Forest & Woodland Strategy (adopted in 2020) - Supplementary Guidance - Green & Blue Infrastructure (adopted in 2020) - Supplementary Guidance - Housing in the Countryside (adopted in 2020) - Supplementary Guidance - Landscape (adopted in 2020) - Supplementary Guidance - Placemaking (adopted in 2020) Other policies Non Statutory Guidance - Planning Guidance - Loch Leven SPA, the Dunkeld-Blairgowrie Lochs SAC and the River Tay SAC - Planning Guidance - Planning & Biodiversity - Planning Guidance - Ancillary & Annex Accommodation - Supplementary Guidance - Renewable & Low Carbon Energy (draft) National guidance The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through The National Planning Framework, Planning Advice Notes, Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and a series of Circulars. Planning Advice Notes The following Scottish Government Planning Advice Notes (PANs) and Guidance Documents are of relevance to the proposal: PAN 40 Development Management PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PAN 68 Design Statements
Page 19
4 PAN 69 Planning and Building standards Advice on Flooding PAN 75 Planning for Transport PAN 77 Designing Safer Places Creating Places 2013 Creating Places is the Scottish Government’s policy statement on architecture and place. It sets out the comprehensive value good design can deliver. It notes that successful places can unlock opportunities, build vibrant communities and contribute to a flourishing economy and set out actions that can achieve positive changes in our places. Designing Streets 2010 Designing Streets is the policy statement in Scotland for street design and changes the emphasis of guidance on street design towards place-making and away from a system focused upon the dominance of motor vehicles. It was created to support the Scottish Government’s place-making agenda, alongside Creating Places. 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. Consultation responses External Consultee Scottish Water – have advised that there is currently sufficient capacity in the Turret water treatment works to service the development, however there is no wastewater infrastructure in the vicinity of this site. Scottish Water would require to be contacted to assess the proposals and consider any potential conflicts with their assets Internal Consultees Transportation and Development - are unable to support the application. They have noted that the visibility requirements of the new access onto the U195 may not be achievable, due to objects obstructing visibility. Additional comments have also been provided in respect of minimum, Building Standard (Scotland) Regulations in relation to emergency vehicle and desludging lorry access requirements at the site. The details of which may necessitate revisions to the layout and access specifications. Development Contributions – have noted that Comrie Primary School has no capacity concerns at this time. Contributions are therefore not applicable. Environmental Health (Noise) – have advised noise conditions are appropriate, relative to the ground source heat pump intended to be installed. Environmental Health (Private Water) – have raised no objections.
Page 20
5 Structures and Flooding – representatives have made comment in respect of proposals, seeking clarification/further information in respect of the potential need for a Drainage Impact Assessment, ground suitability for percolation (no evidence to confirm BRE Digest 365 has been undertaken or that the soil is suitable). The extent of fluvial flooding at the site and the impact of the burn relative to catchment size, topographic and property levels. Potential need for a Flood Risk Assessment and flooding at vehicle access point. Additional information is therefore required in respect of flood risk and drainage. Representations None received. Additional statements received Screening Opinion EIA Not Required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not applicable Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations Habitats Regulations AA Not Required Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Submitted Report on Impact or Potential Impact eg Flood Risk Assessment Further Information needed. Maybe Required 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 and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019. The relevant policy considerations are outlined in the policy section above and are considered in more detail below. In terms of other material considerations, involving considerations of the Council’s other approved policies and supplementary guidance, these are discussed below only where relevant. The determining issues in this case are whether; the proposal complies with development plan policy; or if there are any other material considerations which justify a departure from policy. Policy Appraisal The site lies in a rural location outwith the settlement boundary of Comrie; background policy considerations are therefore applicable. The most relevant policies are those which seek to protect and enhance local environments, landscape settings and established amenity levels, by guiding development to appropriate locations thereby avoiding any, on or off-site, adverse impacts.
Page 21
6 Principle of Development Policy 19: Housing in the Countryside of LDP2 acknowledges that opportunities do exist for housing in rural areas to support the viability of communities, meet development needs in appropriate locations, while safeguarding the character of the countryside, as well as ensuring that a high standard of siting and design is achieved. Accordingly, the development of single houses or groups of houses which fall within the six identified categories will be supported. Given the absence of any existing buildings and greenfield nature of the site, the proposals would require to be considered under part 3: New houses in the countryside, as set out in section 3 of the Supplementary Guidance. Within National Planning Framework 4, Policy 9: Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings, states that greenfield sites will not be supported unless allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by LDP policies. Policy 17: Rural Homes, of NPF4 is also relevant as it seeks to encourage and promote and facilitate affordable and sustainable homes in the right locations. It provides a criterion whereby proposals for appropriately scaled and designed new rural homes may be accepted. The most relevant part to the proposals under consideration is section v. whereby housing “is demonstrated to be necessary to support the sustainable management of a viable rural business or croft, and there is an essential need for a worker (including those taking majority control of a farm business) to live permanently at or near their place of work.” Category 3 of LDP2 Housing in the Countryside Supplementary Guidance relates to New Houses in the Open Countryside and allows – where there is a genuine need for favourable consideration of proposals that fall into at least one of the following categories: 3.1 Existing Gardens 3.2 Houses in Areas of Flood Risk 3.3 Economic Activity 3.4 Houses for Local People 3.5 Houses for Sustainable Living Parts 1, 2 and 4 are not relevant in this instance. In respect of part 3, while a market garden is proposed, this is yet to be established and, it would, in any event, be for the landowner’s own personal use. The agent has indicated that the applicant will require to live on site to be directly involved with the extensive tree planting proposals on the landholding. The purpose of the woodland is however for wildlife/biodiversity measures rather than a commercial undertaking. Notwithstanding, whilst it may be easier to live on site to manage the woodland, it is not essential on a daily basis and could be done remotely, as occurs in other areas. There is also the option with silviculture plantations to pursue a building for the storage of machinery and tools under Prior Notification Regulations. No such storage building is included in the current
Page 22
7 proposals and the site can readily be reached from Comrie where the applicant currently resides. Given the modest scale and nature of the proposals which excludes livestock, it is unlikely that there could be a viable argument which would justify approving a new house under economic need. The proposals cannot therefore be supported under the terms of NPF4 Policy 17 Rural Homes or LDP2 Policy 19, Houses in the Countryside, part 3.3. The remaining HitC category to assess the proposals by is the one which the applicant believes is applicable – 3.5, Houses for Sustainable Living. To be acceptable under this category however, the supplementary guidance requires not only a “lifestyle approach” to be clearly evident; but also for it to be demonstrated that any new house is essential as an integral part of an overall scheme for the management or use of land, which will allow its occupants to be largely self- sufficient. Further, that the development is at the “forefront of sustainability” and goes beyond renewable technologies which are now commonplace, such as heat pumps and solar panels. The scheme forwarded has understandably placed much emphasis on the lifestyle credentials of the applicant and intentions to improve biodiversity, reduce flooding and carbon, through the planting of trees, cycling where possible to/from Comrie and being largely self-sufficient by growing organic vegetables. These aspects while all commendable, are currently future aspirations and are not in themselves sufficient to confirm that a dwelling is either essential or an integral component to the management of the land or longer term, self-sufficient practices. The Design and Access statement also notes that the applicant’s partner is in the process of developing a renewable energy start-up business, the office of which will be within one of the cabins. There is however no apparent link with this to any cutting-edge renewable technology or commercial activities at the site which would require a permanent residential base in this rural location. The proposed accommodation pods are unique due to their isolation. While each unit is inoffensive in terms of overall design and there is merit to be had in breaking up the mass of a building, it could be argued that to separate the key components of a dwellinghouse into 2 distinct parts is both impracticable and inefficient in terms of resources and sustainable living, especially during winter months and unfavourable climatic conditions. The cabins as a result are likely to operate as 2 distinct residential units. While the cabins are intended to be made locally and insulated to a high standard, incorporating a ground source heat pump for hot water and solar panels for energy, this is technology which is relatively mainstream now, in terms of availability and necessity via building standards requirements As a result, the development fails to be viewed as at the “forefront of sustainability” and is as a result, contrary to LDP2, Houses in the Countryside Policy 19 as well as NPF4 Policy 9 Brownfield, Vacant & Derelict Land and Empty Buildings. The principle of the development accordingly cannot be supported.
Page 23
8 Design, Layout, Landscape Setting & Visual Amenity Policy 39 of the LDP2 seeks to ensure that the local distinctiveness, diversity and quality of the landscape character area, associated historic and cultural interests, or visual and scenic attributes are not eroded. The adjacent public road forms the boundary of the Upper Strathearn Local Landscape Area. The holding nonetheless – as is the case with the rest of Glen Artney and lowlands around the Comrie, provide a scenic landscape backdrop. The cabin buildings are of a modest scale and have been designed as a modern interpretation of traditional agricultural buildings. They will share a similar footprint and metal clad, black finished, pitched roof form. The walls will be composed of vertically clad Larch timber and a small storage area and deck will be attached to each unit. Window frames will feature the same dark recessive colouring and sliding wooden screens will afford additional weather protection to the glazed doors. The cabins in themselves are acceptable in terms of scale, design and visual appearance. The location is however relatively open and exposed in nature. It will take time for any proposed tree planting to be established to a level which would create a sense of containment. The landform character is such that a degree of openness is an established attribute, adding to the setting of the Water of Ruchill and opening views beyond. As noted elsewhere, the layout and use of the cabins is questionable and unlikely to sit well within the wider site and landscape given the location, lack of containment, isolation and poor relationship to other aspects of development. The polytunnel plan indicates that a typical c- shaped unit will extend to around 20 x 9 x 3.7 metres in size. It will be located within the lower section of pastureland closer to Comrie and The Water of Ruchill. This area is visible from the adjacent public road and there are no other such structures evident in the immediate area. The proposals as a result are likely to be out of keeping with the established landscape character and visual intrusive within the surrounding area, contrary to the aims of the placemaking criteria set out in LDP2 Policies 1A & 1B, Landscape 39 and NPF4 Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place. Residential Amenity The absence of any nearby neighbours is such that the proposals raise no residential amenity concerns. Environmental Health would however require a standard condition to be added in respect of noise emissions from equipment proposed to be installed. Roads and Access Transportation planning officers have requested additional information be provided in respect of the new access which is proposed to be taken onto the U195 public road. The information is required to detail the visibility splays in accordance with the speed limit of the road. They have noted that the existing and proposed site plans suggest
Page 24
9 that trees may obstruct visibility, and the applicant would therefore need to demonstrate that adequate visibility standards can be achieved. Additional comment has been provided in respect of the internal access roads and need to comply with current Building Standards in respect of road width, specification and turning facilities for large vehicles such as fire engines and desludging lorries. Given the other concerns noted with the development and negative recommendation, additional information has not been pursued at this time. As Transport Planning Officers cannot support the proposals as submitted, the proposals fail to accord with the intent of NPF4 Policy 13: Sustainable Transport and LDP2 Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals on the grounds of insufficient information. Drainage and Flooding There are areas alongside the Water of Ruchill and to the outer edges of the site boundary, including part of the access which are identified as at risk of flooding. The flood risk potential and suitability of the land for drainage has been questioned by consultees. As the proposals are not being supported, the applicant has not been asked to provide any further information at this stage given the resource implications. The comments can however be viewed online. A precautionary approach is being taken in line with policy requirements due to the lack of suitable information. The development is as a result contrary to NPF4, Policy 22: Flood Risk & Water Management as well as LDP2, Policies 52: New Development & Flooding and 53: Water Environment & Drainage. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity The wider proposals for the landholding will ultimately make a positive contribution to the natural environment and biodiversity. There are records of red squirrels in the area. The tree planting proposals could however be implemented separately without the need for planning permission. Developer Contributions The Developer Contributions Guidance is applicable to this application; however no contributions are required in this instance. 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 This application was varied prior to determination, in accordance with the terms of section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended. The variations incorporate changes to remove work outwith the site boundary which are to be the subject of a separate planning application.
Page 25
10 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 be contrary to the Development Plan. Account has been taken of the relevant material considerations and none has been found that would justify overriding the Development Plan. Accordingly, the proposal is refused on the grounds identified below. Reasons 1 The proposals are contrary to National Planning Framework 4 (2023), Policies, 9: Brownfield, Vacant & Derelict Land and Empty Buildings, 17: Rural Homes and Perth & Kinross Council Local Development Plan 2 (2019), Policy 19: Housing in the Countryside and associated Supplementary Guidance (2020), as the development does not meet any of the relevant criteria which would enable support of new residential units within the countryside. 2 The proposals are contrary to National Planning Framework 4 (2023) Policy 14: Design, Quality & Place and Perth & Kinross Council Local Development Plan 2 (2019) Placemaking Policies: 1A & 1B (parts a, b, c and f), Policy 39: Landscape; and associated supplementary guidance (2020), as the proposals by reason of their prominent locations, juxtaposition, lack of cohesion and screening would not contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding area, resulting in adverse visual amenity and landscape impacts 3 The proposals are contrary to National Planning Framework 4 (2023), Policy 13: Sustainable Transport and Perth & Kinross Council Local Development Plan 2 (2019), Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals, as insufficient information has been provided in respect of the required visibility splays which would verify that the development could be provided with a safe means of vehicular access. 4 The proposals are contrary to National Planning Framework 4 (2023) Policy 22: Flood Risk and Water Management and Perth & Kinross Council Local Development Plan 2 (2019), Policies 52: New Development and Flooding and 53: Water Environment and Drainage in that there is a presumption against built development in areas at risk of flooding. Insufficient information has been provided to determine what the on or off-site flood or drainage related impacts of the development may be or how they could be mitigated.
Page 26
11 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 Not Applicable. Procedural Notes Not Applicable. PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION 01 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 13 14 15 16 17
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
No embedded text on this page.
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
No embedded text on this page.
Page 53
No embedded text on this page.
Page 54
No embedded text on this page.
Page 55
No embedded text on this page.
Page 56
No embedded text on this page.