Minute of meeting of 26 January 2026
Perth and Kinross Council · 2 March 2026
Back to Local Review Body — 2 March 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
DRAFT Perth and Kinross Local Review Body Minute of hybrid meeting of the Perth and Kinross Local Review Body held on Monday 26 January 2026 at 1.00pm. Present: Councillor B Brawn, Councillor K Harvey, Bailie C McLaren (for Item 5(i)) and Councillor R Watters (excluding Item 5(i)). In Attendance: L Tierney (Planning Adviser); Callum MacLeod (Legal Adviser); and A Brown (Democratic Support Officer) (all Legal and Governance). Also Attending: M Pasternak (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 13 October 2025 was submitted and noted. (Members unanimously agreed to vary the order of the agenda to hear Item 5 - Applications Previously Deferred before Item 4 - Applications for Review) (Bailie McLaren joined the meeting and Councillor Watters left the meeting at this point.) 4. Applications For Review (i) LRB-2025-16 23/01113/FLL - Erection of 2 estate properties and garages, formation of access road connecting to existing estate road and associated works (Zone Z4-04), Taymouth Castle, Kenmore, Aberfeldy, PH15 2NT - River Tay Development Ltd Members considered a Notice of Review seeking a review of the decision by the Appointed Officer to refuse the erection of 2 estate properties and garages, formation of access road connecting to existing estate road and associated works (Zone Z4-04), Taymouth Castle, Kenmore, Aberfeldy, PH15 2NT. The Planning Adviser displayed photographs of the site and described the proposal, and thereafter summarised the Appointed Officer’s 3
Page 2
DRAFT Report of Handling, the grounds set out in the Notice of Review and the further information received. It was noted that, at its meeting of 13 October 2025, the Local Review Body resolved that (i) having regard to the material before the Local Review Body, insufficient information was before the Local Review Body to determine the matter without further procedure; (ii) a site visit was to be undertaken; and (iii) following the site visit, the application be brought back to a future meeting of the Local Review Body. Decision: Resolved by unanimous decision that: (i) having regard to the material before the Local Review Body, the comments from the Planning Adviser, and a site visit having been carried out on 13 November 2025, 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 erection of 2 estate properties and garages, formation of access road connecting to existing estate road and associated works (Zone Z4-04), Taymouth Castle, Kenmore, Aberfeldy, PH15 2NT, should be granted, subject to the imposition of relevant terms, conditions and informatives. Justification The proposal is a justifiable departure from the Development Plan on the basis that there will be minimal visual impact on the landscape and views to, from and within the site will not be significantly impacted, in line with Policy 7 (i) of National Planning Framework 4 (2023). It is considered that the development will contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment, thereby complying with Policy 1A of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019). The PKLRB acknowledged that whilst there would be an impact on the Dairy, this impact was deemed to be marginal and it was held that the development would contribute positively to the amenity of the area, and therefore a small departure from policy was justifiable in this regard. (Bailie McLaren left the meeting and Councillor Watters rejoined the meeting at this point.) 4. Applications For Review (i) LRB-2025-19 Review of Condition 3 on planning permission 25/00865/FLL (Alterations to vehicular access, erection of gate pillar and installation of replacement gates at Dalnasgadh, Killiecrankie, Pitlochry, PH16 5LN) - Mrs J Pillans Members considered a Notice of Review seeking a review of the imposition of Condition 3 on planning consent 25/00865/FLL
Page 3
DRAFT (Alterations to vehicular access, erection of gate pillar and installation of replacement gates at Dalnasgadh, Killiecrankie, Pitlochry, PH16 5LN). 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 unanimous decision that: (ii) the review application seeking a review of Condition 3 on planning consent 25/00865/FLL (Alterations to vehicular access, erection of gate pillar and installation of replacement gates at Dalnasgadh, Killiecrankie, Pitlochry, PH16 5LN), be granted and Condition 3 be removed from planning consent 25/00865/FLL. Justification Removal of the condition is deemed acceptable on the basis that cars and vehicles can currently use the entrance as it stands, and therefore, there does not appear to be a significantly greater risk that gravel will spill onto the road if the access is widened. There have been no reported incidents which would suggest that this access is not safe. (ii) LRB-2025-20 24/00391/IPL - Residential development and associated works (in principle), land 90 metres east of 13 Park Grove, Spittalfield, Perth, PH1 4LH - Mr G McLuskey Members considered a Notice of Review seeking a review of the decision by the Appointed Officer to refuse a residential development and associated works (in principle), land 90 metres east of 13 Park Grove, Spittalfield, Perth, PH1 4LH. 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 unanimous decision that: (ii) the review application for a residential development and associated works (in principle), land 90 metres east of 13 Park
Page 4
DRAFT Grove, Spittalfield, Perth, PH1 4LH, be refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is contrary to the spatial strategy for this allocated site (Ref MU6) of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 which seeks a small mixed-use development of employment uses and housing on the site of a former bus depot. The proposal relates solely to a section of the allocated site (Ref MU6) and does not relate to a comprehensive redevelopment of the site nor is any commercial development proposed. 2. The proposal is for five large detached dwellinghouses on five large lots which does not respect the wider residential density in the village to the west. Further, the proposal does not integrate or connect with neighbouring residential development. The proposal is poorly designed, and the design and density does not respect the character and amenity of the place or create and improve links to the surrounding area. The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place and Local Development Plan 2 Policy 1: Placemaking and associated Supplementary Guidance. 3. The proposed development is contrary to National Planning Framework 4: Forestry, Woodland and Tress Policy 6b)i) because of the proximity of housing and garden ground to ancient woodland and the potential adverse impact on their ecological condition. 4. The existing vehicular access does not have the capacity to accommodate the development, and the proposal will have an adverse impact on road safety and operational performance. The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policy 13: Sustainable Transport and Local Development Plan 2 Policy 60A and 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements. Justification The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. (iii) LRB-2025-22 25/00567/FLL - Change of use of flat to short term let accommodation unit, 4B Kings Court, South William Street, Perth, PH2 8LA - Bart Properties Ltd Members considered a Notice of Review seeking a review of the decision by the Appointed Officer to refuse the change of use of flat to short term let accommodation unit, 4B Kings Court, South William Street, Perth, PH2 8LA.
Page 5
DRAFT 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 unanimous decision that: (ii) the review application for the change of use of flat to short term let accommodation unit, 4B Kings Court, South William Street, Perth, PH2 8LA, be refused for the following reasons: 1. By virtue of the shared entry arrangements in a block of flats, there would be a potential for an increase in noise nuisance both when occupiers are using the property, and arriving/leaving the property. As a result of this, the proposal would adversely impact existing residential amenity of residents living permanently in the block, and especially the occupiers of Flats 4A, 4C and 4D Kings Court. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy 30(e): Tourism of the National Planning Framework 4 which states that new proposals 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 location of the property being outwith the City Centre area, the shared entry arrangements in a block of flats and the flatted nature of the proposal, there would be a potential for an increase in noise nuisance both when occupiers are using the property and arriving/leaving. As a result of this, the proposal would adversely impact on the residential amenity currently enjoyed by those living permanently in the block (especially the occupiers of Flats 4A, 4C and 4D Kings Court), and it would introduce a land use which is not compatible with the surrounding predominantly residential properties contained in the building block. Accordingly, the proposal in contrary to Policy 17: Residential Areas of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 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 Local Development Plan 2 which seek to ensure that all new proposals contribute positively to the surrounding environment. 3. By virtue of the shared entry arrangements in a block of flats, there would be a potential for an increase in noise nuisance both when occupiers are using the property, and arriving/leaving the property. As a result of this, the proposal is contrary to Policy 56 of the Perth and Kinross
Page 6
DRAFT Local Development Plan 2 which looks to protect sensitive receptors from noise generating sources. Justification The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. (There was a short recess.) (iv) LRB-2025-23 25/01040/FLL - Erection of replacement garage with ancillary accommodation, Glenburn, Bellwood Park, Perth, PH2 7AJ – Ms L Atkinson Members considered a Notice of Review seeking a review of the decision by the Appointed Officer to refuse the erection of a replacement garage with ancillary accommodation, Glenburn, Bellwood Park, Perth, PH2 7AJ. 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) reason 3 could be removed on the basis that the replacement building in the proposed location was an acceptable distance from the principal dwellinghouse and provided for an adequate functional relationship between it and the ancillary accommodation. (iii) the review application for the erection of a replacement garage with ancillary accommodation, Glenburn, Bellwood Park, Perth, PH2 7AJ, be refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposal, by virtue of the combination of the proposed garage’s siting, design, finishing materials, height, scale and massing, would have a detrimental impact on the character and environmental quality of the application property and the surrounding area. Approval would therefore be contrary to Policy 16(g)(i): Quality Homes of National Planning Framework 4, contrary to Policies 1A and 1B(c): Placemaking of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2, and contrary to the Perth and Kinross Supplementary Guidance 2020.
Page 7
DRAFT 2. The proposal, by virtue of the combination of the proposed garage’s siting, design, finishing materials, height, scale and massing would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Kinnoull Conservation Area. Approval would therefore be contrary to Section 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, which requires planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of conservation areas; contrary to Policy 7(d): Historic Assets and Places (Conservation Areas) of National Planning Framework 4; and contrary to Policy 28A: Conservation Areas of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2. 3. The proposal, by virtue of the unobstructed and elevated view from the top of the external stairs, would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring property to the east. Approval would therefore be contrary to Policy 16(g)(ii): Quality Homes of National Planning Framework 4; contrary to Policy 17: Residential Aeras of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2; and contrary to the Perth and Kinross Placemaking Supplementary Guidance 2020. Justification The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. Note The minority opinion of Councillor Watters was that although the proposal does not comply with the Development Plan, on the basis that the proposed building’s ridgeline fits in with the ridgeline of the neighbouring property and is no more imposing that any other building going up the hill, the review should be upheld and planning permission granted.