Minute of meeting of 2 March 2026
Perth and Kinross Council · 30 March 2026
Back to Local Review Body — 30 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 2 March 2026 at 1.00pm. Present: Councillor B Brawn, Councillor K Allan (excluding Items 4(ii) and 4(iii)), Councillor D Cuthbert (for Items 4(ii) and 4(iii) only) and Councillor D Illingworth. In Attendance: L Tierney (Planning Adviser); Colin Elliott (Legal Adviser); and A Brown (Democratic Support Officer) (all Legal and Governance). Also Attending: M Pasternak (Legal and Governance) and C McLaren (Economy, Development and Planning). Councillor B Brawn, Convener, Presiding 1. Welcome Councillor Brawn welcomed all present to the meeting. 2. Declarations of Interest In terms of the Councillors Code of Conduct, Councillor Allan declared a non- financial interest in Items 4(ii) and 4(iii) on the agenda. 3. Minutes The minute of meeting of the Local Review Body of 26 January 2026 was submitted and noted. (Members unanimously agreed to vary the order of the agenda to hear Items 4(ii) and 4(iii) next.) (Councillor Cuthbert joined the meeting and Councillor Allan left the meeting at this point.) 4. Applications For Review (ii) LRB-2025-25 24/01718/FLL - Erection of dwellinghouse, land 40 metres south east of Calzieveg, Braco, Dunblane, FK15 9RD - Mr and Mrs O'Mahoney Magee Members considered a Notice of Review seeking a review of the decision by the Appointed Officer to refuse the erection of dwellinghouse, land 40 metres south east of Calzieveg, Braco, Dunblane, FK15 9RD. 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. 3
Page 2
DRAFT 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) the review application for the erection of a dwellinghouse on land 40 metres south east of Calzieveg, Braco, Dunblane, FK15 9RD, should be granted, subject to the imposition of relevant terms, conditions and informatives, including possible conditions for a contaminated land assessment and foul and surface water drainage. Justification The proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan. (iii) LRB-2025-26 25/00810/FLL - Extension to dwellinghouse, 2 Mid Lane, Braco, Dunblane, FK15 9QR - Mr N Todd Members considered a Notice of Review seeking a review of the decision by the Appointed Officer to refuse an extension to dwellinghouse, 2 Mid Lane, Braco, Dunblane, FK15 9QR. 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) the review application for an extension to dwellinghouse at 2 Mid Lane, Braco, Dunblane, FK15 9QR, should be granted, subject to the imposition of relevant terms, conditions and informatives. Justification The proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan. Note The minority opinion of Councillor Brawn was that the application should be refused as size and massing of the extension was excessive for the size of the house. (Councillor Allan rejoined the meeting and Councillor Cuthbert left the meeting at this point.)
Page 3
DRAFT (i) LRB-2025-24 25/01024/FLL - Change of use of flat to short-term let accommodation unit, 6a Priory Place, Perth, PH2 0DT - Mr L Deans Members considered a Notice of Review seeking a review of the decision by the Appointed Officer to refuse a change of use of flat to short-term let accommodation unit, 6a Priory Place, Perth, PH2 0DT. 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) the review application for a change of use of flat to short-term let accommodation unit, 6a Priory Place, Perth, PH2 0DT, be refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change of use is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policy 30 e) i) (Tourism) as the proposal will result in an unacceptable impact on local amenity and character of the area. Use as a short term let would be an intensification of use in a 4-in-1 block property with only one parking space within a shared access, and all with neighbouring residential properties immediately close by. The proposal will also result in the loss of a 2-bedroom flat to short term let accommodation in an established residential area close to the city centre. The contribution to the local economy from one property in use as a short term let would be limited. The loss of a 2-bedroom residential flat is not outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits. The proposal therefore also does not comply with National Planning Framework 4 Policy 30 e) ii). 2. The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policy 14 c) (Design, Quality and Place) and Local Development Plan 2 Policy 1A (Placemaking) and Policy 17 (Residential Areas) and the Council’s non-statutory Planning Guidance on Short Term Lets as the short term let accommodation would adversely impact on the amenity of residents and the short term let use is not compatible with the amenity and character of the established surrounding residential area. Use as a short term let would be an intensification of use in a 4-in-1 block property with only one parking space within a shared access, and all with neighbouring residential properties immediately close by.
Page 4
DRAFT 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 Illingworth was that due to the busy nature of the street the short term let would not cause a substantial reduction in residential amenity and the application should therefore be approved. (iv) LRB-2025-27 25/01069/FLL - Alterations, installation of replacement windows and doors, installation of air source heat pump and solar panels, formation of entrance porch, 2 The Cross, Meikleour, Perth, PH2 6DZ - Ms S Rasmussen Members considered a Notice of Review seeking a review of the decision by the Appointed Officer to refuse alternations, installation of replacement windows and doors, installation of air source heat pump and solar panels, formation of entrance porch at 2 The Cross, Meikleour, Perth, PH2 6DZ. 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 alternations, installation of replacement windows and doors, installation of air source heat pump and solar panels, formation of entrance porch at 2 The Cross, Meikleour, Perth, PH2 6DZ, be refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposed replacement windows, by virtue of their opening method, glazing layout, applied astragals, frame material and triple glazing; the proposed solar panels, by virtue of their visually prominent siting, modern design and materials, and total surface area; and the proposed porch, by virtue of its roof sitting above the existing eaves and the extent of the original external stonework that would be covered, would have a detrimental impact on the character and special interest of the Category C listed building. Approval would therefore be contrary to Section 59 of Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Aeras)(Scotland) Act 1997, which required planning authorities to have special regard to the desirability of
Page 5
DRAFT preserving the listed building, its setting, and any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; contrary to Policy 7(c): Historic Assets and Places (Listed Buildings) of National Planning Framework 4; and contrary to Policy 27A: Listed Buildings of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2. 2. The proposed replacement windows, by virtue of their opening method, glazing layout, applied astragals, frame material and triple glazing; and the proposed solar panels, by virtue of their visual prominent siting, modern design and materials, and total surface area, would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Meikleour Conservation Area. Approval would therefore by 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 conservations 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 proposed replacement windows, by virtue of their opening method, glazing layout, applied astragals, frame material and triple glazing; the proposed solar panels, by virtue of their visually prominent siting, modern design and materials, and total surface area’ and the proposed porch, by virtue of its roof siting above the existing eaves and the extent of the original external stonework that would be covered, 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 Placemaking Supplementary Guidance 2020. 4. The proposal, by virtue of the detrimental impacts of the solar panels on the character and special interest of the Category C listed building, on the character and appearance of the Meikleour Conservation Area, and on the character and environmental quality of the application property and the surrounding area, would result in the installation of a source of renewable energy that would have unacceptable impacts on the historic environment and on visual amenity. Approval would therefore be contrary to Policy 11(e): Energy of National Planning Framework 4, and contrary to Policy 33A: New Proposals for Renewable and
Page 6
DRAFT Low-Carbon Energy of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2. 5. The application, due to the lack of a bat survey, fails to demonstrate that bats will not be affected by the proposal. Approval would therefore be contrary to Policy 4(f): Natural Places (Protected Species) of National Planning Framework 4 and contrary to Policy 41: Biodiversity of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2. Justification The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. At this point, Convenor referred to abusive and unnecessary comments against officers being submitted with the above review application. Those comments are unacceptable and should not be seen again in any application. Convenor asked that this be looked into further. (v) 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 - WT Britain Members considered a Notice of Review seeking a review of the non- determination of 25/01159/FLL for the 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. 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) the review application for the 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, be refused for the following reasons: 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
Page 7
DRAFT environment. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy 1A (Placemaking) of the 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 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 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 been 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.
Page 8
DRAFT 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 proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan.