Agenda Document Pack - Local Review Body - 23/06/2025
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 Council Building 2 High Street Perth PH1 5PH 16/06/2025 A hybrid meeting of the Local Review Body will be held in the Council Chamber on Monday, 23 June 2025 at 13:00. If you have any queries please contact Committee Services on (01738) 475000. Lisa Simpson Clerk to the Local Review Body Those attending the meeting are requested to ensure that all mobile phones and other communication devices are switched off. Members Councillor Bob Brawn (Convener) Councillor Dave Cuthbert Councillor Ian Massie Councillor Ian James (Reserve) Applicant Advisers Clerk Legal Adviser Planning Adviser
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
Local Review Body Monday, 23 June 2025 Agenda 1 WELCOME 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3 MINUTE OF MEETING OF THE LOCAL REVIEW BODY OF 26 MAY 2025 (copy herewith) 1 - 6 4 APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW 4(i) LRB-2025-09 - 25/00180/FLL - CHANGE OF USE OF FLAT TO SHORT TERM LET ACCOMMODATION UNIT, 15 VASART COURT, PERTH, PH1 5QZ Review Papers Attached (copy herewith) 7 - 52 4(ii) LRB-2025-10 - 24/01954/FLL – INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PANELS AND CABINET, SOUTH LODGE, BALLINDEAN, INCHTURE, PERTH, PH14 9SF Review Papers Attached 53 - 128
Page 4
No embedded text on this page.
Page 5
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 1 of 128
Page 6
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 2 of 128
Page 7
(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 3 of 128
Page 8
(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 4 of 128
Page 9
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 5 of 128
Page 10
Page 6 of 128
Page 11
4(i) 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 Index (a) Papers submitted by the Applicant (Pages 9-22) (b) Decision Notice (Pages 25-26) Report of Handling (Pages 27-36) Reference Documents (Pages 37-48) (c) Representations (Pages 49-52) Page 7 of 128
Page 12
Page 8 of 128
Page 13
4(i)(a) 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 Papers Submitted By The Applicant Page 9 of 128
Page 14
Page 10 of 128
Page 15
Notice of Review 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 Address Postcode Contact Telephone 1 Contact Telephone 2 Fax No E-mail* Agent (if any) Name Address Postcode Contact Telephone 1 Contact Telephone 2 Fax No 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 No Planning authority Planning authority’s application reference number Site address Description of proposed development Date of application Date of decision (if any) 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. Page 11 of 128
Page 16
Notice of Review Page 2 of 4 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 tick 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: Site inspection 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 No 2 Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely, and without barriers to entry? If there are reasons why you think the Local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here: Page 12 of 128
Page 17
Notice of Review Page 3 of 4 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. 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. Page 13 of 128
Page 18
Notice of Review Page 4 of 4 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. 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 applicant/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 Page 14 of 128
Page 19
Mr Viktor Halanchak Date: 4 April 2025 To: The Secretary Local Review Body Perth and Kinross Council Committee Services Council Building 2 High Street Perth PH1 5PH Email: planninglrb@pkc.gov.uk Notice of Review: Appeal Against Refusal of Planning Application 25/00180/FLL Property: 15 Vasart Court, Perth PH1 5QZ Proposal: Change of use of flat to short term let accommodation Date of Refusal: 3rd April 2025 Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to submit a Notice of Review under Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 in respect of the decision to refuse planning application reference 25/00180/FLL Page 15 of 128
Page 20
for the change of use of a flat to a short term let at 15 Vasart Court, Perth. I respectfully request that the Local Review Body reconsider this decision, as I believe the application meets all relevant planning policies and that the grounds for refusal have been sufficiently addressed. Below I outline my responses to the reasons given for refusal: Reason 1 & 2 - Noise Nuisance and Impact on Residential Amenity I fully acknowledge the importance of protecting the amenity of existing residents. To this end, the proposed short-term let will be restricted to a maximum of 4 guests, and will be rented exclusively to families and couples, not groups or partygoers. Strict house rules will be enforced prohibiting parties, loud noise, or any form of disturbance, particularly during late hours (10pm-8am). A Short-Term Let Management Plan is included with this appeal, setting out these operational measures in detail. It includes provisions for: - Strict guest screening and booking terms - Prohibition of events or group gatherings - On-call contact for neighbours and residents to report any concerns - A professional cleaning and inspection routine after each stay These steps directly address concerns about increased noise or disruption and will ensure the flat integrates smoothly with the residential character of the area. Reason 3 - Noise Sensitive Receptors (Policy 56) As noted above, this property will be responsibly managed, with restrictions in place to mitigate noise and ensure respectful use by all guests. The use of the flat as a short-term let is not inherently more disruptive than standard residential use when properly regulated. With the safeguards in the management plan, there will be no unacceptable impact on sensitive receptors. Page 16 of 128
Page 21
Reason 4 - Parking Provision The flat includes a designated private parking space within the development, which will be made available to all short-term let guests. There is no anticipated pressure on on-street or shared parking, and this satisfies the requirements set out in the National Roads Development Guide 2015. Other Considerations It is also worth noting that several other properties in the surrounding area are currently operating as short-term lets, which demonstrates that such use can be compatible with the local character when properly managed. The proposed change of use contributes to local tourism and aligns with Policy 30(e) of National Planning Framework 4, provided the residential amenity is protected-which this application ensures. Conclusion I respectfully submit that this appeal demonstrates: - Full alignment with local and national planning policies - A clear management strategy to protect residential amenity - That there are no technical grounds for refusal, particularly in light of designated parking and nearby precedent I kindly request that the Local Review Body grant planning permission for the proposed change of use at 15 Vasart Court. Please find attached the supporting Short-Term Let Management Plan and property layout plans. Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours faithfully, Viktor Halanchak Page 17 of 128
Page 22
SHORT-TERM LET MANAGEMENT PLAN 15 Vasart Court, Perth PH1 5QZ Applicant: Viktor Halanchak 1. Property Use and Guest Profile The property will be let exclusively on a short-term basis to: - Families - Couples - Individual business or leisure travellers Maximum occupancy: 4 persons Minimum stay: 2 nights No parties, events or gatherings permitted 2. Noise and Behaviour Management To minimise any noise or disruption to neighbours: - Guests will be required to agree to a strict House Rules Policy, including: - No loud noise between 10pm and 8am - No parties, gatherings, or events - Respect for neighbours and communal areas at all times - Clear signage will be displayed inside the property reminding guests of these rules - A 24/7 contact number will be provided to neighbours for any urgent concerns - Repeat offenders will be permanently banned from booking 3. Check-In/Check-Out Procedures - Check-in: 3:00pm onwards - Check-out: by 11:00am Page 18 of 128
Page 23
- Self-check-in system using a secure lockbox to avoid disturbance - Clear guidance is provided to guests regarding quiet entry and exit, especially during early/late hours 4. Waste and Recycling - Guests will be provided with clear instructions on how to dispose of general waste and recycling in line with council collection schedules - Waste bins will be monitored and managed by the host or cleaning team to avoid overflow or improper disposal 5. Parking - The property includes a designated private parking space for guest use - Guests will be informed of its location and advised not to use neighbouring or communal spaces 6. Cleaning and Maintenance - A professional cleaning service will clean the property between each stay - Cleaning includes inspection for damage and prompt reporting of any maintenance issues - Linens and towels will be changed for each new guest 7. Insurance and Compliance - The property is covered by appropriate short-term let insurance - The use complies with current fire and safety regulations, including smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, and fire escape information - A valid Short-Term Let Licence will be maintained in accordance with local regulations Page 19 of 128
Page 24
Page 20 of 128
Page 25
Page 21 of 128
Page 26
Page 22 of 128
Page 27
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 23 of 128
Page 28
Page 24 of 128
Page 29
Page 25 of 128
Page 30
Page 26 of 128
Page 31
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 27 of 128
Page 32
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 28 of 128
Page 33
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 29 of 128
Page 34
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 30 of 128
Page 35
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 31 of 128
Page 36
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 32 of 128
Page 37
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 33 of 128
Page 38
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 34 of 128
Page 39
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 35 of 128
Page 40
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 36 of 128
Page 41
Page 37 of 128
Page 42
Page 38 of 128
Page 43
Page 39 of 128
Page 44
Page 40 of 128
Page 45
Page 41 of 128
Page 46
Page 42 of 128
Page 47
Page 43 of 128
Page 48
Page 44 of 128
Page 49
Page 45 of 128
Page 50
Page 46 of 128
Page 51
Page 47 of 128
Page 52
Page 48 of 128
Page 53
4(i)(c) 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 Representations Page 49 of 128
Page 54
Page 50 of 128
Page 55
Mrs Aneta Dera (Objects) Comment submitted date: Sat 15 Mar 2025 We do not agree for the change of use of flat to short term let accommodation unit ( REDACTED ) in a quiet, peaceful area just for strangers to be moving in and out we just wouldn't feel safe if the plan goes ahead. Page 51 of 128
Page 56
Page 52 of 128
Page 57
4(ii) LRB-2025-10 LRB-2025-10 24/01954/FLL – Installation of solar panels and cabinet, South Lodge, Ballindean, Inchture, Perth, PH14 9SF Index (a) Papers submitted by the Applicant (Pages 55-70) (b) Decision Notice (Pages 73-74) Report of Handling (Pages 75-82) Reference Documents (Pages 83-124) (c) Representations (Pages 125-128) Page 53 of 128
Page 58
Page 54 of 128
Page 59
4(ii)(a) LRB-2025-10 LRB-2025-10 24/01954/FLL – Installation of solar panels and cabinet, South Lodge, Ballindean, Inchture, Perth, PH14 9SF Papers Submitted By The Applicant Page 55 of 128
Page 60
Page 56 of 128
Page 61
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 Graham Ritchie Address Postcode Contact Telephone 1 Contact Telephone 2 E-mail* Agent Name Address Postcode 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 24/01954/FLL Site address South Lodge, Ballindean, Inchture, Perthshire, PH14 9SF Description of proposed development Installation of solar panels and cabinet South Lodge Ballindean Inchture Perth PH14 9SF Date of application 20/12/2024 Date of decision (if any) 19/02/2025 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. Page 57 of 128
Page 62
Page 2 of 4 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: Site inspection 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? No 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: Page 58 of 128
Page 63
Page 3 of 4 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 see the attached document entitled 24_01954_FLL_Appeal_statement.docx 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. Although we are not presenting any expansion or change in the scope of the planning request in this appeal we felt we needed to provide more background and context to our decision to investigate a renewal energy solution. We also think a fuller verbal and visual description of the property may help to put the it's future energy needs in balance with its historical nature. These are detailed in the first half of the attached statement followed by our comments on the refusal reasons after that. 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. 24_01954_FLL_Appeal_statement.docx Pic_1_view_from _South_approach.jpg Pic_2_view_from East_approach.jpg Pic_3_view_from_west_approach.jpg Pic_4_view from_in_garden_west.jpg Pic_5_Neighbours_Solar_panels_to_NW.jpg Other documents such as elavation plans and location plans can be found with the original application. I have been advised by P&K council planning that I will not need to resubmit these. 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 Page 59 of 128
Page 64
Page 4 of 4 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 applicant hereby serve notice on the planning authority to review the application as set out on this form and in the supporting documents. Signed: Graham Ritchie Date: 17/04/2025 Page 60 of 128
Page 65
Appeal Statement The following statement is an appeal to review the refusal of our planning application to Perth and Kinross Council Planning Department, reference number 24/01954/FLL (and associated number 24/01955/LBC) entitled “Installation of solar panels and cabinet South Lodge Ballindean Inchture Perth PH14 9SF”. Property description: South Lodge is a single storey gate lodge building at the South entrance to the former Ballindean House estate. It was originally built around 1832 in stone with a Scots slate roof. It more recently has had a substantial ‘in-keeping’ modern brick and harled extension with Welsh Slate roof added to the rear or the building in 1985. This more than doubled the size of the property however none of this extension is visible when viewing the property from the original front elevation. A conservatory of modern white PVC construction was added to this extension in 1990. Both the extension and the conservatory have been through planning approval with the latter available to view online with reference number 90/01342/FUL. The building was B-Listed in 1971 as “Ballindean South Lodge and Gates” reference LB11761. This listing was made before the above additions but by default covers the new extension to the building in the listing. This was confirmed by Historic Environment Scotland. My partner and I have owned the building since 2017, although it has been in the Ritchie family since 1989 when my parents retired there. The family have always lived locally having been farmers in the Carse of Gowrie for many generations. It is our intention to look after and preserve the property as much as we possibly can. Having informally spoken the planning department and looking at online guidance we realised we would need planning permission and listed building consent for the solar panels so we have followed the required planning application process to date. Background to the reasons for a Solar Panel system: The main heating and hot water system for the property is currently a gas combi boiler for central heating and hot water, fuelled by LPG gas which is delivered and stored in an on-site LPG gas tank. The central heating system dates back to the 1990’s with narrow microbore piping and with the current boiler being a replacement from back in 2012. This whole system is nearing end of life and has been subject to much recent repair and we are told we will potentially require at a new LPG gas boiler in the coming 1 to 3 years. We want to move away from gas fuel for a number of reasons: • Firstly, to follow Scottish and UK government advice to move away from fossil fuels to a cleaner and more sustainable energy solution. • The cost of delivered LPG gas is expensive and has almost doubled in price from 39p to 75p per Litre in the last 5 years so we now ration its use where we can. • The cost of maintaining the boiler and heating system is increasing with the age of the system. • There is also the presence of an on-site LPG gas tank requiring protected space around it and heavy delivery tankers having to reverse onto the property to get near to the tank. Page 61 of 128
Page 66
When looking at the options for replacing the current LPG heating system within a limited budget we started in 2019 to invest in infrared heating units in several rooms in order to gain the following advantages: • Firstly, moving away from fossil fuels as mentioned above. • To use mains electricity from the national grid that should be utilising renewable resources more and more into the future. • At the time we had an expectation of longer term stable and potentially cheaper electricity prices with national renewables. This has not been the case so far. • Low unit, installation and maintenance cost of infrared heaters. • Infrared heaters are ceiling mounted and therefore we can eventually free up space from decommissioned conventional radiators. • Perceived health benefits from infrared heat together with reduced dust circulation due to the non-convectional heating process. However, with electricity unit prices having more than doubling since 2021, the cost of mains electricity solely from the grid is now very expensive and we turned to looking at our own long term renewable domestic solution hence the solar panel and storage battery application. This kind of system would have the following benefits and characteristics: • More affordable installation compared to other alternatives (see below*) • Minimal installation consisting of mainly internal cabling in the attic and several external roof mounting points without altering any structural components of the building. • The installation would be easily reversable in years to come as no structural changes will have been made. The only external work after solar panel removal would be some slate reinstatement. • We would have the ability to generate and store our own electricity to power our electric heaters and other electrical needs. • We would not be so exposed to changes in electricity prices, for example our January 2021 bill was £73 whereas in January 2025 it was £147. • We would feed back into the national grid any surplus capacity using the government’s Smart Export Guarantee therefore “providing the local grid with more clean, green energy, as the UK bids to become a net zero emissions economy”. • We could also benefit from new technology to provide direct hot water using a separate battery storage electric boiler for that purpose. • Potential for renewable electric car charging in the future when we may eventually get an electric car. *We had considered other heating options but the following issues made them less cost effective and desirable for us. For example, air source heating would not just require the external air source heat pump but the complete renewal of the pipe system and the replacement considerably larger radiators. Also, the routing of larger pipes throughout and between the old part of the building and the extension part would require substantial upheaval and some concrete removal just below floor level. Although the cost of installation may be comparable to solar but the invasive nature of the installation throughout the old and new parts of the building made us uncomfortable as did the prospect of relying solely on mains electricity. Page 62 of 128
Page 67
Electric storage heaters were also considered but we feel we have already invested heavily in infrared electric heaters for heating purposes. Plus, the storage heaters have a larger radiator footprint like the air source heating radiators mentioned above. The fallback is to replace the LPG boiler and continue to use LPG tank gas for the foreseeable but we want to avoid this if we can. It should be noted also that the company we engaged to plan a cost-efficient solar panel installation had stated during the on-site survey that a roof mounted solution was the only suitable efficient option for us. They also informed us that even if there were a suitable ground site, which they could not readily identify on the property, then there would be unknown cost of ground mounting the solar panels and the required earthworks and underground cabling. This may be cost prohibitive for us. We would also like to point out that we are a couple just a few years away from our retirement ages and have a limited ‘working’ budget just now and will have less of a ‘retirement’ budget in the future. So, we are currently trying to plan a sustainable energy strategy for the house and our future. Our Comments on the Refusal reasons There appear to be 4 reasons stated in the 24/01954/FLL main application and a single reason in the associated 24/01955/LBC application which duplicates the second reason in the main application. Reasons 1 and 2 - Detriment to the traditional character of the building: Using the main 24/01954/FLL application the first two 2 reasons for refusal were for the similar reason that the Solar panels on the roof would be detrimental to the traditional character of the application property. The first reason appears not to do with the fact that the building is listed whereas the second reason directly references it as a category B listing building. Given that we are aware that the planning permission application for a solar panel installation would not have been required for a non-listed building then we are struggling to understand why there is a first reason at all? The second reason is due to the fact that this is a category B listing building and we do appreciate the nature of such a building and the need to protect its original features and character. Both my partner and myself are currently working or have worked in the government heritage sector and are more than sympathetic to this point. However, we hope to show by making the following points that there is a balance to be struck in this case and that this installation can be progressed without adversely affecting the traditional character or indeed the fabric of any part the building, original or otherwise. • As shown on the application plans the site of the panels would be on the modern extension part of the building and would not affect any part of the original lodge and therefore the listing description would remain accurate: Single-storey harled with stone dressings; porch and bay window features; upper sashes have arched tops with radial glazing bars; low pitched roof octagonal shafted chimneys; tapered gatepiers. • On approach via the public road from Inchture, the solar panels would not be visible from the front south facing aspect of the original listed property (see Pic_1_view_from _South_approach.jpg). Visitors using the driveway to the Ballindean House estate to the east Page 63 of 128
Page 68
of the property can only see the south and east elevations of the lodge so again the solar panels would not be visible (see Pic_2_view_from East_approach.jpg). • The solar panels would only be partially visible from the public road to the west, depending on the time of year and vegetation (see Pic_3_view_from_west_approach.jpg). • The installation of mounting points on the slate roof would be non-structural and completely reversable in the future, possibly at a time of decommissioning or replacing of the system. • The low profile and dark colouring of the panels gives minimal contrast between the installation and the slate roof. • There is an existing modern white PVC conservatory already attached to the external wall of the extension. It would to us seem strange to conclude that dark low profile, low contrast solar panels on the roof would be more of a detriment to the traditional character of the building than this previously approved conservatory. (see Pic_4_view from_in_garden_west.jpg) • There are two other residential buildings approximately 350 metres North West of this property which, although not listed themselves, have been built to be in keeping with their adjacent B-listed walled gardens (LB13463 and LB13480). These properties have low profile solar panel installations that are also visible from the public road. (see Pic_5_Neighbours_Solar_panels_to_NW.jpg) Reasons 3 - Lack of a bat survey: Our original application was compiled by our architect as we were advised by Perth and Kinross planning that accurate professional plans would be required. We also engaged the architect act as agent to submit the application as we had no experience of planning and applications. However, the necessity for bat welfare was not relayed to us although I can now see that it is clearly stated in the pre-application’s guidance notes. Therefore, in hindsight and given that if a bat survey is required, we would be happy to commission one. We are already aware that we have had bat activity around the house in the summer months in recent years. However, we would respectfully ask if the bat survey itself could be a required condition for an otherwise potentially successful appeal. We ask this as the cost of a bat survey appears to range from hundreds of pounds to several thousand pounds depending on requirements. Reason 4 – Summary of the above refusal reasons: The 4th Reason for Refusal appears to be a combination of the above reasons but with 2 different policy references. I assume these references refer to the previous historic and biodiversity reasons in a ‘combined’ sense, hence the sole need for this 4th reason. In summary: We would hope that these above points, in conjunction with our domestic and national green energy aspirations, would give us hope that in this case a compromise could be reached to allow us to proceed with our installation. Page 64 of 128
Page 69
I would like to add that we were disappointed that no actual visit was made to the property as part of the planning decision as we believe that submitted maps, plans and any online resources can only go so far as to understanding the nature of this property in its environment. We do understand and respect that it is a building of historic significance but we also think it now has modern aspects and future sustainability needs that we want to address and maintain. This is so that we can be part of the preservation of the building to ensure that ourselves and the generations to come can enjoy both the benefits of the building’s history and also its environmentally responsible future. As mentioned previously, and now in hindsight, it may be that we should have been more involved in the initial planning application especially if any of the above contextual information would have made the application clearer to planners when given more of the background detail. However, as our planning application knowledge was limited, we felt at the time that an agent would be able to provide the level of detail, beyond plans and maps, that would be required. Thank you for your consideration. Page 65 of 128
Page 70
Picture 1 – View from south approach Page 66 of 128
Page 71
Picture 2 – View from east approach Page 67 of 128
Page 72
Picture 3 - View from west approach Page 68 of 128
Page 73
Picture 4 - View from in garden west Page 69 of 128
Page 74
Picture 5 – Neighbours solar panels to NW Page 70 of 128
Page 75
4(ii)(b) LRB-2025-10 LRB-2025-10 24/01954/FLL – Installation of solar panels and cabinet, South Lodge, Ballindean, Inchture, Perth, PH14 9SF Planning Decision Notice Report of Handling Reference Documents Page 71 of 128
Page 76
Page 72 of 128
Page 77
Page 73 of 128
Page 78
Page 74 of 128
Page 79
Report of Handling Delegated Report Ref No 24/01954/FLL Ward No P1- Carse Of Gowrie Due Determination Date 15th March 2025 Draft Report Date 18th February 2025 Report Issued by David Rennie Date 18th February 2024 PROPOSAL: Installation of solar panels and cabinet LOCATION: South Lodge Ballindean Inchture Perth PH14 9SF 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 The application property is a single storey detached dwellinghouse situated in a rural area to the northwest of Inchture. The house is a category B listed building (Historic Environment Scotland ref: LB LB11761). Details of the listing are available at BALLINDEAN SOUTH LODGE AND GATES, (LB11761) Full planning permission is sought to install solar panels on the southwest (side) facing roof plane and to install a battery storage cabinet adjacent to the northwest (rear) elevation of the house. There is an associated application for listed building consent (ref: 24/01955/LBC). Site History 90/01342/FUL Erection of a conservatory 24 September 1990 Application Approved 24/01955/LBC Installation of solar panels and cabinet Application Pending Consideration Pre-Application Consultation Pre application Reference: n/a 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). Page 75 of 128
Page 80
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 4: Natural Places Policy 7: Historic Assets and Places Policy 11: Energy Policy 16: Quality Homes 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 27A: Listed Buildings Policy 33A: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy: New Proposals for Renewable and Low-Carbon Energy Policy 41: Biodiversity Statutory Supplementary Guidance Supplementary Guidance - Placemaking (adopted in 2020) Other Policies Non-Statutory Guidance Planning Guidance - Planning & Biodiversity 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. Page 76 of 128
Page 81
Planning Advice Notes The following Scottish Government Planning Advice Notes (PANs) and Guidance Documents are of relevance to the proposal: PAN 40 Development Management Other Policies and Guidance Historic Environment Scotland "Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Micro-renewables" states that: “The use of renewable energy technology in the historic environment is supported where the character of the historic building or place can be protected through careful siting and design… Each micro-renewable technology has specific site requirements, and not all equipment is suitable in every case.” Consultation Responses Conservation Team South Lodge is a category B listed building at the southern entrance to the category A listed Ballindean House, adjacent to the associated gate piers forming the principal entrance. The application proposes 12 solar panels to be installed on the south west roof elevation of the Lodge. While this does not affect the principal views (from the south east and north east), the panels would be a prominent addition on a building of this small scale, distracting both from its quality and architectural detail, and from the wider historic setting inclusive of the adjacent listed gate piers. The proposed roof-mounted solar panels would result in an adverse impact on the historic character of the building and its setting. The application gives no indication that alternative options have been considered with a view to reducing the adverse impact on the listed building, such as the use of ground mounted panels. I therefore object to the proposal. Representations Number of representations received: 0 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 Not Required Report on Impact or Potential Impact eg Flood Risk Assessment Not Required Page 77 of 128
Page 82
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. In this instance, Section 59(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 places a duty on planning authorities in determining such an application as this to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. 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 Developments which are incidental to the enjoyment of an existing domestic dwellinghouse are generally considered to be supportable in principle. Nevertheless, consideration must be given to the specific details of the proposed development, within the context of the application site, and whether it would have an adverse impact on visual or residential amenity or the character and appearance of the place. Assessment of the proposal against the relevant policies is provided below. Renewable Energy It is appreciated that the applicant wishes to improve the energy efficiency of the dwellinghouse. The installation of solar panels at the property would be expected to make a positive contribution towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and associated climate change impacts. Policy 11: Energy of NPF4 encourages renewable energy provided impacts on the historic environment have been addressed and mitigated. Similarly, Policy 33A: New Proposals for Renewable and Low-Carbon Energy of LDP supports the development of renewable and low-carbon sources of energy subject to the impacts on visual amenity and the historic environment being taken into account. The Council’s draft Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Supplementary Guidance provides further guidance on the criteria of Policy 33A including: “Roof mounted technology …, and their installation, may impact on the fabric of historic buildings and the appearance and setting of listed buildings … These should be carefully installed and discretely sited to not detract from the historic character or settings.” Policy 11 of NPF4 and Policy 33A of LDP2 also require impacts on biodiversity, including bats, to have been addressed and mitigated. Page 78 of 128
Page 83
For the reasons detailed below, the proposal is detrimental to the historic environment and detrimental to biodiversity. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy 11 of NPF4 and Policy 33A of LDP2. Given the size of the house’s curtilage, consideration could be given to other sources of renewable energy, such as the installation of ground mounted solar panels in a discreet location that does not affect the setting of the listed building. It is recommended that a pre-application enquiry is submitted prior to the submission of a planning application for any alternatives. Visual Amenity, Design and Layout The application property is a traditional single storey dwellinghouse with a slate roof. The proposal includes the installation of a row of twelve solar panels on the southwest (side) facing roof plane, which is visible from the adjacent public road. The panels are of a typical standard design. Each panel is 1.8 metres tall, and the row of panels would be some 10.6 metres wide. Due to their modern design and materials, the solar panels would be an incongruous addition to the traditional slate roof of the house. Due to the layout of the site, the proposed solar panels would be visible from the adjacent public road. Due to their modern design and materials, their total surface area, and their prominent siting, the proposed solar panels would be detrimental to the traditional character of the house. Due to its siting in a relatively concealed location at the rear of the house and its modest scale, the proposed battery storage cabinet would not be detrimental to the traditional character of the house. As the proposed solar panels would be detrimental to the traditional character of the house, the proposal is contrary to Policy 16(g)(i): Quality Homes of National Planning Framework 4, and contrary to Policies 1A and 1B(c): Placemaking of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 Historic Environment Under Section 59(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, the Council as planning authority is required to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their settings and any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. As discussed above, due to their modern design and materials, their total surface area, and their prominent siting, the proposed solar panels would be detrimental to the traditional character and appearance of the category B listed building. Also as discussed above, due to its siting and scale, the proposed battery storage cabinet would not be detrimental to the traditional character and appearance of the category B listed building. As the proposed solar panels would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the category B listing building, the proposal is contrary to Section 59(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997; contrary to Page 79 of 128
Page 84
Policy 7(c): Historic Assets and Places (Listed Buildings) of National Planning Framework 4; contrary to Policy 27A: Listed Buildings of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2; and contrary to Historic Environment Scotland's guidance "Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Micro-renewables" Natural Heritage and Biodiversity The proposal involves alterations to an existing slate roof of a building that is immediately adjacent to woodland. As explained in the Bat Survey Guidance, this triggers the requirement for a bat survey to be undertaken by a suitably experienced and qualified ecologist to determine the actual or potential presence of bats. A bat survey has not been submitted as part of the application. As such, it has not been demonstrated that there are no bats present and that bats will not be affected by the proposal. As any impacts on bats cannot be fully considered, the proposal is contrary to Policy 4(f) of NPF4 and contrary to Policy 41 of LDP2. As there were other reasons for refusing the application and in the interests of avoiding unnecessary additional costs to the applicant, the applicant’s agent was not asked to undertake a bat survey. Landscape Given the scale of the proposal and given that the proposal involves works to an existing dwellinghouse, there are no concerns about impacts on the landscape of the area. As such, the proposal is in accordance with Policy 4(d) of NPF4 and Policy 39 of LDP2. Residential Amenity Given the nature of the proposal and the distance from the nearest residential properties, there are no concerns about impacts on residential amenity. As such, the proposal is in accordance with Policy 16(g)(ii) of NPF4 Developer Contributions The Developer Contributions Guidance is not applicable to this application and therefore no contributions are required in this instance. Economic Impact It is expected that the proposal would bring some economic benefit to the owners / occupiers of the property. Planning Obligations and Legal Agreements None required. Direction By Scottish Ministers None applicable to this proposal. Page 80 of 128
Page 85
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 for Refusal 1. The proposed solar panels, by virtue of their modern design and materials, their total surface area, and their visually prominent siting, would be detrimental to the traditional character of the application property. Approval would therefore be contrary to Policy 16(g)(i): Quality Homes of National Planning Framework 4, and contrary to Policies 1A and 1B(c): Placemaking of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2. 2. The proposed solar panels, by virtue of their modern design and materials, their total surface area, and their visually prominent siting, would be detrimental to the traditional character and appearance of the category B listing building. Approval would therefore be contrary to Section 59(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, which requires the Council as Planning Authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building; contrary to Policy 7(c): Historic Assets and Places (Listed Buildings) of National Planning Framework 4; contrary to Policy 27A: Listed Buildings of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2; and contrary to Historic Environment Scotland's guidance "Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Micro-renewables". 3. The application, due to the lack of a bat survey, fails to demonstrate that bats will not be affected by the proposal. Approval would therefore be contrary to Policy 4(f): Natural Places (Protected Species) of National Planning Framework 4, and contrary to Policy 41: Biodiversity of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2. 4. The proposal, by virtue of the impacts on the character of the listed building and the lack of a bat survey, is contrary to Policy 11(c): Energy of National Planning Framework 4 and contrary to Policy 33A: New Proposals for Renewable and Low-Carbon Energy of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2, which only support renewable energy generation technology if impacts on the historic environment and biodiversity have been satisfactorily addressed. Page 81 of 128
Page 86
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 1. There are no relevant informatives. Procedural Notes Not Applicable. PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Page 82 of 128
Page 87
Page 83 of 128
Page 88
Page 84 of 128
Page 89
Page 85 of 128
Page 90
Page 86 of 128
Page 91
Page 87 of 128
Page 92
Page 88 of 128
Page 93
Page 89 of 128
Page 94
Page 90 of 128
Page 95
Page 91 of 128
Page 96
Page 92 of 128
Page 97
Page 93 of 128
Page 98
Page 94 of 128
Page 99
Page 95 of 128
Page 100
Page 96 of 128
Page 101
Page 97 of 128
Page 102
Page 98 of 128
Page 103
Page 99 of 128
Page 104
Page 100 of 128
Page 105
Page 101 of 128
Page 106
Page 102 of 128
Page 107
Page 103 of 128
Page 108
Page 104 of 128
Page 109
Page 105 of 128
Page 110
Page 106 of 128
Page 111
Page 107 of 128
Page 112
Page 108 of 128
Page 113
Page 109 of 128
Page 114
Page 110 of 128
Page 115
Page 111 of 128
Page 116
Page 112 of 128
Page 117
Page 113 of 128
Page 118
Page 114 of 128
Page 119
Page 115 of 128
Page 120
Page 116 of 128
Page 121
Page 117 of 128
Page 122
Page 118 of 128
Page 123
Page 119 of 128
Page 124
Page 120 of 128
Page 125
Page 121 of 128
Page 126
Page 122 of 128
Page 127
Page 123 of 128
Page 128
Page 124 of 128
Page 129
4(ii)(c) LRB-2025-10 LRB-2025-10 24/01954/FLL – Installation of solar panels and cabinet, South Lodge, Ballindean, Inchture, Perth, PH14 9SF Representations Page 125 of 128
Page 130
Page 126 of 128
Page 131
Page 127 of 128
Page 132
Page 128 of 128