(d) Further Information (Pages 681-702)
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)(d) 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 Further Information Further information from the applicant on the proposed entrance to the site and it’s physical acceptability and the plans regarding the trees on the site, as requested by the LRB on 26 May 2025 (Pages 683-689) Response to further information from Transport Planning (Page 690) Response to further information from Tree Officer (Pages 691-693) Further information from Planning Officer and Development Plans Team 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, as requested by the LRB on 26 May 2025 (Pages 694-697) Response to further information from Applicant (Page 698-701)
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
Erection of Dwellinghouse at Land 40 Metres West of 8 Langley Place, Perth, PH2 7XB Application Ref. No. 24/01732/IPL Review Ref. No. LRB-2025-05 Additional Statement for Matters to be Reviewed: We have been asked to provide further information on the proposed entrance to the site and it’s physical acceptability, along with plans regarding the existing mature tress on the site. Regarding the mature trees on the Site, can we first state that none of the existing mature tress will be removed, altered or harmed. The two existing mature trees, one at the South-East corner of the Site and one further along the West boundary are the main trees to be looked at, as the proposed vehicle access to the Site is located between them, accessed from the existing parking and turning area belonging to the applicant. Gean Tree Cottage will continue to have access over the ground and two parking bays on the area of ground, outwith the proposed access route. The accompanying drawing, WD4 (Site Access) shows the tree positions and the route of the proposed access, and the protected zones at each tree. The area between the two protected areas, where the access will be formed, will have the Beech hedge removed over an area of approximately 4.0 metres long. The hedge will be replanted on site where the gate is removed. The proposal is to Herras fence off the area around each tree, at a distance of ten times the trunk diameter. This gives an area outwith the tree overhang and root coverage to form the access. The Fence will be erected before any works on site begin. The fence will be erected with supports that do not require pinning into the ground to avoid any root damage to the trees. Core Root Protection Panels will be installed on the route of the vehicle access, and gravel laid over to form the vehicle access. No materials, machinery, soil heaps, construction, etc will be placed or occur within the fenced areas. No change in ground levels will occur at the tress and within the fenced protected areas.
Page 4
The proposed site at present has an access gate located on the South boundary, accessed from the core path. This gate will not be utilised and is proposed to be removed and Beech hedge replanted, from the area where the access is formed, to match the existing. All other mature trees and boundary hedges to the proposed site will remain. The boundary hedges are overgrown at present and will now be managed and dealt with in terms of maintaining a healthy hedgerow. In regard to the physical acceptability of forming the access from Mount Tabor Road, the accompanying drawing, WD4 (Access Road), shows the route along Mount Tabor Road and the proposed access, along with road widths and passing places. Mount Tabor Road, is a tarmacadamed road that provides access to three properties at this time. The Road ends at the turning area belonging to the applicant, where the core footpath then carries on from this point. Accessed from a junction with Manse Road, Mount Tabor road varies in width from approximately 4.15 metres to 4.85 metres along its length up to the start of the property at Gean Tree Cottage. Along this area of the road there are accesses to two properties and a large area at the rear of 4 Corsie Drive that are currently utilised as passing places. Alongside Gean Tree Cottage up to the turning and parking area belonging to the applicant, the road varies in width from 3.70 to 4.0 metres in width. The road has a kerb at the South side, along its length, although this is very overgrown at this time from the bushes and grass at the verge. There are Lampposts along the length of Mount Tabor Road, set back from the Road some 2.0 metres. I would point out that the roadway from Manse Road up to the core footpath at the entrance to the site is an adopted roadway. The proposed Site would mean that Mount Tabor Road would now be serving four properties in total. The Roads Department guidance / regulations are that a private road can serve up to five / six houses. This is well within the allowance and also the road width is greater than new private roads. These roads do not require footpaths. With the road being more than 3.70 metres wide, the emergency vehicles (fire fighting vehicles, etc) can be accommodated along the Roads length, as the requirement is a road 3.70 metres wide. I would stress again that the access road to the site is fully adopted by Perth and Kinross Council. The core footpath alongside the proposed site, accesses Mount Tabor Road from the proposed site entrance and passes alongside Gean Tree Cottage, then heads off from Mount Tabor Road to the North along a footpath to Muirhall Road. The extent of the core footpath on Mount Tabor Road is some 62 metres. The Council Core Footpath map is shown at the end of this statement. There have been no accidents involving pedestrians on Mount Tabor Road. One more dwelling would increase the traffic movement on the road, but in a very minimal way. Average daily vehicle movements would be roughly 4 to 6 times a day from the Site and Gean Tree Cottage, where the core footpath utilises the road.
Page 5
At the area of Mount Tabor Road where the footpath utilises the road, the traffic, which would be to Gean Tree Cottage or the proposed site, would be travelling at very low speeds as they are approaching their parking areas, so they would have naturally slowed down. This again allows for the safety of pedestrians should they be walking on the road. Beyond Gean Tree Cottage down to Manse Road, the road is wide enough to accommodate pedestrians and vehicles safely. The access road to Gean Tree Cottage and the proposed site is signposted at Manse Road as being a No Through Road and a dead end, therefore no other vehicles will be accessing Mount Tabor Road other than occupiers or deliveries. As stated previously, the No Through Road sign will automatically allow vehicles to drive at a minimal speed. Mount Tabor Road has been adopted by Perth and Kinross Council, hence the kerbing and the street lights. The Council adopted roads map is attached at the end of this statement, showing the road outlined in purple, and confirming it is adopted. In conclusion the above explains fully the location of the proposed site access, that no mature trees are to be removed, and that tree protection will be provided during the works on the site. It also provides details of Mount Tabor Road being suitable to serve the access to the site, being adopted by the Council, and also being suitable for emergency vehicles. Although the core footpath utilises a short part of Mount Tabor Road, again we have shown that pedestrian safety is provided but could also be improved should the council utilise part of the verge as a footpath.
Page 6
Perth and Kinross Council Core Path Map
Page 7
Perth and Kinross Council Public and Adopted Roads Map
Page 8
SCALE OF METRES = 1-200 0 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 Gean Tree Cottage 7 OVERALL AREA OF PLOT = 1639.40 sq.m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x TRUNK DIAMETRE AREAS FOR EACH TREE SHOWN BY LIGHT BLUE CIRCLE. FENCE TO BE OUTWITH THESE AREAS. TREE 1 = 5920mm / Trunk = 592mm TREE 2 = 6140mm / Trunk = 614mm EXISTING MATURE TREE EXISTING MATURE TREE EXISTING MATURE TREE TO REMAIN UNTOUCHED. DWG No. WD3SA/ 2302 / 24 DESCRIPTION Location Plan CLIENT Mr A. McKay Working Drawing 3 SA DRAWING TYPE July 2025 DATE - - REVISION SCALE TITLE Proposed Dwellinghouse at Site at Mount Tabor Road Kinnoull Perth ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES 3a Clerk Street Brechin, Angus DD9 6AF Telephone Office: 01356 623435 Mobile: 07802 742226 Fax: 01356 625182 Email: jack@jwsouttar.com Website: www.jwsouttar.com & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION J.W. Souttar SITE PLAN (SITE ACCESS) 1-200 1 - Looking East from Mount Tabor Road to Gean Tree Cottage parking area and Proposed Vehicle Access to Site 2 - Area of Beech Hedge to be removed to from entrance to Site 4 - Hedge at foot of retained tree at South-East corner of Site and start of Footpath 5 - Gate to Gean Tree Cottage looking West from Parking area 6 - Looking South from Paddock at existing Gate and South-East corner of Site 7 - Looking West from Paddock at area between existing trees to have Beech Hedge removed and Entrance formed Tree to Remain Tree to Remain Proposed access to Site shown hatched Red outwith overhang and roots of trees and taken from existing Vehicle turning area. 3 - Area of Beech Hedge to be removed to from entrance to Site 8 - Looking West from Paddock at area between existing trees to have Beech Hedge removed and Entrance formed Tree to Remain Tree to Remain Proposed access to Site shown hatched Red and outwith overhang and roots of mature trees
Page 9
SCALE OF METRES = 1-500 0 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 1 2 Mount Tabor House Gean Tree Cottage 7 CORSIE DRIVE 18 10 LANGLEY PLACE 8 9 5 12 14 16 20 OVERALL AREA OF PLOT = 1639.40 sq.m. NORTH ADJOINING LAND OUTLINED AND HATCHED BLUE BELONGING TO APPLICANT INDICITIVE HOUSE POSITION VEHICLE ACCESS FROM ROAD AND NOT TO DISTURB PATHWAY LEADING FROM ROAD OR MATURE TREES. AREA HATCHED YELLOW BELONGS TO APPLICANT. GEAN TREE COTTAGE HAS RIGHT OF ACCESS OVER TO GATE AND FOR PARKING. EXISTING MATURE TREE EXISTING MATURE TREE PARKING AND TURNING AREA 4150 START OF FOOTPATH. NO VEHICLES BEYOND THIS POINT. 3700 4840 1 3 2 4MOUNT TABOR ROAD 5 6 7 8 Passing Place Passing Place Passing Place Footpath ROAD IS TARRED AND WIDE ENOUGH FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES ROAD IS TARRED AND WIDE ENOUGH FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES. OVERGROWN BUSHES , ETC TO VERGE REQUIRE CUTTING BACK. ROAD IS TARRED AND WIDE ENOUGH FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES. OVERGROWN BUSHES , ETC TO VERGE REQUIRE CUTTING BACK. DWG No. WD4AR/ 2302 / 24 DESCRIPTION Location Plan CLIENT Mr A. McKay Working Drawing 4 AR DRAWING TYPE July 2025 DATE - - REVISION SCALE TITLE Proposed Dwellinghouse at Site at Mount Tabor Road Kinnoull Perth ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES 3a Clerk Street Brechin, Angus DD9 6AF Telephone Office: 01356 623435 Mobile: 07802 742226 Fax: 01356 625182 Email: jack@jwsouttar.com Website: www.jwsouttar.com & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION J.W. Souttar SITE PLAN (ACCESS ROAD) 1-500 1 - Looking East at Junction onto Mount Tabor Road 2 - Looking West from Mount Tabor Road to Junction to Manse Road 3 - Looking West to Passing Place and Access to 4 Corsie Drive 4 - Looking North at Passing Place and Access to property at Mount Tabor Road 5 - Looking West at Passing Place and Access to property at Mount Tabor Road 6 - Looking West alongside Gean Tree Cottage 7 - Looking West along Mount Tabor Road at Gean Tree Cottage 8 - Looking East along Mount Tabor Road at Gean Tree Cottage parking area and Proposed Vehicle Access to Site Proposed Vehicle Access between mature Trees outwith overhang and roots
Page 10
1 SPR Planning Local Review Body From: PKC Transportation & Development Sent: 18 July 2025 11:39 To: Andy Baxter Subject: 24/01732/IPL Good morning, Andy, In respect of 24/01732/IPL,I note the site plan with further detail on the access road to the development site (WD4AR/2302/24) detailing road widths and proposed opportunities for passing. The house should be provided with a vehicle access route for fire-fighting vehicles from a public road to not more than 45m from any door giving direct access to the interior of the dwelling. Fire and rescue service vehicles should not have to reverse more than 20m from the end of an access road. Where any dead-end route is more than 20m long, turning facilities should be provided. This can be a turning circle or a hammerhead. Advice should be sought from Building Standards. Swept path tracking may be required. Further detail is required to confirm that turning facilities can be delivered without adversely impacting the safety of users of the core path. If planning permission is granted, we would apply a condition that all matters regarding access, vehicle parking and turning facilities, walking and cycling facilities, the road layout, design and specification (including the disposal of surface water), and waste management provision shall be in accordance with the standards required by the Council as Roads Authority (as detailed in the National Roads Development Guide). Carlyn
Page 11
Consultee Planning App. Ref: Request Date Response Date Paul Kettles, Enforcement Oicer (Trees) 24/01732/IPL 11.07.25 04.08.25 Proposed Development Erection of dwellinghouse (in principle) Site Address Land 40 Metres West Of 8 Langley Place Perth PH2 7XB Introduction Assessment Impact on Existing Trees / Hedgerows A review to the LRB in respect of an application which was refused for the erection of dwellinghouse on land used as a paddock close to 8 Langley Place, Perth, has been received. The site is out-with the Kinnoull Conservation Area. Trees at the site are not subject to statutory protection under the Town and Country (Scotland) Planning Act 1997. This is a desktop response. The site plan shows 5 x existing mature silver birch trees situated along the west boundary of the application site, and an access being taken from Mount Tabor Road. I cannot identify any tree related documents, and there is very little arboricultural information provided on the existing trees and hedgerows at the site. I note from the google Streetview image that there is an existing Gean & (what may be) an ash, and a hedgerow close to the proposed access, and the same can be asserted from the photos submitted within the application. There is no Gean or ash marked on the site plan, and as stated, the plan indicates that there are only 5 x mature silver birch at the site. It is noted that the supporting planning statement states that no trees or hedges will be removed or aected by the proposal. In the absence of supporting information in the form of an arboricultural report & impact assessment, this statement must be challenged as there is no evidence to support it. Due to the lack of information, the proposal cannot be properly assessed against the criteria set out in Policy 6 of NPF4. In light of the existence of the trees and hedgerow noted above, (which may be of certain landscape & biodiversity value), and without knowing the detailed proposals for the development, (that being the access type, the extent of car parking, the position and routing of underground services & drainage proposals servicing the site, and the footprint of any proposed dwelling), the statement made by the applicant is not factually based, but merely speculative.
Page 12
It is suggested that proposed development would include the formation of an access, would inevitably result in removal of existing vegetation, and may well adversely impact on the trees noted above. Whilst there may be other reasons why these trees could be removed, (health/structural condition), it is important that they are properly considered. Guidance with Perth and Kinross’s Placemaking Guide Adopted March 2020, advises, Existing trees and hedgerows should be assessed through a professionally accredited tree survey. Guidance within Perth and Kinross’s Planning for Nature 2022 Adopted April 2020, Tree Surveys states:- In respect of individual trees, or groups of amenity trees, tree surveys will be required that identify tree species represented, and details of tree condition based on a Visual Tree Assessment (VTA), with recommended works specified in accordance with BS3998: 2010 Recommendations for Tree Work. A tree survey must include a scaled plan with trees plotted. Where tree surveys are required in conjunction with proposed development, tree surveys must form part of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment that includes the aforementioned details, and includes tree categorisation (illustrated on a tree constraints plan), mitigation measures, tree protection systems, and a detailed tree protection plan that shows the proposed site layout, overlaid with the Root Protection Areas and clearly illustrates the Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ), in accordance with BS5837: 2012 Trees in Relation to design, demolition and construction. The report should demonstrate how trees removed will impact the site characteristics. It is essential that reports include an Arboricultural Method Statement advising how the proposed development can be developed acceptably, avoiding and minimising adverse impact on existing trees, and comments on the interface of trees being retained and construction methodology, utility routes, proposed surface water and foul drainage systems, and site-specific constraints. It is advised that an arboricultural report be provided that encapsulates the requirements of BS5937: 2012, which identifies all trees and hedges at the site, evaluates their respective values, and provides an arboricultural impact assessment which addresses the issue of how the development might impact the existing trees and hedgerows, and provides suitable mitigation measures.
Page 13
Landscaping Conclusion Recommendations The applicant advises that the site will be enhanced by the planting of a native tree & hedgerow to the north boundary, and tree, shrub, and wildflower planting. The statement advises that hazel, beech, hawthorn, and blackthorn will be planted to form new hedgerows. This landscape proposal would be welcomed, however, any tree loss arising from the tree report would inform any proposed compensatory planting requirements. The applicant has provided insuicient information to allow a thorough assessment of the proposed development and its potential impact on trees and hedgerows. The planning statement has been questioned as it lacks evidence to support it. Uphold the decision to refuse the application for the reasons referred to above. Paul Kettles Planning Enforcement Oicer (Trees) 04th August 2025
Page 14
Erection of a dwelling @ Land 40 Metres West of 8 Langley Park, PH2 7XB I refer to the above, and the LRB’s request for more information concerning the ongoing LRB review. In the order of the specific points which you have raised them, I’ll like to offer the following additional comments, i) No specific comment required. It is ultimately a matter for the LRB to decide whether or not they have sufficient information before them to make a decision, and how much ‘new’ information they wish to accept and consider. ii) A copy of the response from the Local Plan team is attached in terms of the questions about our Open Space Strategy (OSS). iii) I have not seen any further information from the applicant, so I’m not able to offer specific any comment on this point. I was not aware that new information was permissible to be added during review. iv) As above, I have not seen any new information to review and circulate, but I understand some details have been passed to the Transport Officer direct. Her comments are attached. In terms of other matters, I would like to comment on the interpretation of Policy 20 of the NPF4. Part a) of Policy 20 states that ‘Development proposals that result in fragmentation or net loss of existing blue and green infrastructure will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal would not result in or exacerbate a deficit in blue or green infrastructure provision, and the overall integrity of the network will be maintained. The planning authority’s Open Space Strategy should inform this’ The area in question has been designated as open space within the LDP2 for its visual amenity value, in a local context. It is not a functional areas of open space, which is what the OSS will largely addres – once it is prepared by the Council. In light of this, it is my view that the site is not necessary not green infrastructure as such, which would normally be more applicable to functional areas of space where there is a clear public use available ie North or South Inch areas. The terms of Policy 20 and the Open Space Strategy are therefore more aimed at those functional areas of open space, as opposed to smaller ones which have perhaps visual amenity qualities for the local area, and contribute positively to the character of those areas. It may be the case that in future LDP2 it may only be larger and more functional areas which are both included within the LDP2 as ‘protected areas of open space’, and match those areas which are included within the Council’s Open Space Strategy – however that might be a question for the LDP team. The OSS will include an audit of all areas referred to within the strategy, and clear reasons for their inclusion with the OSS, which will inevitable then translate to the LDP to come degree. New development within areas of open space which are excluded from the OSS (and probably the LDP) would then be assessed against the more generic amenity policies of the Development Plan (such as Policies 1 and 17 of the LDP2.
Page 15
You will note that conflict with Policy 1 of the LDP2 was used for this decision, and the loss of the area would have an adverse impact on the local area. It is too early to be certain whether or not this particular site will or will not be included within the OSS or the next LDP2 as a protected area, but in the event of this review being dismissed the applicant should be making representations to the LDP2 team – as was the advice at pre-application stage Hope this helps, Many thanks, Andy Baxter Planning Officer
Page 16
1 SPR Planning Local Review Body From: Dante Sosa Sent: 14 July 2025 10:27 To: Andy Baxter Subject: Re: LRB-2025-05 Morning Andy, I was passed your enquiry as the officer responsible for the open space policy area and our strategy development. We are in the process of preparing our first Open Space Strategy and this is expected to be finalised at the end of 2025. We are required to include all sites >0.2ha in the audit and have also included the designated open space to review ahead of LDP3. You are correct, I've checked the LDP2 open space layer which shows the "function" of the site is landscape value. I've also found some background in LDP2's Examination Report (p. 471), please see the reporter's comments below: "Mount Tabor Road H169 6. I recognise that under Issue 1 A Successful, Sustainable Place, it has been found that there is no shortfall in meeting the housing land requirement in the Greater Perth Housing Market Area. Adequate housing land has been provided to satisfy the requirements set out in the strategic development plan. Accordingly, there is no strategic numerical justification to allocate further sites for housing within the Greater Perth Housing Market Area. The land subject to the representation is located to the south of the Murray Royal Hospital site MU336 and allocated as open space in the proposed plan. The pasture land, along with the rest of the open space allocation, provides a visual break from the residential development that has taken place in the wider surrounding area. 7. Housing development would detract from the rural character of the area and green network provided by the open space allocation. Although the site may not contain protected species, in general, green networks can also provide habitat and corridors for wildlife within urban areas. The land is bounded to the west by a core path but is not available for public access. It is contended to be effective and free of constraints. Nevertheless, it is a prominent green space when viewed from near the properties of The Corner House and Tabor at Muirhall Road. 8. Despite the existence of some tree and shrub boundary vegetation, any intensive development of the site would have an adverse effect on the setting of the category B listed Gean Cottage, which was the childhood home of Sir Patrick Geddes. Potential still exists for re-use of the land as a paddock and it has been allocated as an open space for several years, although not included in an open space audit. The site was not taken forward to the Main Issues Report stage and the proposed change of this part of the open space allocation was not the subject of full public consultation. Given the above and in particular the provision of adequate housing sites elsewhere to meet the strategic housing needs of the Greater Perth Housing Market Area, I conclude that the allocation of the land at Mount Tabor Road is not currently justified. No modification." It is too early to say whether this would remain designated, however I can share that the site was pre- screened out of the full open space audit. The reason given by the surveyor was that this was a private
Page 17
2 garden with no public use or access. We still need to check the site's ecological qualities through the blue-green infrastructure audit and we also have a live survey which may provide information on whether this site is important to the community. Generally, it is my view that designations should be given where sites have a clear public function or in cases where they are important natural spaces. Other sites may offer more value by having designations removed. There are a lot of factors (e.g. housing land requirement, community consultations) and while I will make recommendations based on the OS audit findings the decision will be down to the relevant locality officer. Please let me know if you would like to discuss further. Kind regards, Dante Sosa Assistant Planning Officer Development Plans Perth and Kinross Council LDP3 Call for Sites is now open:Local Development Plan 3 - Call for Sites - Perth & Kinross Council Citizen Space - Citizen Space
Page 18
Erection of Dwellinghouse at Land 40 Metres West of 8 Langley Place, Perth, PH2 7XB Application Ref. No. 24/01732/IPL Review Ref. No. LRB-2025-05 Additional Statement for Matters to be Reviewed in Response to Local Plan Team and Planning additional information regarding the Site being classed as Open Space: The Policy team / Planning Department were requested to provide more information on the open space element in relation to the National Planning Framework 4, the Council’s Open Space Strategy and why the site is designated as open space. This request was sent on the 26th June with a deadline for returning the information of 10th July. No reply was received by 10th July and a further email requesting the information was sent on 11th July. The information was forwarded to ourselves on 1st August, so we presume this was received by the Review Board on 31st July. We would ask what the delay was in providing the information and why it can be acceptable to delay the Review process by at least three weeks? Policy 20 of the NPF4 states that ‘Development proposals that result in fragmentation or net loss of existing blue and green infrastructure will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal would not result in or exacerbate a deficit in blue or green infrastructure provision, and the overall integrity of the network will be maintained’. It was also stated that the Open Space Strategy should inform the above. In response to the Planning Officers reply above, we can confirm that the proposal will not affect any blue infrastructure at all. Green infrastructure refers to Parks, trees, etc and not essentially the area of land in question. With the house and driveway covering only 2.84% of the overall Site area, there is little to no affect on green infrastructure either. No trees will be removed, altered or harmed. The land is private so no parks will be affected. In essence the blue and green infrastructure will not be affected by this proposal. In regard to the Open Space Strategy, the Council will not have this until late 2025, so we cannot comment on it.
Page 19
The Planning Officer also stated that the Site in question is allocated as open space in the Local Development Plan (2019) as having visual appeal value, in a local context, and that it is not a functional area of open space. This will be addressed by the OSS once it is prepared later in the year. At this time it is unclear if the site in question will be included in the OSS. The Planning Officer then provides his view on the proposal, stating that the terms of Policy 20 of the NPF4 and the future OSS will focus more on larger, public areas of open space, as opposed to smaller ones which may perhaps have visual amenity qualities for the local area, and contribute positively to the character of those areas. In response we would point out that the land in question is a grassed overgrown Paddock, with mature trees and overgrown hedgerows bordering it on the West and South boundaries. The proposal is to erect a dwellinghouse at the Southern end of the site, where it narrows, and at the top of the substantial rise in ground level from North to South. The house is then not seen visually from Muirhall Road, the North boundary, and with the trees and hedgerow to the South boundary, not seen from the Core Path at Mount Tabor Road. The Southern and large remaining area of the site will have the hedgerows maintained and wild meadow and tree plantations planted, which will enhance the visual amenity greatly and also enhance wildlife and biodiversity. Surely a dwellinghouse erected out of the view of the public and an enhanced open space is much more appealing than an overgrown Paddock. The Planner further comments that the future LDP and OSS will concentrate on the larger open space areas and not small private ones as in question with this application. I think there is no need to respond to that except to say that it does question the expectation for the Site to be open space at this time. The Planning Officer then states that the application was dealt with under Policy 1 of the LDP2, and the loss of the area would have an adverse impact on the local area. We would first point out that this was not the information the Planning Department were asked for by the Review Panel. In response we would state the proposed dwelling site will be located to the South-East area of the overall site identified in the local plan as open space. It will be located between existing properties at Langley Place and Mount Tabor Road and will retain all its historical boundaries, with all hedges and trees retained. Further planting on the retained open space and landscaping on the proposed dwelling site would further enhance the area. The extensive enhancing of the open space area of the site, the area the public can view from Muirhall Road, will improve the area from grass Paddock to a wild meadow and small tree plantations, improving the visual impact and greatly enhancing the bio-diversity of the area. The proposed dwelling would be designed to be as ‘green’ and environmentally friendly as possible, with the provision of Photovoltaic panels and battery storage, an Air source heat pump to provide the heating and hot water, insulated well above building standard requirements and utilising materials that are eco-friendly. The design of the house would complement those properties surrounding it.
Page 20
Overall the enhancing of the open space, additional planting and landscaping and provision of a modern dwellinghouse would greatly enhance the visual amenity of the area at the same time aiding in the efforts against climate change. The above meets all the criteria in Policy 1 of the LDP2 that is possible, with some of the criteria not relevant to this Site. Further information was provided by the Assistant Planning Officer for Development Plans, and they stated that the Open Space Strategy is still being prepared and should be ready late in 2025. It is unclear if the Site for the proposal will be included in the OSS. It is also unclear if the Site will be included in the future Local Development Plan, as was stated above by the Planning Officer. A report carried out on the Site and it’s Open Space designation, in preparation of the LDP2 (2019), was included in the reply to the Planning Officer. At that time multiple applications for houses on the Site had been applied for. These were for up to six dwellings and focused on the lower North area of the Site. The Report leans towards a multiple house application on the Site and not a single dwelling located to the South-East corner of the Site, with the majority of the Site retained and enhanced Open Space. The Report also alludes to the Greater Perth Housing market and the Housing allocation in the Development Plan. A single house would not affect the housing market or the housing allocation in any way. The Report also states that the Site provides a visual break from the residential development that has taken place. Again this relates to a larger development in the Northern area of the Site. A single dwelling located in the South-Eastern pocket of the site, at the top of the rise in the land, and with the main area of the site retained and planted with wild meadow and tree plantations, the visual break in the residential development of the area would be maintained and enhanced. In Point 7 of the report, they state that housing development would detract from the Rural character of the area. Again this is aimed at a larger development to the North area of the site and not a single, secluded and well sited house located out of view in the South-East corner of the Site. They also mention wildlife habitat and corridors on the land. Again with this not being a larger development and only a single dwelling and with the remainder of the site enhanced with planting, and protected against future development, wildlife habitats and corridors would be maintained. With the enhancement of the open space area, wildlife would be encourage to flourish. The Report also states that the site is a prominent green space when viewed from the properties at Muirhall Road, the Corner House and Mount Tabor Cottage. As stated previously this is based on a larger development to the North area of the site, the area the public can readily view. The proposed Site location is at the top of the rise, in the South- East corner, away from the area that can be viewed from Muirhall Road. This would maintain the prominent green space viewed from the properties and Muirhall Road.
Page 21
Point 8 of the Report states that an intensive development would have an adverse affect on the setting of Gean Tree Cottage, a Category B listed house on Mount Tabor Road, neighbouring the site. It should be noted that the Conservation Officer had no concerns that a single house proposal would have any affect on Gean Tree Cottage, as was provided during the planning application. This point would then be moot. In conclusion the request for further information and clarity on why the site was designated as Open Space from the Policy team and OSS has not been answered fully in our opinion, and still remains unclear. It is also unclear if the future OSS and LDP will designate the site as open space as their strategy seems to be towards larger public parks, etc. To designate private land as having a visual amenity, when it is located alongside a large Public Park, does seem unusual and misplaced. With the above in mind the proposal does retain a large area of open space, with the house and driveway covering just 2.84% of the overall site. With the garden area landscaped and the remainder of the site enhanced with wild meadow and tree plantation planting, the visual amenity would still be maintained, and enhanced greatly. The overall site can only be viewed from Muirhall Road to the North, looking South up the site which rises significantly and narrows to the South-East boundary. The South area of the Site cannot be viewed from Mount Tabor Road or the Core Network Path due to the trees and hedgerows on the boundaries of the site. The visual amenity of the site, only viewed from Muirhall Road would not be compromised. The Assistant Planning Officer also states that the ‘Site was pre-screened out of the full open space audit due to the site being private garden with no public use or access’. Surely this leans towards the site not being designated as open space in the future Open Space Strategy and Local Development Plan. The proposal is clear in that the majority of the Site will be retained and maintained as open space, and that the visual amenity will be maintained and enhanced. It is, in our opinion, wrong that the proposal should be denied, when it is on private land which is likely to have no future open space and visual amenity designation, but where we are maintaining and enhancing the open space and visual amenity, with only a minimal area of the site (2.84% of the total area) utilised for the footprint of the house and driveway. Surely this can only be viewed as a positive outcome for the Site.
Page 22
No embedded text on this page.