(c) Representations (Pages 147-160)
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.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
4(ii)(c) LRB-2025-25 LRB-2025-25 24/01718/FLL - Erection of dwellinghouse, land 40 metres south east of Calzieveg, Braco, Dunblane, FK15 9RD Representations
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
M e m o r To Development Management & Building Standards Service Manager Your ref 24/01718/FLL Date 18 December 2024 Communities a n d u m From Regulatory Services Manager Our ref LJA Tel No 01738 475248 Pullar House, 35 Kinnoull Street, Perth PH1 5GD Consultation on an Application for Planning Permission 24/01718/FLL RE: Erection of dwellinghouse Land 40m South East of Calzieveg, Braco, FK15 9RD for Mr James O’ Mahoney and Mrs Samantha Magee I refer to your letter dated 11 December 2024 in connection with the above application and have the following comments to make. Environmental Health Recommendation I have no objection in principle to the application but recommend the under noted informative be included on any given consent. Comments The applicant is proposing to erect a dwellinghouse at land 40m south east of Calzieveg, Braco. The plans include the provision of an Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) externally sited on the north east elevation. Noise Whilst there is no supporting information supplied with the application stating the make and model of the ASHP to be installed, I would expect this to be domestic sized, which typically have a measured sound pressure level in the region of 45dB(A) – 60dB(A) at 1m dependant on the exact model installed. The World Health Organisation (WHO) issued guidance in 1999 in relation to noise, at which time it was recommended that the following sound levels should be maintained: Leq50- 55dB(A) in outdoor living areas, Leq35dB(A) in internal living areas and Leq30dB(A) in bedrooms. This guidance is consistent with BS8233:2014 which recommends the following sound level ranges: Leq30-40dB(A) in living areas and Leq30-35dB(A) in bedrooms. Given the distance attenuation to neighbouring properties these levels should be achievable for airborne noise allowing for 10-15dB reduction by a partially open window. The sound levels recommended in the guidance does not take into account the relative noise level at octave frequency bands. Fixed plant of this type can create noise which has characteristics that are not adequately quantified by means of a Leq limit.
Page 4
Therefore, whilst I have no objections to the application, I would recommend the following informative be attached to any given consent. Informative ASHP The Air Source Heat Pump shall be certificated in accordance with Microgeneration Certification Scheme 007 and installed by an installation company certificated in accordance with Microgeneration Installation Standard 3005 and in compliance with the calculation procedure contained in Table 2 of Microgeneration Certification Scheme Planning Standards (MCS 020), confirming that the permitted development noise limit of 42 dB LAeq, 5 mins will be met. In addition, the Air Source Heat Pump shall be so enclosed, attenuated and/or maintained such that any noise therefrom shall not exceed Noise Rating 35 between 0700 and 2300 hours daily, or Noise Rating 25 between 2300 and 0700 hours daily, within any neighbouring residential property, with all windows slightly open, when measured and/ or calculated and plotted on a rating curve chart.
Page 5
No embedded text on this page.
Page 6
No embedded text on this page.
Page 7
No embedded text on this page.
Page 8
M e m o r To Development Management & Building Standards Service Manager Your ref 24/01718/FLL Date 24/12/2024 Communities a n d u m From Regulatory Services Manager Our ref CHF Pullar House, 35 Kinnoull Street, Perth PH1 5GD Consultation on an Application for Planning Permission 24/01718/FLL RE: Erection of dwellinghouse at Land 40 Metres South East Of Calzieveg Braco Dunblane FK15 9RD for Mr James O'Mahoney And Mrs Samantha Magee I refer to your letter dated 12 December 2024 in connection with the above application and have the following comments to make. Contaminated Land Comments The proposed development appears to fall within a former sheepfold and agricultural structures. The supporting statement submitted with the application also identifies the site as a brownfield site for past agricultural use. Potentially there are a range of contaminants that could be present in agricultural land. This is particularly true of areas used as farmyards which may have contained a variety of buildings that have been put to a number of uses. Aside from the likely presence of made ground any number of chemicals could have been used and potentially leaked or been spilled. The risks associated with this remain difficult to quantify until there has been some form of sampling and chemical analysis of the soils contained within the development area. This will help determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development and whether any measures are needed to mitigate against any risks that have been identified. Therefore, if planning permission is granted in respect of this development I would recommend that the following condition is applied within the consent. Condition EH41 Prior to the commencement of works on site, an evaluation for the potential of the site to be affected by contamination by a previous use should be undertaken and as a minimum, a Preliminary Risk Assessment (Phase 1 Desk Study) will be submitted for consideration by the Council as Planning Authority. If after the preliminary risk assessment identifies the need for further assessment, an intrusive investigation should be undertaken to identify; I. the nature, extent and type(s) of contamination on the site II. measures to treat/remove contamination to ensure the site is fit for the use proposed III. measures to deal with contamination during construction works IV. condition of the site on completion of decontamination measures.
Page 9
Prior to the completion or bringing into use of any part of the development the agreed measures to decontaminate the site shall be fully implemented as approved by the Council as Planning Authority. Validation that the scheme has been fully implemented must also be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority.
Page 10
Comments to the Development Management & Building Standards Service Manager on a Planning Application Planning Application ref. 24/01718/FLL Comments provided by Lucy Alston Service/Section Place Strategies Contact Details Development Contributions Officer: Lucy Alston Email: DevelopmentContributions@pkc.gov.uk Description of Proposal Erection of dwellinghouse Address of site Land 40 Metres South East Of Calzieveg Braco Dunblane FK15 9RD Comments on the proposal NB: Should the planning application be successful and such permission not be implemented within the time scale allowed and the applicant subsequently requests to renew the original permission a reassessment may be carried out in relation to the Council’s policies and mitigation rates pertaining at the time. THE FOLLOWING REPORT, SHOULD THE APPLICATION BE SUCCESSFUL IN GAINING PLANNING APPROVAL, MAY FORM THE BASIS OF A SECTION 75 PLANNING AGREEMENT WHICH MUST BE AGREED AND SIGNED PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL ISSUING A PLANNING CONSENT NOTICE. Primary Education With reference to the above planning application the Council Developer Contributions Supplementary Guidance requires a financial contribution towards increased primary school capacity in areas where a primary school capacity constraint has been identified. A capacity constraint is defined as where a primary school is operating at over 80% and is likely to be operating following completion of the proposed development, extant planning permissions and Local Development Plan allocations, at or above 100% of total capacity. This proposal is within the catchment of Braco Primary School. Education & Children’s Services have no capacity concerns in this catchment area at this time. Recommended planning condition(s) Summary of Requirements Education: £0 Total: £0 Recommended informative(s) for applicant Date comments returned 03 January 2025
Page 11
Dr Douglas Robertson (Supports) Comment submitted date: Fri 07 Feb 2025 I am happy to support this planning application. Thre are three reasons for this. Firstly, as I have been made very aware by the local meetings to examine the proposed SSEN sub-station and related battery farm developments this local community has a very aged profile. I am one of the youngest attending <REDACTED> So creating a housing oppertunity for young people and their family is very important. Secondly, as we all age it becomes more of a challenge to manage our property. This is much harder where livestock is involved so having that support to hand is critical. Thirdly, its also good to see housing return to this farm, given there was a cottage here years back. That said, it is sad that next door in the adjacent farm the farm house lies empty and decaying. New life in this place is thus most welcome.
Page 12
Comments to the Development Quality Manager on a Planning Application Planning Application ref. 24/01718/FLL Comments provided by Katrina Walker Service/Section Development Plans Contact Details Planning Officer Description of Proposal Erection of dwellinghouse Address of site Land 40 Metres South East Of Calzieveg, Braco Comments on the proposal Comments have been requested on Housing in the Countryside Policy including NPF Policy 17: Rural Homes. The revised labour justification report and a supporting planning statement submitted in July have been taken into account in preparing the comments below. NPF Policy 17 a)v. supports new homes in rural areas where demonstrated necessary to support the sustainable management of a viable rural business. LDP2 Policy 19 and associated supplementary guidance also supports new houses to support existing businesses. Although the NPF is the more recent policy it is considered that this section of the LDP2 HiC policy is compatible and provides additional detail. A previous application for a house on a different site but still associated with the same business was refused and dismissed by LRB in 2016. At that time the main enterprise on the farm was an equine breeding unit with hay production for home use and sheep which came into the farm on a grazing contract. In the decision notice the LRB concluded that the development failed to satisfy the test in that the need for a key worker had not been established. The revised Agricultural Labour Requirements Report states that the business is being handed over to the current applicants who intend to develop a mixed farming enterprise over the next 10 years. Both the applicants have jobs outwith the farm but have extensive farming experience. In the short-term both applicants intend continuing with their current employment. The Report states that the business currently runs an equine sports horse business, breeding high value brood mares. The Supporting Statement states that, in addition to the equine breeding business, a livery yard has also been established over the last 3 years. There is currently a sheep flock of seasonal graziers, and the applicants intend introducing a breeding flock working towards 250 breeding ewes over the next 3 years. In addition, there are plans for 20 store cattle which will be on the farm 50% of the year, and 45 store lambs which will be on the farm 60% of the year. Reference is made in the Statement to NPF Policy 17 which allows for the principle of succession on a farm. The applicants wish to invest in the business and build a property which will allow them to live on site with their
Page 13
young family. This will allow for succession of the farm without the current owner having to vacate her long-term home. LDP2 SG clarifies that evidence to support a new house for a farm worker on economic activity grounds should be in the form of a business appraisal based on the labour hours for the existing farming operation. It must be demonstrated that a new house is essential to the continued operation of the farm for animal welfare reasons. The revised total labour units required is stated as 3.21 which takes into account the differing standard man year equivalents for agriculture (1900) and equestrian (2400). This includes 175 hours p/a on crops and grassland, in excess of 5,500 p/a on the equine business, and around 1,500 p/a on livestock. It should be noted that the hours spent on crops and grassland would not count towards the overall labour requirement, not being for animal welfare purposes. Although there is a current grazing flock no labour hours appear to have been apportioned to this – the livestock hours relate to proposed livestock rather than existing. Given that there appears to be no existing labour hours spent on livestock I cannot conclude that an additional house is justified based on the labour hours for the existing farming operation. Even if all the proposed livestock were in place this would only equate to 0.8 of a labour unit. This leaves 5,587 hours p/a on the equine business currently consisting of 3 eventers, 1 dressage, 1 children’s pony, 4 youngstock, and 4 retired horses. The requirement for the existing equine business is stated as 2.33 labour units. This has been calculated with industry accepted standards which account for the time required to manage a sports horse breeding programme. There is scope within the NPF and LDP2 SG for a new house to support a non-farming business where it is ‘demonstrated to be necessary to support the sustainable management of a viable rural business or croft, and there is an essential need for a worker….to live permanently at or near their place of work’ ((NPF policy 17a)v). Whilst the NPF allows under criterion v. inclusion of those taking a majority control, this is in relation to a farm business. Similarly, criterion vi. allows for a single home for the retirement succession of a viable farm holding. Given that planning permission is required for the change of use of land from agricultural to equestrian, I consider it reasonable to assume that if such a change of use has been made, or is required, then it is not a farm holding. I do not therefore consider either of these instances can be taken into account in the assessment of this proposal. There is clearly a need for someone to live on-site for animal welfare reasons, and there is already a property associated with the business on-site occupied by the current business owner which fulfils this requirement. The question is whether there is an essential need for an additional worker or workers to also live on-site.
Page 14
The existing business is not agricultural and whilst there are crops and grassland associated with the business there is no indication of how much of this is required for the horses and how much will be for the future livestock. There is no provision for succession within the NPF for non-farming businesses. Both the applicants have existing unrelated full-time jobs which they intend to continue at least in the short term and ultimately there is no absolute guarantee that the business will expand into farming-related activities in the future. Whilst I acknowledge the conclusion of the labour justification report that there is a requirement for 2.33 labour units associated with the existing equine business, I am not of the view that this translates to an essential need for an additional worker to live on-site. Recommended planning condition(s) None Recommended informative(s) for applicant None Date comments returned 16/7/25