(b) Planning Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Reference Documents (Pages 635-656)
Perth and Kinross Council · 22 September 2025
Back to Local Review Body — 22 September 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
5(i)(b) LRB-2025-05 LRB-2025-05 24/01732/IPL - Erection of dwellinghouse (in principle), land 40 metres west of 8 Langley Place, Perth, PH2 7XB Planning Decision Notice Report Of Handling Reference Documents (part included in applicant’s submission, pages 627-633)
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
1 Report of Handling Delegated Report Ref No 24/01732/IPL Ward No P12- Perth City Centre Due Determination Date 10 January 2025 Draft Report Date 8 January 2025 Report Issued by Andy Baxter Date 9 January 2025 Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse (in principle) Location: Land 40 Metres West Of 8 Langley Place, Perth, PH2 7XB Summary This report recommends refusal of a planning in principle application for a single dwelling within the Kinnoull area of Perth as the development is considered to be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan to the loss of open space, 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 a planning in principle permission for the erection of a new dwelling on an infill site within the settlement boundary of Perth, located within the Kinnoull area of the city. The site is part of a larger area of open space which stretches between Muirhall Road to the north and Mount Tabor Road to the south, with the application site being at the southern end. The application site simply merges into the wider field, with no physical separation. It is understood that the application site and the wider site has been used largely as a horse paddock over the last decade or so. Some trees align some of the boundaries, however the principal (developable) part of the site is free from trees. The vast majority of the site has been identified within the LDP2 as an area of existing open space intended for retention, and such areas are typically afforded extra protection against new physical development – unless proposed developments meet with the named exceptions. As part of this proposal, the applicant is offering to enhance the northern part of the wider site by creating a more managed and planned wildlife meadow, mixed in with new tree planting of native and bio-diversity friendly trees. This area is outwith the red line planning site but has been shown (via blue line) to be within the applicant ownership. Site History The site has previous planning history via formal planning application (06/00327/OUT, 16/01326/FLL, 16/02094/FLL) and previous pre-application
Page 6
2 enquiries relating to residential development on this site, and a larger area. Limited support has been offered for these previous applications. Pre-Application Consultation Pre-application advice (24/00111/PREAPL) to the applicant was offered, which raised concerns over the compatibility with the LDP2, and the issue of the land being identified within the LDP2 as open space. It was recommended that a better way forward for the applicant (as opposed to a planning application) would be to make formal representations to the LDP team in relation to the open space designation. 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 7: Historic assets and places Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place 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 site is located within the settlement boundary of Perth, and the vast majority of the site has been designated as an area of open space. The following policies are thereafter applicable, Policy 1A: Placemaking Policy 1B: Placemaking Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions Policy 14A: Open Space Retention and Provision Policy 15: Public Access Policy 17: Residential Areas
Page 7
3 Policy 27A: Listed Buildings Policy 41: Biodiversity Policy 60A: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements Statutory Supplementary Planning Guidance The following statutory SPG are applicable to this proposal, Placemaking Guide 2020 Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing 2023 Other Council Policies Non-Statutory Guidance The following non-statutory planning guidance is applicable to this proposal, Planning for Nature National Planning Guidance The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through Planning Advice Notes, Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and a series of Circulars. Planning Advice Notes The following Scottish Government Planning Advice Notes (PANs) and Guidance Documents are of relevance to the proposal: PAN 40 Development Management PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems 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. External Consultation Responses Scottish Water has commented on the proposal and raised no concerns in terms of public capacity issues. Internal Council Comments Transportation and Development have commented on the proposal and have raised some concerns over the vehicular access to and from the site.
Page 8
4 Environmental Health have commented on the proposal in terms of noise (ASHP), but at this stage they have no comments to make. At the detailed stage, a fuller assessment of the potential impact of any ASHP system will be undertaken. Development Contributions Officer has commented on the proposal and indicated that in the event of any approval being forthcoming, conditions in relation to both Primary Education and also Transport Infrastructure should be attached to the permission. Conservation advice has been given, which offers no concerns in terms of the potential impact in the setting of the adjacent listed building. Representations Five letters of representations have been received from individual households objecting to the proposals, and one neutral comment from the local Community Council. The main issues raised by the objectors are, Contrary to the Development Plan Loss of valued open space Adverse impact on ecology Road safety issues These issues are addressed in the main appraisal section below. In terms of the comments raised by the Community Council, they ask that consideration of the acceptability of the access and considerations during the construction phase are considered as part of the assessment of the application. 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
Page 9
5 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 consideration of the requirements of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, and the Council’s non-statutory supplementary guidance, these are discussed below only where relevant. In terms of the PLBCA, this places a duty on planning authorities in determining applications which affect listed buildings and their settings to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Policy Appraisal There are relevant land use policies contained in all parts of the Development Plan. In terms of the NPF4, Policy 3 (Biodiversity) places biodiversity front and centre of all planning decisions, whilst Policy 7 (Historic Assets and place) looks to protect our cultural heritage assets from inappropriate new developments. Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) looks to ensure that all new developments are of a high design standard, and Policy 16 (Quality Homes) looks to promote new quality homes in suitable locations across the county. In terms of the LDP2, the site is located within the settlement boundary of Perth, is partly within an area which has been identified as open space and is adjacent to a listed building. Policies 1 (Placemaking), 14 (Open Space), 15 (Public Access), 17 (Residential Areas), 27 (Listed Buildings), 41 (Biodiversity) and 60 (Transport Standards) are all applicable. Policy 1 looks to ensure that all new developments do not have an adverse impact on the area concerned, whilst Policy 14A looks to protect areas of open space which have been specifically designated as such within the LDP. Policy 15 looks to ensure that public access rights are protected. Policy 17 looks to ensure that the character and amenity of existing residential areas is protected from new development opportunities, whilst Policy 27 looks to ensure that listed buildings and their historic settings are also protected. Policy 41 looks to ensure that biodiversity is fully understood as part of the assessment of applications, and Policy 60 looks to ensure that all sites have safe and acceptable vehicular access, and that road and pedestrian safety is not compromised. In terms of statutory SPGs, the Council’s policies on Placemaking and Developer Contributions are relevant. Land Use Acceptability The site is located within the settlement boundary of Perth and is surrounded by existing housing on three of its sides. The use proposed would therefore generally be compatible with the area, however the key land use issue for this proposal is not
Page 10
6 necessary its compatibility with surrounding land uses, but the fact that the site has been specifically identified within the LDP2 as an area of existing open space, which has value and where there is policy intent for its retention. Policy 14A relates to existing areas of open space which have been identified as such within the LDP2. This policy is explicit in its wording insofar as only in specific cases should such areas be lost, and this proposal would not sit comfortably within any of those exceptions. The listed exceptions within Policy 14A are, (a) Where the site is principally used as a recreation resource, the proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site as a recreational resource. (b) The proposed development involves a minor part of the site which would not affect its continued use as a recreational or amenity resource. (c) In the case of proposals involving the loss of a recreational facility, the facility which would be lost would be replaced by provision of one of comparable or greater benefit and in a location which is convenient for its users, or by the upgrading of an existing provision to provide a better quality facility, either within the same site, or at another location which is convenient for its users. (d) Where a proposal would involve the loss of a sports pitch, a playing field strategy prepared in consultation with sportscotland has demonstrated that there is a clear excess of sports pitches to meet current and anticipated future demand in the area, and that the site could be developed without detriment to the overall quality of provision. Due to the nature of the proposal, and how the site is currently used at present parts a), c) and d) are not that specifically relevant to this proposal. Part b) is however relevant. The amenity value of the site, and that of the wider site which extends down (north) to Muirhall Road is visual quality, and the feeling of openness – as opposed to a functional use. The removal of around ¼ of the wider area is not considered to be a minor part of the ‘site’, and whilst it may not affect its use (as its private), it would nevertheless adversely affect the character and appearance of the area and the qualities of why it was identified as open space within the LDP2. It is noted that the applicant has offered to enhance and improve the remainder of the wider paddock area with both wildflowers’ meadows and tree planting, and whilst this could provide biodiversity enhancements, this is not considered to sufficient to accept the loss of a fairly larger southern portion of identified open space area. In light of this, whilst the proposal may accord with elements of Policy 17 of the LDP2 and be compatible with the surrounding residential uses, the direct conflict with Policy 14A of the LDP2 due to the open space issue renders the proposal unacceptable from a land use point of view. There are no relevant policies in the NPF4 which would supersede or outwith the policy context of Policy 14A of the LDP.
Page 11
7 The applicant has been advised that making representations to the LDP team would be appropriate to try and advance development potential on this area, and this position remains appropriate. Visual Amenity, Design and Layout At this stage, no details are under consideration in relation to the type of house or its design or scale as the application is only in principle. However, bearing in mind the shape of plot and the various options which would be available for siting, sizes and orientation etc, it is unlikely that an acceptable design cannot be found for a house - which in isolation, would be acceptable in design and layout terms. The site does slope, so any detailed submission should include details of ground levels. At this stage, the proposal raises no issues with any Design or Placemaking policies of the Development Plan. There would however be an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area by developing on this area of land, which has been addresses above – and this matter is distinctly different from the acceptability of a house type or design. Residential Amenity In terms of being able to provide a suitable level of residential amenity for future occupiers of the dwelling, the proposal raises no concerns at this stage. It would be expected that the siting and orientation of the dwelling would be in accordance with the Council’s Placemaking Guide, and if this is the case then there should be no concerns with delivering a good level of residential amenity for future occupiers of the dwelling. Likewise, subject to a suitable design, placement and orientation of dwelling on the plot coming forward at the detailed planning stage, the residential amenity of existing properties should be protected against from overlooking or loss of privacy etc. The proposal at this stage, raises no issues with the relevant Placemaking policies of the Development Plan. Roads and Access Vehicular access to the site is proposed via Mount Tabor Road which is an adopted road, and recognised core path and right of way route. The road narrows as it moves east towards Langley Drive, and as such no vehicles are currently permitted at the location of the proposed vehicular access. Access from Langley Drive is fully pedestrianised and cannot currently accommodate vehicular access from this direction (westwards). The existing gated vehicle access on Mount Tabor Road is proposed to be used as the means of vehicular access into the site. The existing footway in this location has been measured by the Transport Planning team as approximately 1.8m wide.
Page 12
8 In lightly-used streets (such as those with a purely residential function), the unobstructed width for pedestrians should generally be 1.5 - 2m, and this is set out in Scottish Government guidance. Figures 1 and 3 in the Transport Planning consultation response highlight that where the road narrows from the west to east on Mount Tabor Road, vehicular access is limited, and would place the safety of pedestrians on the core path at risk if used for vehicles in its current form. Physically, it would be challenging to use for even a small car in its condition and geometics. Any access to the site via Mount Tabor road must also meet the width requirements of Building Standards to accommodate access for emergency vehicles, and the applicant hasn’t clearly demonstrated that a suitable width can be achieved, particularly given the overgrowth in vegetation highlighted in the applicant’s site photo (Figure 4). In light of this, although this is a planning in principle application only, it has not been fully demonstrated that a safe means of access for both pedestrians and other road uses and can be reasonably delivered and as such, the proposal is contrary to Policy 60 of the LDP2. Drainage and Flooding The proposal raises no issues in terms of drainage or flooding issues. It should be a requirement of any detailed permission that all surface water drainage should be discharged to ensure that it does not shed onto neighbouring land, or public roads. Conservation Considerations There is a listed building (Gean Cottage) close to the site and shares a boundary with the site. However, subject to an appropriate scale of dwelling being advanced at a detailed planning stage there should be no harmful impact on the historic setting of the property. Any detailed proposal should ensure that the physical damage to the listed wall (both during construction and upon completion) is kept to a minimum, and if need be, controlled by conditions. The proposal therefore raises no issues with the various built heritage policies contained within the Development Plan. Public Access Along the front of the site along Mount Tabor Road (south), the route is both a Core Path and Right of Way. Whilst any development of the site would not necessary physically impact on these routes if advanced appropriately, any detailed planning application must ensure that the narrow access is improved to allow for safe passage for both pedestrians and vehicles, but this has not yet been demonstrated clearly in the submission. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity The site does have some trees along its boundaries, but the principal part of the site is largely clear of any trees. The only potential impact on trees would perhaps arise
Page 13
9 from the need to widen the existing access, and the level of the resultant impact would be dependent on what side the road is widened on. If approval is forthcoming, then there must be a requirement on any permission that ecological and tree surveys are submitted as part of any detailed submission, and any removals suitably compensated. Developer Contributions In the event of an approval being forthcoming, then standard conditions relating to both Primary Education and also Transport Infrastructure should be attached to the permission. Economic Impact The economic impact of the proposal is likely to be minimal and limited to the construction phase of the development. Variation of Application Under Section 32A The application has not been varied. 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 The proposal would result in the loss of an area of existing open space as identified as such within the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019). The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 14A (Existing Areas of Open Space) of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as the development does not meet with any of the exceptions citied within the policy, and would ultimately result in the loss of an area of land which has been identified for retention by the Council as open space. In addition to this, if approved, that decision may be cited by others as setting an undesirable precedent, undermining the objectives of the Council and leading to the further erosion of open space in both this area, and others.
Page 14
10 2 The proposal would result in the loss of an area of existing open space which has been identified by the Council as being of visual amenity value, and worthy of retention. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 1 (Placemaking) of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as the proposed development would adversely affect the character of the surrounding area by losing existing open space which currently contributes positively to the area. 3 It has not been fully demonstrated that the proposed means of access to the site is safe for both pedestrians and other road users. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 60 (Transport Standards) of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) which looks to ensure that all road related matters are in accordance with both Local and National design and safety standards. 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 01-04 (inclusive)
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.