(b) Planning Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Reference Documents (Pages 319-390)
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(v)(b) LRB-2026-02 LRB-2026-02 Non-determination of 25/01159/FLL - Erection of a place of worship (Class 10), formation of car park and associated works, land 25 metres north of 59 King Street, Crieff, PH7 3HB Report of Handling Applicant’s Response to Report of Handling Reference Documents (part included in applicant’s submission, pages 303 and 305-313)
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
REPORT OF HANDLING DELEGATED REPORT Ref No 25/01159/FLL Ward No P6- Strathearn Due Determination Date 29th November 2025 Draft Report Date 13 January 2026 (as drafted before the appeal for non- determination and ready to issue) Report Issued by Andy Baxter Date 13 January 2026 PROPOSAL: Erection of place of worship (Class 10), formation of car park and associated works LOCATION: Land 25 Metres North Of 59 King Street, Crieff, PH7 3HB SUMMARY: This report recommends refusal of a detailed planning application for the erection of a place of workshop and associated works on the site of the former Strathearn Hotel in the centre of Crieff, as the development is considered to be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no material considerations apparent which justify setting aside the Development Plan. In addition to this, approval of this application would be explicitly contrary to the specific requirements of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) (Scotland) 1997, namely Sections 59(1) (Listed Buildings) and 64(1) (Conservation Areas). BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL This planning application seeks to obtain a detailed planning permission for a new place of worship on the site of the former Strathearn Hotel in Crieff. The site is a prominent area which is located within the centre of the town, and within Conservation Area on a corner of an important and culturally significant crossroads junction which is referred to in the Conservation Area Appraisal. At the cross roads, three listed buildings at located in close proximity to the site, all of which are bespoke for their location. The application site at present is vacant, with the former hotel being demolished due to health and safety reasons. The proposal is to erect a modern, single storey building on the site with associated parking provision for a place of worship. Some additional landscaping is proposed. The proposed roofing material are modern tiles on a shallowed pitched roof, with white render walls, incorporating some cement render features. Aluminium windows are
Page 4
proposed. The building has been sited away from the edges of the site, which are defined by existing pavements. SITE HISTORY The site has recently been subject to some planning control, with permission being granted for the demolition of the former building (21/00343/CON), and temporary landscaping works also approved at the same time (21/00399/FLL). Going further back, there was a 2007 permission (07/01340/FLL) that was approved in 2011 for a residential development, but in looking at the e-file and various correspondence that permission has now expired without commencing. PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION None undertaken. It is unusual for such a sensitive site to not have been subject to pre-application advice. If that had been sought, then the applicant would have received feedback that a scale and design of what has been proposed is unacceptable and a generic building, which has not been designed for this particular context will not be acceptable to the Council. DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Development Plan for the area comprises National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), 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 1: Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises Policy 2: Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policy 3: Biodiversity Policy 7: Historic Assets and Places Policy 9: Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings
Page 5
Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place Policy 27: City, Town, Local And Commercial Centres 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 an area identified as Town and Neighbourhood within the LDP2, where the following policies are applicable, Policy 1A: Placemaking Policy 1B: Placemaking Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions Policy 10: City, Town and Neighbourhood Centres Policy 27A: Listed Buildings Policy 28A: Conservation Areas: New Development Policy 32: Low and Zero Carbon Generating Technologies Policy 41: Biodiversity Policy 56: Noise Pollution Policy 55: Nuisance from Artificial Light and Light Pollution Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements Statutory Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPGs) Of relevance to this proposal are the following statutory SPGs, Developer Contributions & Affordable Housing 2023 Placemaking Guide 2020 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Relevant Legislation The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 is a material consideration. Section 59(1) of this Act places a duty on planning authorities in determining applications which affect the setting of a listed building to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, or on its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Section 64(1) requires planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the designated conservation area when considering applications.
Page 6
PKC Corporate Plan Vision and Priorities The proposed recommendation for approval raises no conflict with any of the Council’s priorities, and it aligns positively with the following specific priorities, Tackling climate change and supporting sustainable places Supporting and promoting physical and mental wellbeing National Planning Guidance The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through, Planning Advice Notes, Planning Guidance, Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and a series of Circulars. Of relevance to this application are, Planning Guidance Biodiversity 2025 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. Non-Statutory Planning Guidance The following non-statutory planning guidance is applicable to this proposal, Crieff Conservation Area Appraisal Planning for Nature Local Place Plans Local Place Plans are community-led plans setting out proposals for the development and use of land and set out a community’s aspirations for its future development. There are no local place plans which are relevant to this proposal. EXTERNAL CONSULTATION RESPONSES Scottish Water have commented on the proposal and raised no objections. INTERNAL COUNCIL COMMENTS Conservation advice has been offered, which raises an objection to the proposal on the basis that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the character and
Page 7
appearance of the Conservation Area, and that the proposal would adversely impact on the setting of the surrounding listed buildings. Structures And Flooding have commented on the proposal in terms of flooding and drainage matters and have no objections. Environmental Health have commented in terms of noise matters and have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. Transportation And Development have commented on the proposal and whilst they do not have an objection in principle to what is proposed, they have recommended that some further information and clarification on certain matters occurs before a final decision is made. Development Contributions Officer has commented on the proposal and has indicated that there is no requirement for any Developer Contributions. Community Greenspace were consulted on the proposal in terms of the impact on the right of way through the site but have opted not to make any specific comment. REPRESENTATIONS Six letters of representations had been received, four or which were supporting the proposal and two of which were objecting. In terms of the letters of support, these focus on the visual improvements that the development would deliver and the visual improvement the development would have from the status quo. In terms of the objections, the main issues raised within the two letters are concerns over the increase in traffic movements, impact on the visual amenity of the area and land compatibility issues. These issues are addressed in the main appraisal section below. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS RECEIVED Screening Opinion EIA Not Required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not applicable Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations AA Not Required Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Design statement and supporting statement. Report on Impact or Potential Impact Not Required
Page 8
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 the NPF4, the LDP2 and statutory SPG. In terms of other material considerations, this involves considerations of the Council’s other non-statutory policies and supplementary guidance, and these are discussed below only where relevant. In addition to these, compliance with the requirements of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 is a significant material consideration. Section 59(1) of this Act of the places a duty on planning authorities in determining such an application as this 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. Section 64(1) requires planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the designated conservation area. Policy Appraisal There are relevant policies contained in all parts of the Development Plan. In terms of the NPF4, Policies 1 (Tackling the Climate and Nature Crisis) and 2 (Climate Mitigation and Adaptation) look to ensure that the effect of climate change is fully considered as part of the assessment of all proposals. Policy 3 (Biodiversity) looks to ensure that all proposals provide a proportionate level of enhancement measures which are above and beyond simply mitigation and compensation. Policy 7 (Historic Assets and Places) looks to ensure that our cultural and historical assets are protected from inappropriate new developments, whilst Policy 9 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings) looks to try and regenerate and redevelopment land which has previously been development ahead of green field sites. Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) looks to ensure that all new developments are of a high design standard, whilst Policy 27 (City, Town, Local And Commercial Centres) offers support to maintain and revise our city and town centres. In terms of the LDP2, the site is located within the town centre area and within an area which has been identified as Town and Neighbourhood centre. The site is also within the Conservation Area and adjacent to a number of listed buildings. To this end, Policies 1 (Placemaking), 10 (City, Town and Neighbourhood Centres), 27 (Listed Buildings), 28: Conservation Areas), 32 (Zero and Low Carbon Generating Technologies), 41 (Biodiversity), 56 (Noise Pollution), 55 (Nuisance from Artificial Light and Light Pollution) and 60 (Transport Standards) – are all applicable.
Page 9
Policy 1 looks to ensure that all proposals do not adversely impact on the area concerned, whilst Policy 10 looks to protect and encourage improvements to our town centres, and areas outside of the core retail streets. Policy 27 looks to ensure that the settings of listed buildings is not adversely affected by new developments, whilst Policy 28 looks to ensure that all new developments within Conservation Areas either preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area concerned. This echoes the legislative requirements of the PLBCA. Policy 32 looks to ensure that new developments incorporate low and zero carbon generating technologies especially in relation to heating requirements. Policy 41 looks to ensure that both local and protected wildlife is fully considered as part of the assessment of applications. Policies 56 and 55 look to ensure that nuisance from noise and artificial light are controlled and mitigated to reduce any adverse impact on residential amenity, whilst Policy 60 look to ensure that all matters relating to road related matters comply with both the Council’s own standards and those of the NRDG. In terms of SPGs, the Council’s policies on Placemaking and Developer Contributions are applicable. Land Use Acceptability From a purely land use point of view, the principle of a place of worship within a town centre location does not necessarily raise any land use compatibility issues. However, the proposal has significant issues arising from its design, placement on the site and the resulting impact on existing historical assets and the general visual amenity of the area, Both the LDP and the NPF4 have various policies relating to town centres, and all of these are similar insofar as non-residential uses are generally encouraged (especially at ground level) to help generate footfall, and to help maintain and improve the vitality of the area. It is the case that following the demolition of the former Strathearn Hotel, the now vacant site is visually awkward, and the principle of a new development on what is essentially a brownfield site is acceptable and has specific policy support from Policy 9 of the NPF4. Nevertheless, any new development on this site needs to be one which does not detract from overall character and appearance of the area, or adversely impact the setting of the adjacent listed buildings – and is not a generic design, but one which is site specific. Ultimately, the principle of the proposed land use (a place of worship) is acceptable, but the details presented as to how it will be delivered, are not. Visual Amenity, Design and Layout The issues over visual amenity are linked to the important historic setting which the site finds itself in.
Page 10
The site is located within the Conservation Area and is adjacent to listed buildings, which means that the visual amenity impacts are directly related to how the development proposed would impact on these historical interests. A full assessment of this aspect is listed below, however ultimately due to the nature of the design, scale and positioning/placement of the building on the site, the proposal would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area by virtue of not being compatible with the existing historic character and appearance of the area. Notwithstanding the specific policy conflict from the cultural heritage issues, in general terms, the proposal therefore fails to accord with the principles of placemaking which are set out in Policy 1 of the LDP2. The various parts of Policy 1 make it clear that new development must be compatible and respective to the existing surroundings and environs by explicitly saying ‘Development must contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment’ in part 1A and Part 1B (c) ‘The design and density should complement its surroundings in terms of appearance, height, scale, massing, materials, finishes and colours’. Additional placemaking considerations are raised with the Council’s SPG on Placemaking, which is part of the Development Plan. The SPG has a specific section on gap / brownfield sites in an urban context (such as this site), and states on page 70 that ‘Any proposed development on a gap or brownfield site may only be permitted were, The proposal enriches and does not detract from the character and qualities of the existing built environment. The site size, form, density, architecture and the scope fits in with the character of the surrounding area. The SPG makes it clear that in in every case, regard should always be given to the local building context, character, density and site specific circumstances. What has been proposed here, is very generic and has not been designed to be site specific. The proposal does not meet these two specific criteria due to the design, scale and siting being inappropriate and not in keeping with the area, and therefore it ultimately fails to accord with the various Placemaking policies contained across the Development Plan. Conservation Considerations The location of the site is very historically sensitive. The site is located within the Crieff Conservation Area (CA), and is adjacent to three notable listed buildings. The former mid-19th century Strathearn Hotel was located on the site, until it was demolished under 21/00343/CON due to public safety concerns.
Page 11
At the moment, the site is vacant. The site sits on the south-west corner of a prominent crossroad junction of King and Commissioner Streets, with the other three corner sites containing listed buildings of some stature. Those buildings are the Category B listed three-storey Queen Anne building (1907) at 49-57 King Street, the Category B listed three-storey shop and tenement building at 60-62 King Street (1899), and the Category C listed three-storey corner shop and tenement building (1876) at 62-68 King Street. Individually they are important, but collectively they contribute positively to the existing character and appearance of the CA and reference to made to this in the conservation area appraisal. All the listed buildings on the remaining corners of the crossroads are three storeys, and are located immediately to the back of the public pavement. They all have prominent corner architectural elements, and corner entrances. All these buildings have been purposely designed to address the physical characteristics of this cross road junction site, and are distinctly designed for corner sites. Whilst it is regrettable that the former Strathearn Hotel could not have been saved as it was part of this distinct grouping, the existing buildings which remain do collectively still make the cross roads area one of the most attractive parts in the Conservation Area – even with the distinct corner vacant gap site which been created (the application site) following the demolition of the former hotel. As mentioned above, within the Crieff CA Appraisal, there are some mention of this particular crossroad in para 4.14 which says, ‘On the north-west corner of King Street and Commissioner Street is an Edwardian Free Style building of considerable interest with a domed corner turret and a round arched first floor window fronted by an Art Nouveau iron balcony. On the north-east street corner there is a Victorian shop front of exceptional merit. Whilst the consideration of the impact(s) on the setting of a listed building(s), and the impact on the character and appearance of a CA are different, and each have different polices references – there are obviously some comparable issues, and considerations to be made - but for the clarity, an assessment of both is outlined below. Impact on Conservation Area In terms of policy implications relating to the impact on the CA, Policy 7(d) of the NFP4 states that, Development proposals in or affecting conservation areas will only be supported where the character and appearance of the conservation area and its setting is preserved or enhanced. Relevant considerations include the, i. architectural and historic character of the area; ii. existing density, built form and layout; and iii. context and siting, quality of design and suitable materials.
Page 12
In terms of the LDP2, Policy 28B offers similar advice in terms of new development within CAs and states clearly that (new) development within a CA must preserve or enhance its character or appearance, with the design, materials, scale and siting of new development within a CA being appropriate and sympathetic to its appearance, character and setting. There is also a legislative requirement for the Council to consider the impact on character and appearance of the CA in the PLBCA, under Section 64(1). There is a lack of consideration of the surrounding context in terms of its setbacks, built form, layout, urban grain, massing, existing density, quality of design and materials, and the proposal has not been specifically designed for this sensitive (and important) site. It is a generic design which fails to reflect the architectural quality of the crossroads area, nor the character of the CA for reasons outlined below. Firstly, the proposed building does not reflect or have any meaningful relationship to the scale and design of the other corner plots. Its single storey design with a shallow pitched roof is simply not appropriate in this location. If approved (and then built), it would detract from the character and appearance of the CA, even bearing in mind the vacant nature of the site. On this site, a larger building which has a relationship to the other three corners is required, at least at the pavement frontages and was discussed with the applicant’s representatives during the course of the application. Secondly, the location of the building being positioned away from the boundaries of the site, and the associated pavements is in direct contrast to the other corners of the crossroad and ultimately does not reflect the building pattern of the area, and in particular the crossroads area. The set back positioning of the building will only emphasis the stark contrast between the diminutive scale of the development, and the existing buildings, which will make the proposal appear visually subordinate and incongruous when compared to neighbouring existing buildings. Any new building on this site should be located hard against the pavement(s) to respect the character of the area. The proposed finishes are totally unacceptable in the context of a CA. During the discussions with the applicant, a change in external finishes was discussed. Whilst perhaps addressable, it remains fact that the proposed materials which have been proposed are sub-standard and significantly fall short of the standards expected within a designated CA. If any approval was to be considered by the LRB, then it is vital that improvements to the pallet of finishes are made, and samples made available on site for inspection. As a minimum, slates and timber windows must be incorporated into the design – but improvements to finishes alone will not address the concerns over the scale and general design of the proposed building and is not a valid reason for supporting this proposal.
Page 13
In terms of the CA, approval would be contrary to the requirements of the PLBCA, and the proposal is contrary to the various CA policies of the Development Plan. Impact on Listed Building Setting As per the CA aspect, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the setting of the three listed buildings at the crossroads. Policy 27A of the LDP2 looks to protect the setting of listed buildings, and states that the layout, design, materials, scale, siting and use of any development which will affect a listed building or its setting should be appropriate to the building’s character, appearance and setting. Policy 7(c) of the NPF4 states that Development proposals affecting the setting of a listed building should preserve its character, and its special architectural or historic interest. The physical extents of the historic settings of a listed building can be subjective, and likewise so is the potential (or likely) impact that a new development may have on the affected building(s) to which the ‘setting’ relates. It is acknowledged that none of the existing corner buildings are A listed, but they are nevertheless very important listed buildings, and part of their collectively setting is the other corners of the crossroads junction. If an inappropriate development was to be advanced on the 4th (vacant) corner i.e. this site, then their collective setting would inevitable be devalued and adversely affected. The proposed building will not protect the special qualities associated with the setting of the listed buildings. It is a very generic form of development which fails to respect or respond to the distinctive character of this historic setting, and would appear visually discordant within context of the conservation area and would result in a detrimental impact on the streetscape, which is part of the setting of three listed buildings. Approval of this application would be contrary to the various LB policies of the Development Plan, and also the requirements of Section 59 of the PLBCA. For both CA and LB issues, the design and placement of the building on the site would neither preserve nor enhance the special qualities, character, or appearance of the Crieff CA and would not respect the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. Instead, the development would introduce a discordant element that undermines the established streetscape and the areas heritage value, and does not demonstrate any site-specific analysis nor compliance with established placemaking principles or CA/LB and is simply unacceptable in this location. Residential Amenity Within some of the representations, there has been concerns raised about the impact on residential amenity and those living within the area.
Page 14
The site is part of the town centre of Crieff and has been identified within the LDP2 as such. In town centres it is common (and encouraged) to have a mix of land uses, and it is not the case that only residential is acceptable. Other land uses can be acceptable providing that they are compatible with existing uses (which may include residential) and that sources of nuisance, such as noise, light can be controlled to acceptable levels. In this case, Environmental Health have commented on the proposal and are content that suitable conditions can be imposed which would be able to ensure that residential amenity is protected and maintained. In terms of potential vehicle traffic which this development may bring, the proposal is not ordinarily of the scale that would require a Transport Assessment or even a Transport Statement. The level of users would not be of an exceptional number and bearing in mind it is located within an area where the Council would encourage more footfall, the principle of increase movement of people would generally be encouraged by the Development Plan. It also needs to be remembered that there would be busier times, and it would not be a constant increase in traffic at all times. In all, the proposal from a residential amenity point of view does not raise any issues with compatibility with the various Development Plan policies. Roads and Access The Council’s Transport Planning team have reviewed the proposal and whilst they do not have an objection in principle to what is proposed, there are some matters which require further clarification such as the number of disabled parking spaces, provision for cycle storage, the details of the entrance gates and the associated visibility at the exit points. It is likely that all these issues can be resolved, however in the event of any approval being considered then further details should be submitted to address the matters referred to, or at least a suite of pre-commencement conditions attached to ensure that the proposal complies with both the Council’s standards and those of the NRDG. Drainage and Flooding The proposal raises no issues in terms of flooding matters. In terms of drainage, surface water from hard surfaces will be designed to ensure that water is not shed onto the surrounding roads or neighbouring land via suitable SUDS. In the event of any approval being forthcoming, then suitable conditions relating to surface water disposal should be attached to any permission. Subject to this, the proposal raises no issues in terms of the various drainage and surface water policies of the Development Plan.
Page 15
Public Access An issue remains outstanding with a right of way through the side, which requires to be retained. In the event of any approval being forthcoming, comments from the Council’s Public Access team should be requested. Climate Change In the event of any approval being forthcoming, a conditional requirement for a statement which demonstrates that at least 10% of the current carbon emissions reduction set by Scottish Building Standards will be met through the installation and operation of low and zero-carbon generating technologies should be attached to any permission. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity The site has been cleared of buildings, with some landscaping now in place. In light of this, the proposal would have limited impact on existing biodiversity interests and there would not be no impact on any trees. In the event of any approval being forthcoming, there would be an opportunity to provide some biodiversity enhancement measures across the site which could include bat and bird boxes, and also new trees and shrubs which are of species which are both native and biodiversity friendly. Subject to such conditions being imposed on any formal planning permission, the proposal raises no issues with the various biodiversity policies of the Development Plan. Developer Contributions Due to the nature of the development (non-residential), there is no requirement for any developer contributions in relation to either Primary Education or Affordable Housing. In terms of transport related contributions, as the site is located outwith the catchment areas for both sets of contributions. Economic Impact The proposal could have a positive impact on the local economy. VARIATION OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 32A Some potential revisions were discussed with the applicant, however these were not formally tabled as amendments to the initially submitted plans. The applicant’s agent has indicated that they wish the initially submitted plans to be ‘considered’ by the Council.
Page 16
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 and an approval recommendation (or decision) would be contrary to the requirements of the PLBCA. Account has been taken of the relevant material considerations and none has been found that would justify overriding the Development Plan. Accordingly, the proposal is refused on the grounds identified below. 1 By virtue of the generic design of the building, its finishes and its placement on the site, the proposal is not in keeping with the surrounding area and would result in an incongruous development which would adversely affect the character, and visual amenity of local area and would not contribute positively to the surrounding existing built environment. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy 1A (Placemaking) of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019), which requires (amongst other things) that all new developments contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment, and that the design and siting of development respects the character and amenity of the place concerned. 2 By virtue of the generic design of the building, its finishes and its placement on the site, the proposal is not in keeping with the surrounding area and would result in an incongruous development which would adversely affect the historic character and appearance of an important local area of the Crieff Conservation Area. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy 28A (New Development in Conservation Areas) of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and Policy 7(d) (Historic Assets) of the National Planning Framework 4 (2023). Both these policies state that new development does must preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, and the design, materials, scale and siting of new development within a Conservation Area should not impact upon the special qualities of the area, and should be appropriate and sympathetic to the appearance, character and setting of the Conservation Area. 3 By virtue of the generic design of the building, its finishes and its placement on the site, the proposal is not in keeping with the surrounding area and would result in an incongruous development which would adversely affect the historic
Page 17
setting(s) and character associated with three listed buildings. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy 27A (Listed Building) of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and Policy 7(c) (Historic Assets) of the National Planning Framework 4 (2023). Both these policies state that new development affecting the setting of a listed building should preserve its character, and its special architectural or historic interest. 4 No regard has given to the local building context, character, and site-specific circumstances in the design or placement of the proposed building, and the proposal does not respect the existing character and qualities of the local area. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Perth and Kinross Council’s Statutory Supplementary Planning Guidance on Placemaking (2020), which states (amongst other things) that any proposed development on a gap or brownfield site may only be permitted were the proposal enriches and does not detract from the character and qualities of the existing built environment, and the site size, form, density, architecture and the scope fits in with the character of the surrounding area. 5 By virtue of the generic design of the building, its finishes and its placement on the site, the proposal is not in keeping with the surrounding area and would result in an incongruous development which would adversely affect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and the historic setting(s) and character of adjacent listed buildings. Accordingly, approval of this planning application would be contrary to the requirements of Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) 1997, and in particular Sections 64(1) and 59(1). These sections require the Council as Planning Authority to ensure that all decisions they make a) pay special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, and b) shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the (listed) building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. An approval recommendation would not meet these requirements. Justification The application is recommended for refusal based on the following justification, a) The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan, and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. b) A recommendation of approval would mean the Council as Planning Authority is not complying with the specific requirements of Section 59(1) and Section 64(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) 1997.
Page 18
Informatives None, refusal recommendation. Procedural Notes Not Applicable. PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION 01-12 (inclusive)
Page 19
* * * * * * * *
Page 20
* * * * * * * *
Page 21
* * *
Page 22
No embedded text on this page.
Page 23
No embedded text on this page.
Page 24
No embedded text on this page.
Page 25
No embedded text on this page.
Page 26
No embedded text on this page.
Page 27
No embedded text on this page.
Page 28
No embedded text on this page.
Page 29
No embedded text on this page.
Page 30
No embedded text on this page.
Page 31
No embedded text on this page.
Page 32
No embedded text on this page.
Page 33
No embedded text on this page.
Page 34
No embedded text on this page.
Page 35
No embedded text on this page.
Page 36
No embedded text on this page.
Page 37
No embedded text on this page.
Page 38
No embedded text on this page.
Page 39
No embedded text on this page.
Page 40
No embedded text on this page.
Page 41
No embedded text on this page.
Page 42
No embedded text on this page.
Page 43
No embedded text on this page.
Page 44
No embedded text on this page.
Page 45
No embedded text on this page.
Page 46
No embedded text on this page.
Page 47
No embedded text on this page.
Page 48
No embedded text on this page.
Page 49
No embedded text on this page.
Page 50
No embedded text on this page.
Page 51
No embedded text on this page.
Page 52
No embedded text on this page.
Page 53
No embedded text on this page.
Page 54
No embedded text on this page.
Page 55
No embedded text on this page.
Page 56
No embedded text on this page.
Page 57
No embedded text on this page.
Page 58
No embedded text on this page.
Page 59
No embedded text on this page.
Page 60
No embedded text on this page.
Page 61
No embedded text on this page.
Page 62
No embedded text on this page.
Page 63
No embedded text on this page.
Page 64
No embedded text on this page.
Page 65
No embedded text on this page.
Page 66
No embedded text on this page.
Page 67
No embedded text on this page.
Page 68
No embedded text on this page.
Page 69
No embedded text on this page.
Page 70
No embedded text on this page.
Page 71
No embedded text on this page.
Page 72
No embedded text on this page.