Minute of meeting of 26 May 2025
Perth and Kinross Council · 23 June 2025
Back to Local Review Body — 23 June 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
Perth and Kinross Local Review Body Minute of hybrid meeting of the Perth and Kinross Local Review Body held on Monday 24 February 2025. Present: Councillor B Brawn, Councillor K Harvey and Councillor R Watters. In Attendance: L Tierney (Planning Adviser); C MacLeod, (Legal Adviser); and A Brown (Democratic Support Officer) (all Legal and Governance). Also Attending: M Pasternak and R Ramsay (both Legal and Governance). Councillor B Brawn, Convener, Presiding 1. Welcome Councillor Brawn welcomed all present to the meeting. 2. Declarations of Interest There were no Declarations of Interest made in terms of the Councillors Code of Conduct. 3. Minutes The minute of meeting of the Local Review Body of 27 January 2025 was submitted and noted. 4. Applications For Review (i) LRB-2025-04 24/00703/IPL – Residential development (in principle), land 140 metres north east of The Bungalow, Benarty Road, Kelty - Mrs B Constable Members considered a Notice of Review seeking a review of the decision by the Appointed Officer to refuse a residential development (in principle) on land 140 metres north east of The Bungalow, Benarty Road, Kelty. The Planning Adviser displayed photographs of the site and described the proposal, and thereafter summarised the Appointed Officer’s Report of Handling and the grounds set out in the Notice of Review. Decision: Resolved by unanimous decision that: (i) having regard to the material before the Local Review Body and the comments from the Planning Adviser, sufficient information was before the Local Review Body to determine the matter without further procedure. 3
Page 2
Thereafter, resolved by unanimous decision that: (ii) the review application for a residential development (in principle) on land 140 metres north east of The Bungalow, Benarty Road, Kelty, be refused for the following reasons: (1) The proposal is contrary to Policy 17a), Rural Homes of National Planning Framework 4 (2023). The site is in the open countryside detached from other residential property and residential development of the site would not be in keeping with the character of the area. It has not been demonstrated that the ground is brownfield as the land has returned to a natural state without intervention under the terms of Policy 17a) of National Planning Framework 4 (2023). (2) The proposal is contrary to 17b) as the proposal has not considered how the development will contribute towards local living and take into account identified local housing needs (including affordable housing), economic considerations and the transport needs of the development as appropriate for the rural location. (3) The proposal is contrary to Policy 9c) of National Planning Framework 4 (2023) in that the applicant has not demonstrated that the land is, or can be made, safe and suitable for the proposed new use. (4) The proposal is contrary to Policy 23, Health and Safety National Planning Framework 4 (2023) in that insufficient evidence has been presented to demonstrate that development of the site for housing would be achievable and would not have a significant adverse effect on the health of future residents and existing local residents. (5) The proposal is contrary to Policy 19: Housing in the Countryside of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and the associated Housing in the Countryside Supplementary Guidance (2020). Insufficient evidence has been presented to assess the extent and severity of any contamination present on the site and whether this requires to be remediated. It has also not been demonstrated that if remediation is required that housing I the only viable option for remediating the site. In addition, no consideration has been given to alternative uses for the site as required by Local Development Plan Policy 19. (6) The proposal is contrary to Policy 58B: Unstable Land of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 as it has not been demonstrated that the site and adjacent land, is or can be made, safe and stable for the proposed development. Justification The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan.
Page 3
(ii) LRB-2025-05 24/01732/IPL - Erection of dwellinghouse (in principle), land 40 metres west of 8 Langley Place, Perth, PH2 7XB – Mr A McKay Members considered a Notice of Review seeking a review of the decision by the Appointed Officer to refuse the erection of a dwellinghouse (in principle) on land 40 metres west of 8 Langley Place, Perth, PH2 7XB. The Planning Adviser displayed photographs of the site and described the proposal, and thereafter summarised the Appointed Officer’s Report of Handling and the grounds set out in the Notice of Review. Decision: Resolved by unanimous decision that: (i) having regard to the material before the Local Review Body and the comments from the Planning Adviser, insufficient information was before the Local Review Body to determine the matter without further procedure. (ii) the policy team be requested to comment on the open space element in relation to National Planning Framework 4, the Council’s Open Space Strategy and to provide information as to why this site is designated as open space. (iii) the applicant to provide further information on the proposed entrance to the site and its physical acceptability and the plans regarding the trees on the site. (iv) the Roads Authority and Tree Officer be requested to provide comment on the further information provided by the applicant in (iii) above. (v) the applicant be given the opportunity to comment on the further information provided in regard to (ii) above. (vi) Following receipt of all information and responses, the application be brought back to a future meeting of the Local Review Body. (iii) LRB-2025-06 24/01518/FLL – Erection of a dwellinghouse, land 55 metres south east of Ashlea, Middlebank Farm, Errol, Perth, PH2 7SX – Mr J Ramsay Members considered a Notice of Review seeking a review of the decision by the Appointed Officer to refuse the erection of a dwellinghouse on land 55 metres south east of Ashlea, Middlebank Farm, Errol, Perth, PH2 7SX. The Planning Adviser displayed photographs of the site and described the proposal, and thereafter summarised the Appointed Officer’s Report of Handling and the grounds set out in the Notice of Review. Decision: Resolved by unanimous decision that:
Page 4
(i) having regard to the material before the Local Review Body and the comments from the Planning Adviser, sufficient information was before the Local Review Body to determine the matter without further procedure. Thereafter, resolved by unanimous decision that: (ii) the review application for the erection of a dwellinghouse on land 55 metres south east of Ashlea, Middlebank Farm, Errol, Perth, PH2 7SX, be refused for the following reason: (1) The proposals are contrary to National Planning Framework 4 (2023), Policy 9: Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings, and Policy 17: Rural Homes; and Perth and Kinross 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, namely that it does not extend part of a building group and that it is not an infill site. (2) The proposals are contrary to National Planning Framework 4 (2023) Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place and Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) Placemaking Policies: 1A and 1B (parts a, b, c, d and f), Policy 29: Landscape; and associated supplementary guidance (2020), as the proposals by reason of tree removal, site location, juxtaposition and lack of cohesion with existing buildings and absence of any landscape containment, 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 Policies 1, 3 and 5 and Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) Policies 40A, 40B and 50 which seek to protect prime agricultural land, trees, biodiversity and wildlife habitats and requires a detailed tree and ecology survey to be undertaken in order to demonstrate the presence and any potential impacts on trees and protected species which may be contained within such habitats. No tree or ecology survey has been submitted with the application. Justification The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. (iv) LRB-2025-08 25/00087/FLL - Subdivision of dwellinghouse to form 2 dwellinghouses and associated works, Acado House, Campmuir, Blairgowrie, PH13 9JF – Hometown Properties North Ltd Members considered a Notice of Review seeking a review of the decision by the Appointed Officer to refuse the subdivision of
Page 5
dwellinghouse to form 2 dwellinghouses and associated works, Acado House, Campmuir, Blairgowrie, PH13 9JF. The Planning Adviser displayed photographs of the site and described the proposal, and thereafter summarised the Appointed Officer’s Report of Handling and the grounds set out in the Notice of Review. Decision: Resolved by unanimous decision that: (i) having regard to the material before the Local Review Body and the comments from the Planning Adviser, sufficient information was before the Local Review Body to determine the matter without further procedure. Thereafter, resolved by majority decision that: (ii) the review application for the subdivision of dwellinghouse to form 2 dwellinghouses and associated works, Acado House, Campmuir, Blairgowrie, PH13 9JF, be granted subject to the imposition of relative terms, conditions and informatives, including suitable conditions for foul drainage. Justification Members considered that, as the subdivision of the house would not change the external appearance and would provide smaller, more affordable properties in the countryside that the review be granted. Note Councillor B Brawn dissented from the majority opinion. He considered that the proposal did not match the character and visual amenity of the area.
Page 6
No embedded text on this page.