(b) Planning Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Reference Documents (Pages 23-48)
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
4(i)(b) LRB-2025-09 LRB-2025-09 25/00180/FLL - Change of use of flat to short term let accommodation unit, 15 Vasart Court, Perth, PH1 5QZ Planning Decision Notice Report of Handling Reference Documents
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
Report of Handling Delegated Report Ref No 25/00180/FLL Ward No P12- Perth City Centre Due Determination Date 21st April 2025 Draft Report Date 31st March 2025 Report Issued by Andy Baxter Date 1 April 2025 Proposal: Change of use of flat to short term let accommodation unit Location: 15 Vasart Court, Perth, PH1 5QZ Summary: This report recommends refusal of a detailed planning application for the change of use of an existing residential flat within a residential block at Vasart Court to a short term let (STL) 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 This planning application seeks to obtain detailed planning permission for the change the use of a first floor residential property (a flat) at Vasart Court, Perth to a STL - for the use of both holiday and work/business purposes. The property is two bedroomed and is located on the first floor of a large, four storey fairly modern residential building within a residential complex. This block has communal stairs, and landing areas that are shared with other properties within the block. Principal entry is via a security door which then leads to a hallway with the entrance to one other residential property, and a set of stairs. When up the stairs, the property is accessed via a shared entrance lobby which also serves one other flat. No physical changes are proposed. In terms of the LDP2, the Vasart Court area is located outwith the City Centre area of Perth for the purposes of STLs and is therefore within an area which is considered to be residential, with compatible uses. Planning permission has been requested by the Council due to the fact the property is a flat. The settled position of PKC is that all STLs for flats require planning permission.
Page 6
It is however worth highlighting that a number of recent DEPA decisions have been issued where reporters have taken the view that a material change of use does not automatically take place if a residential flat moves to a STL. In the view of the reporter’s unit, the key test is the length of stays, how the unit is being used (business vs holiday use) and the size of the unit. If the length of stays is likely to be longer and perhaps used for business purposes, then there will be a lower level of arrival /departures and daily movement occurring which would not too dissimilar to that of a typical residential usage, and as such the change of use to a STL should not be considered a material change of use (in the view of the DPEA). Site History None specifically related to this property, however there have been a number of recent applications for STLs within the area (Monart Road) which have been refused by the Council, and those decisions upheld by the LRB. Pre-Application Consultation None applicable. Development Plan The Development Plan for the area comprises National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) (LDP2) and statutory supplementary planning guidance (SPG). National Planning Framework 4 The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) is the Scottish Government’s long-term spatial strategy with a comprehensive set of national planning policies. This strategy sets out how to improve people’s lives by making sustainable, liveable and productive spaces. NPF4 was adopted on 13 February 2023. NPF4 has an increased status over previous NPFs and comprises part of the statutory development plan. The Council’s assessment of this application has considered the following policies of NPF4: Policy 3: Biodiversity Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place Policy 30: Tourism 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.
Page 7
Within the LDP2, the site is located outwith the city centre area for the purposes of STLs, and within an area which is defined as being residential and compatible uses where the following policies are applicable, Policy 1A: Placemaking Policy 1B: Placemaking Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions Policy 17: Residential Areas Policy 56: Noise pollution Statutory Supplementary Planning Guidance The following statutory SPG are applicable to this proposal, Developer Contributions & Affordable Housing (adopted in 2020) Placemaking (adopted in 2020) Other PKC Policies Non-statutory Planning Guidance The following non-statutory PG is applicable, Change of use of residential property to STL (2023) Planning and Nature National Planning Guidance The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through 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 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.
Page 8
External Consultations Responses None undertaken. Internal Council Responses Environmental Health have commented on the proposal and have no objections, subject to a STL licence being applied for and granted. Developer Contributions Officer has indicated that there is no requirement for any developer contributions or affordable housing provision. Representations One letter of representation has been received objecting to the proposal on the grounds that the proposed STL may alter the character of the area. This issue is addressed in the main appraisal section below. Additional Statements Received Screening Opinion EIA Not Required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not applicable Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations AA Not Required Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Not Required Report on Impact or Potential Impact Not 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, the LDP2 and statutory SPGs. The relevant policy considerations are outlined in the policy section above and are considered in more detail below. In terms of other material considerations, this involves acknowledgment of the other similar applications which have been made and determined within the same area. The Council has also published non-statutory planning guidance on STLs, and whilst this document does not have the same weighting as the Development Plan, its content and intent should be noted. Policy Appraisal There are relevant policies contained in all parts of the Development Plan.
Page 9
Within the NPF4, Policy 30 Tourism) is generally supportive of STLs, providing that the development would not impact on the local amenity of the area or would result in a loss of residential accommodation where such a loss is not outweighed by demonstrative benefits. Policy 3 (Biodiversity) looks to ensure that all new developments offer a degree of biodiversity enhancement where proportionate to do so, whilst Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) looks to ensure that all new developments are off a high design standard. In terms of the LDP2, Policy 1 (Placemaking) looks to ensure that all new developments do not have an adverse impact on the areas in which they are located, whilst Policy 17 (Residential areas) looks to protect residential areas form inappropriate new uses and development. Policy 56 (noise) of the LDP2 also looks to control noise nuisance. In terms of statutory SPG, the Council’s policies on Developer Contributions and Placemaking are applicable. Land Use Acceptability The Vasart Court and Monart Road areas are predominantly residential areas comprising approx. 200 flatted residential apartments in various large blocks. Across the wider complex (including this block) there will be mainstream residential properties which will be privately owned for permanent residency, some will be rented, some will be student accommodation, and some will most likely already in a STL use already. Some of these STLs may now be immune from planning enforcement, others not so and it should be noted that the Council has refused several applications for new STL (and retrospective ones) on Monart Road previously. 15 Vasart Court is accessed via a shared communal access with a secure entry system, which then leads to communal hallway area which passes one door to another property. Through another door is a communal flight of stairs. When up the stairs, No 15 has a shared hallway/entrance area with No 16. In light of this, there would be some potential for disturbance from guests arriving, leaving and using this property on other residents of No 14 and 16 in particularly (albeit perhaps limited) – and the Council’s recently published STL guidance recognises this as a potential issue with flatted properties in residential areas when there is a degree of shared entrances. The area is identified within the LDP2 as a residential area, with compatible uses, and there is a strong need to protect existing residents’ amenity through both the implementation of the STL non statutory guidance, and various parts of both Policies 1 and 17 of the LDP2 – and elements of Policy 56 of the LDP2. There are two significant considerations to consider in this regard. The first is that the occupation of the STL for either holiday or work/business use, may not actually generate additional footfall movements above that of a typical residential
Page 10
property. A STL does not automatically increase footfall, and whilst there might be an increase, there is as much of a chance that the level of movements will either remain the same or be less than a typical residential flat – depending on the circumstances of the guest / occupier. It is very much a case by case matter, depending on the nature of the occupiers - which makes the assessment of STL’s challenging – especially within areas that are outwith (but close to) the city centre area of Perth – such as this area, and that of Monart Road. Secondly, the location of the property is a significant consideration. The property is located within the city boundary of Perth, but outwith the city centre area. The city centre area is defined for the purposes of STL assessment as being parts of the city which come under the City, Town and Neighbourhood areas and the City Centre Secondary Uses area. The Vasart Court is residential in character with no commercial uses on the ground floors. The only non-residential uses that may be existing within the area would inevitably be existing STLs, which might be historic, and as stated previously may be immune from enforcement due to the 10-year rule. In this case, the applicant has not suggested that this property has been used for 10 years continuous, so it is assumed that it hasn’t been. In light of this, the proposal is therefore considered to be inconsistent with the relevant LDP2 polices and the STL guidance simply because it is within a residential area, involves a residential flatted property with shared access arrangements, and there are not any obvious existing uses within the area which would already impact on residential amenity. This has been a constant view taken by the Council. In terms of the NPF4, as well as protecting the character and amenity of existing areas (discussed above), Policy 30 looks to ensure that the loss of permanent residential accommodation to STLs is outweighed by demonstrative evidence of impact on local economy. This property is a 2 bed property, so it would not be of the scale which the Council is perhaps concerned about losing from the permanent housing stock in the area. Accommodation which has 4 or more beds is more of a concern, and this is set out in the STL guidance. Ultimately, whilst the economic and tourist part of Policy 30 is met by this proposal, the proposal could potentially impact adversely on the amenity local area, and it would result in a loss of a residential accommodation - but not of a type / scale which if huge concern to the Council. There is therefore some tension with Policy 30 of the NPF4, and on balance this proposal is considered to be incompatible with the policy intent of this key policy principally because the area is largely residential, with little other uses.
Page 11
Visual Amenity, Design and Layout In terms of the appearance of the property, the proposed change of use will have no impact, and there are no additional issues in terms of design or layout to consider. Residential Amenity Environmental Health have commented on the proposal and have raised no objections to the proposal. In terms of noise matters, whilst the required STL licence will have set conditions over noise nuisance, and how the property is operated, the planning system does have some remit to ensure that new uses are compatible with existing uses, especially when those existing uses are residential ones. As mentioned above, the site is in residential area which does raise some policy implications in the context of Policy 56 of the LDP2. In this location, whilst there would be some degree of existing background noise from existing residents’ movements, there would equally be the potential for some extra noise disruption to occur if the property was to be used as a STL and the letter of representation suggest this also. This relates to when the property is being used, and also during access and exiting of the property - within the shared areas. The level of impact internally within the confines of shared hallways would however be limited to impacting principally on two other occupiers. As discussed previously though, if managed appropriately (which will be key element of the licence requirements) and occupied by a Monday-Friday ‘away from home worker’, there should be no reason why the residential amenity enjoyed by other residents of the block should be adversely affected by a potential STL use – as its impact could easily be the same, or less than a typical house. There would be a far higher chance that nuisance and disruption would occur if the use was for holiday purposes, with a mix of occupants (as opposed to a single occupier) – and for this property, that appears to be the business model. There is also the potential for new ‘faces’ to be a regular occurrence, and that not knowing who your neighbours are could cause a degree of anxiety and concern for permanent resident (in particularly the resident on the ground floor opposite), especially those who may live alone, are elderly or may have additional support needs. Anxiety is a planning consideration to some degree, however it is very much subjective, and someone’s anxiety over a certain matter may not result in the same feelings for another person. In this case, it will be fact that if the STL operates successfully (in terms of a high occupancy rate) then there will changes in users. However, there is no guarantee that the users of this STL will a) meet other permanent residents within shared areas and b) will cause nuisance.
Page 12
STL are now covered by a separate licence, so in the event that this STL was resulting in regular and constant issues it could potentially be addressed via the licence, which could result in the operation being instructed to cease. Nevertheless, in this case there is more a balance of probability that some adverse impact may start to occur so a precautionary approach is therefore considered appropriate here – which ultimately means a refusal – and which aligns with the guidance of the STL guidance in relation to areas which are predominantly residential. Roads and Access There is parking provision within the area, and it is understood the property will have its own allocated space. However, the property could generate the need for two or more car parking spaces, and it has not been fully demonstrated that there is sufficient parking provision to accommodate this. Drainage and Flooding The proposal raises no issues in terms of drainage or flooding matters, which remain unaltered. Conservation Considerations The proposal does not affect any Conservation Area, Listed Building or local archaeology. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity The proposal raises no issues in terms of bio-diversity matters. In terms of be able to provide for some degree of biodiversity enhancements, as this is a purely a change of use, it would not be proportionate or reasonable to see new additional biodiversity measures as part of this application. Developer Contributions The proposal does not require any Developer Contributions or Affordable Housing provision. Economic Impact The decision to refuse could have a negative impact on the local economy. Variation of Application Under Section 32A The application has not been varied.
Page 13
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. 1 By virtue of the potential for an increase in noise nuisance both when using the property, and arriving/leaving the property, the proposal would impact adversely on the existing character and amenity of the local area which is predominately residential in character, particularly the residential amenity of those living permanently in the block and close by. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy 30(e) (Tourism) of the National Planning Framework 4 (2023) which states that new proposal for short term holiday letting will not be supported where the proposal will result in an unacceptable impact on local amenity and character of the area. 2 By virtue of the shared entry arrangements, the flatted nature of the property and the predominately residential character of the existing area, the proposal would result in an increased potential for noise nuisance and general disturbance to occur and affect other existing residents in the block, and those living close by. It would also introduce a land use which is not compatible with the surrounding predominately residential properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 17 (Residential Areas) of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and the Council's non-statutory Planning Guidance on Short Term Lets which both seeks to protect existing residential amenity, and Policy 1A of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) which seeks to ensure that all new proposals contribute positively to the surrounding environment. 3 By virtue of the potential for an increase in noise nuisance both when using the property and arriving/leaving the property the proposal is contrary to Policy 56 of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) which looks to protect sensitive receptors from noise generating sources. 4 It has not been demonstrated that there is a sufficient level of either designated or available parking to service the use of the property as a short term let. The
Page 14
proposal is therefore contrary to the principles of the National Roads Development Guide 2015 which requires all new developments to have suitable parking provisions. 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 None, refusal. Procedural Notes Not Applicable. Plans and Documents Relating to this Decision 01, 02 and 03
Page 15
No embedded text on this page.
Page 16
No embedded text on this page.
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.