(a) Notice of Review and supporting documents (Pages 175-228)
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.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
4(iii)(a) LRB-2025-30 LRB-2025-30 25/00584/FLL - Erection of fence (in retrospect), Achomer, Commercial Lane, Comrie, Crieff, PH6 2DP Papers Submitted by the Applicant
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
Page 1 of 5 Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street Perth PH1 5GD Tel: 01738 475300 Email: onlineapps@pkc.gov.uk Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid. Thank you for completing this application form: ONLINE REFERENCE 100731544-001 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Agent Details Please enter Agent details Company/Organisation: Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * First Name: * Building Name: Last Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Telephone Number: * (Street): * Extension Number: Address 2: Mobile Number: Town/City: * Fax Number: Country: * Postcode: * Email Address: * Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? * Individual Organisation/Corporate entity JJF Planning Joe Fitzpatrick Aytoun Crescent 35 07974426615 KY3 9HS United Kingdom Burntisland joe.fitzpatrick390@gmail.com
Page 4
Page 2 of 5 Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Mr Burton Perth and Kinross Council Millar Achomer, Commercial Lane, Comrie, Crieff PH6 2DP 721998 277421 joe.fitzpatrick390@gmail.com
Page 5
Page 3 of 5 Description of Proposal Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters) Type of Application What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? * Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions. What does your review relate to? * Refusal Notice. Grant of permission with Conditions imposed. No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal. Statement of reasons for seeking review You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters) Note: you are unlikely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account. You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes No Determination on your application was made? * If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters) Erection of fence (in retrospect) Achomer Commercial Lane Comrie Crieff PH6 2DP Please see submitted Notice of Review Statement
Page 6
Page 4 of 5 Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters) Application Details Please provide the application reference no. given to you by your planning authority for your previous application. What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * Review Procedure The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case. Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. * Yes No In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion: Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? * Yes No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? * Yes No Checklist – Application for Notice of Review Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid. Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. * Yes No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this Yes No review? * If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name Yes No N/A and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the review should be sent to you or the applicant? * Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what Yes No procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? * Note: You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. You may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on Yes No (e.g. plans and Drawings) which are now the subject of this review * Note: Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice (if any) from the earlier consent. DOCUMENT 1: Planning Application Form. DOCUMENT 2: Decision Notice DOCUMENT 3: Delegated Report of Handling DOCUMENT 4: Perth & Kinross Council Conservation Officer relating to 25/00584/FLL. DOCUMENT 5: Consultation response from Perth & Kinross Council Conservation Officer relating to St Kessogs Sq. DOCUMENT 6: Delegated Report of Handling - 19/00685/FLL Also, the plans etc submitted with the application have been included. 25/00584/FLL 04/08/2025 23/04/2025
Page 7
Page 5 of 5 Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mr Joe Fitzpatrick Declaration Date: 31/10/2025 Payment Details Pay Direct Created: 31/10/2025 15:11
Page 8
JJF Planning Joe.fitzpatrick390@gmail.com 07974426615 01592874360 NOTICE OF REVIEW Application for Planning Permission 25/00584/FULL – Erection of fence (in retrospect) At Achomer Commercial Lane Comrie Creiff PH6 2DP 28th October 2025 ________________________________________________________________________________________ 35 AYTOUN CRESCENT BURNTISLAND FIFE KY3 9HS
Page 9
INTRODUCTION I act on behalf of Mr and Mrs Millar of Achomer Commercial Lane Comrie (the applicant), in submitting this Notice of Review relating to Application for Planning Permission 25/00584/FUL – Erection of Fence (In Retrospect). A copy of the planning application form is included with this submission as Document 1. On 4th August 2025 the application was refused by Perth & Kinross Planning & Development Department acting under delegated powers granted by Perth & Kinross Council. The Decision Notice issued on 4th August 2025 is included with this submission as Document 2. The Decision Notice stated the following reasons for refusal: 1. The proposal, by virtue of its design, height and siting, has 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 & Kinross Placemaking Supplementary Guidance 2020. 2. The proposal, by virtue of its design, height and siting, is detrimental to the character and appearance of the Comrie 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. 2 3. The proposal, by virtue of its design, height and siting, restricts the view of road users and is detrimental to road safety. Approval would therefore be contrary to Policy 60B: Transport Standards - New Development Proposals of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2. The assessment carried out by Planning & Development in seeking to justify the above reason for refusal is set out within the Officers Report of Handling (RoH), a copy of which is included as Document 3 under this submission. Under the terms of the RoH, it will be noted that the above reasons for refusal based on the effect on the character and appearance of the Comrie Conservation Area and road safety have been offered by the Planning & Development Department without advice being obtained or any objection being raised by the Councils appointed officers in these matters, the Conservation Officer and Transportation Services respectively. TERMS OF ASSESSMENT Under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (As Amended) (the Act), Perth & Kinross Council, as planning authority, are required to reach a decision on an application for planning permission in accordance with the terms of Section 25 of the Act which states: Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination is, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, to be made in accordance with that plan. __________________________________________________________________________________________ 35 AYTOUN CRESCENT BURNTISLAND FIFE KY3 9HS
Page 10
In addition, Section 37(2) of the Act States: In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations. In relation to an assessment under Section 25 of the Act the development plan relating to the application site comprises the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Perth & Kinross Local Development Plan 2. The policies set out within the RoH are agreed as the relevant development plan considerations against which the application should be assessed. However, it is considered that the Case Officers interpretation of these policies fails to take account of wider material issues. Crucially in relation to this Notice of Review, Section 25 of the Act also provides for other material considerations to be taken into account when reaching a determination of this application. In this regard, it is considered that the Council’s interpretation of development plan policy has failed to take into account the immediate context of the Conservation Area at the site and the wider development history within Comrie whereby other fences of a similar design, at higher profile locations, have been deemed acceptable by the Council in terms of the effect on the character and appearance of the Comrie Conservation Area. GROUNDS FOR APPROVAL Although the retrospective nature of this application is not a material consideration under Section 25 of the Act, it is nevertheless considered appropriate to offer comment on the circumstances which led to the works being undertaken without planning permission. In this regard, Mr & Mrs Millar acted in good faith based on a misinterpretation of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 in which it had not been appreciated that the location within the Conservation Area effectively removed the permitted development rights that would apply elsewhere. The erection of the fence without planning permission was in no way intended to circumvent the planning process. Had Mr and Mrs Millar been aware then an application would have been submitted prior to erection of the fence. On becoming aware that planning permission was required, Mr & Mrs Millar cooperated fully with the Council. In this regard they were invited by the Council’s Planning Enforcement Officer dealing with the case at that time to submit an application for planning permission and fully complied with this request. The first two reasons for refusal focus on design and the visual impact of the fence in general terms with regard to the application property and surrounding area as well as in more specific terms relating to the effect on the character and appearance of the Comrie Conservation Area. In considering this matter it is crucial to note that the interpretation of Development Plan policy relating to design is a highly subjective process. A development design which is considered acceptable to one person may be considered wholly unacceptable to another person. Therefore, in seeking to apply a degree of objectivity to the design assessment process, it is considered expedient to assess proposals within the wider context within which they are set. In relation to the first reason for refusal, this focuses on the visual impact of the fence on the property and surrounding area in general terms without reference to the more specific considerations relating to the Comrie Conservation Area under the second reason for refusal. In this regard, it will be noted that the fence is of a standard design and is fabricated in timber, an approach which is widely accepted/ __________________________________________________________________________________________ 35 AYTOUN CRESCENT BURNTISLAND FIFE KY3 9HS
Page 11
as an appropriate means of enclosure for a private garden area, including many examples within the Comrie Conservation Area, a number of which occupy much more prominent sites, as detailed in the photographs below. These fences, and many more within the Conservation Area, have been accepted by the Council at the time they were originally erected on the basis that weathering of the bright unseasoned timber will occur over time. As can been seen, such weathering has occurred and the fencing has been deemed by the Council to be consistent with preserving the character and environment of the properties involved, as well as their surroundings. In view of this it is considered that the first reason for refusal is unsupported. Turning to the second reason for refusal, which focuses on the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the Comrie Conservation Area. It is widely recognised within the built heritage conservation fraternity that within any designated conservation area there are zones of higher quality which form the primary reason for designation and areas which are of no particular heritage value. The latter not meriting conservation area status in their own right but which have simply been included by virtue of geographical expedience. When assessing the impact of a particular proposal on the overall character and appearance of the conservation area it is crucial to have an understanding of this variation in quality. A development which would be wholly unacceptable in a high quality zone of a conservation area, a zone which provided the justification for the designation, may nevertheless be completely acceptable in an area within the same conservation area which has no particular merit and which does not provide any justification for the overall designation. __________________________________________________________________________________________ 35 AYTOUN CRESCENT BURNTISLAND FIFE KY3 9HS Figure 1: South Corner of Queen Street Figure 2: North Corner of Queen Street Figure 3: Glenbuckie Drummond Street
Page 12
In this regard, the application site is located in a portion of the conservation area characterised by relatively modern residential development which lacks any significant heritage preservation value. Within this immediate context the relative visual impact of the fence on the overall character and appearance of the conservation area is considered to be insignificant. With regard to the assessment process relating to the effect of the fence on the character and appearance of the conservation area, it is noted that comments from the Perth & Kinross Council Conservation Officer, (Document 4) state: The case officer will assess the proposal and its impacts on the character and appearance of the Comrie Conservation Area. No explanation has been given regarding the reason why assessment of the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the Comrie Conservation Area has been deferred to the Case Officer alone when it is the Conservation Officer who holds the expertise and is specifically appointed by the Council to offer such comment. It is considered that this unusual approach lacks the necessary checks and balances to ensure that the most objective level of assessment is achieved in what is an otherwise inherently subjective process. In this regard, there are a number of examples where timber fencing of a similar design, at much more prominent locations within the Conservation Area, have been approved. Of particular note is the approval of planning permission 18/00804/FLL for the redevelopment of St Kessogs Square, an extremely high profile public location within the Comrie Conservation Area. St Kessogs Square is located immediately opposite Commercial Lane. _________________________________________________________________________________________ 35 AYTOUN CRESCENT BURNTISLAND FIFE KY3 9HS Figure 4: Fencing approved at St Kessogs Square – immediately adjacent to Commercial Lane.
Page 13
It will be noted from the photographs that the proposals include the erection of timber fencing along the northern and western boundary of the site which is of a similar design and height but much more extensive scale to that erected at Commercial Lane. Document 5 sets out the Conservation Officers comments in relation to the proposals. Specifically, the response states: The proposed site is centrally located in the Comrie Conservation Area, with listed buildings on either side (Ballacraine and Assynt), and directly opposite on Drummond Street. I am content that the proposed works protect the setting of the adjacent listed buildings and the wider conservation area. The inconsistency in the interpretation of Development Plan Policy relating to the effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area between the fencing at Commercial Lane and that at Kessogs Square is all the more striking given that the fence at St Kessogs Square is much more prominent within the Conservation Area than the fence at Commercial Lane. Although the fence at St Kessogs Square has now weathered, thereby reducing it’s visual prominence, when initially erected by the Council in 2019 it was of a similarly bright unseasoned finish to the fence at Commercial Lane. As previously commented, the weathering process will similarly reduce the prominence of the fence at Commercial Lane. As a further example, the redevelopment of the property at Combruith on Field of Refuge, a very high profile location within the Conservation Area, includes the erection timber fencing which is of a similar design and height but which is again, of a much more extensive scale to that at Commercial Lane, as detailed in the photographs below. The fencing was approved under planning permission 19/00685/FLL with the Report of Handling (Document 6) advising that there were no issues in terms off the effect on the character and appearance of the Comrie Conservation Area. __________________________________________________________________________________________ 35 AYTOUN CRESCENT BURNTISLAND FIFE KY3 9HS Figure 5: Fencing approved at Combruith
Page 14
As is the case with the fencing at St Kessogs Sq, the visual impact of the fencing has been tempered by weathering compared to the very bright unseasoned appearance it had when first erected. This balanced and reasonable basis for assessment reflects the pragmatic approach taken by the Council throughout the conservation area. This weathering effect is further demonstrated at a variety of sites within the vicinity, as detailed in the photographs below. It will be noted that the fencing on Ancaster Lane in particular is just round the corner from Commercial Lane, within the same portion of the conservation area. Again, the fencing at Commercial Lane will similarly diminish in prominence once weathered. __________________________________________________________________________________________ 35 AYTOUN CRESCENT BURNTISLAND FIFE KY3 9HS Figure 6: Sites on Ancaster Lane Figure 7: Site Off Burrell Street Opposite The Parish Church Figure 8: Site Opposite Farnock Dalginross
Page 15
All the above sites are considered to display fencing on equally, if not more, prominent sites than the fence at Commercial Lane but which are clearly not considered by the Council to be detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area. However, more immediate mitigation of the visual impact of a newly erected fence can be achieved through painting. This photograph demonstrates how a relatively new fence on Ancaster Lane has been absorbed visually through sensitive painting. As with other fencing on Ancaster Lane, this newly erected fence is just round the corner from Commercial Lane, and located within the exact same portion of the Comrie Conservation Area. Mr & Mrs Millar are more than happy to paint the fence at Commercial Lane whatever colour the Council wishes, if this is seen by the Review Body as a solution which can also be applied to their private garden area. Turning to the third reason for refusal relating to road safety matters, it has previously been noted that this reason for refusal has been offered without any comment from the Councils experts in road safety maters, Transportation Services. However, given that the road in question is a private road, it is anticipated that this is the reason for not consulting Transportation Services. Therefore, as an objective means of bridging the gap in professional advice, can I invite the Review Body to undertake a test of the road safety issues raised by Planning & Development and negotiate this corner themselves in a vehicle. The photograph below should dispel any apprehension over personal safety in doing so. The photos display a private road with a corner which at the speed dictated by the geometry of the road has ample forward visibility. As such, this corner can easily be negotiated by a sensible driver exercising due caution without any road safety danger to other vehicles and pedestrians. In addition, the previously open aspect at the corner encouraged drivers to negotiate it at higher speeds. The erection of the fence should be welcomed by the Council as a traffic calming measure encouraging speed moderation. __________________________________________________________________________________________ 35 AYTOUN CRESCENT BURNTISLAND FIFE KY3 9HS Figure 9: Fence recently erected at Ancaster Lane - the Lane immediately next to Commercial Lane. Figure 10: The corner at Commercial Lane
Page 16
Comments On The Report of Handling (RoH). Turning to the RoH itself, the primary concern in relation to the Comrie Conservation Area Appraisal relates to the preservation of the view from Drummond Street toward the River Earn. In this regard the RoH comments: In addition, the Comrie Conservation Area Appraisal notes that Commercial Lane provides a key view from Drummond Street to the River Earn. The recently erected fence is visible from Drummond Street and encroaches into the key view of the river, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Comrie Conservation Area. The photographs below display the extent to which the fence affects the key view. From the north side of Drummond Street the fence is barely visible behind the telegraph pole. Although more of the fence is visible when viewed from the south side of Drummond Street, to reach a conclusion that the only option open to the Council is to refuse the application is considered unreasonable at best. Even without taking into account the effects of weathering or painting, the fence can hardly be considered of such detriment to the character and appearance of the conservation area that the only option is refusal. With weathering or painting the fence will become even less apparent than it currently is. Why has the Council not considered this? As demonstrated above, the Council has clearly taken such effects into account in relation to other fencing in the conservation area. All Mr & Mrs Millar are asking for is fair and equal treatment. _________________________________________________________________________________________ 35 AYTOUN CRESCENT BURNTISLAND FIFE KY3 9HS Figure 1 2: Figure 11: View down Commercial Lane from North side of Drummond Street Figure12: View down Commercial Lane from South side of Drummond Street
Page 17
Comments On The Representations. Five objections have been submitted. A key issues raised relates to the Comrie Conservation Area Appraisal and it reference to the view down Commercial Lane from Drummond Street towards the River Earn. In this regard the objections repeat the issue raised in the RoH relating to the adverse effect of the fence in preserving this view. However, as detailed in the section above, the fence is barely visible and with weathering or painting, will become completely indistinguishable from the telegraph pole and surrounding visual context it sits within. An objection has been raised on the basis of the precedent that will be set. However, as demonstrated in this statement, the Council has already set a strong precedent based on a pragmatic and reasonable approach whereby timber fencing can be accepted within the conservation area, and at much higher profile locations than this, while also preserving the character and appearance of the conservation area. Therefore, if precedent is to be considered a factor in this matter, it is very much the case that it favours approval. It is regrettable that one objection questions the motives of Mr & Mrs Millar in erecting the fence for security and privacy purposes. It has to be stressed that security and privacy concerns are a very real issue for a young family, especially so given the location of the private garden away from the associated dwellinghouse. Also, contrary to the comments offered, the garden area is entirely secure. Although the lower section of fence along the south boundary does enable some views back into the garden area, vehicles parking in front of this lower section of fence serve to ensure privacy is maintained without making the small garden space oppressive. The fence as erected serves to achieve a very high degree of privacy compared to the previous completely open aspect, with the lower section of fence to the south boundary serving to preserve an open view towards the River Earn. Another issue raised relates to loss of open space. In response, it has to be stressed that although this area has previously been open to view, it is not open space. This misconception is considered to be at the root of concern whereby it is felt that the area belongs to the public domain. However, this is a private garden area. Mr & Mrs Millar are simply seeking to ensure that what is their private garden area is just that, private, in exactly the same way as the various objectors would wish to maintain their own private garden areas. A further objection refers to the fencing being contrary to development plan policy. This Notice of Review Statement is considered to fully demonstrate that the narrow interpretation of Development Plan policy applied by Planning & Development is flawed when considered within the wider context of the conservation area. In this regard, the fencing is entirely consistent with Development Plan policy when this more robust and reasonable basis of assessment is adopted. Comment is also offered within an objection that the fence is out of character with the area. This basis for objection is completely dispelled given the plethora of similar fencing in very close proximity, let alone within the wider conservation area, as demonstrated by the photographs in this statement. Space does not permit within this statement to set out all the examples of similar fencing across the Comrie Conservation Area which the Council has accepted as being consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the conservation area. Excessive height is also raised as an objection. However, the fence is of a standard height and is entirely consistent with the height of fence normally erected around a private garden area. As a further consideration, contact with the initial Council Officer dealing with the case indicated that the main concern from the person raising a complaint was with regard to their loss of view. However, as the Local Review Body will be aware, loss of view is a non-material consideration. _________________________________________________________________________________________ 35 AYTOUN CRESCENT BURNTISLAND FIFE KY3 9HS
Page 18
Finally, concern is also raised over road safety. This matter has already been addressed above within the main statement. To reiterate the points raised, the geometry of this corner dictates that any sensible motorist will moderate their speed to a level commensurate with the available forward visibility. As such, the fence serves to improve safety by encouraging motorists to exercise caution which they previously would not have applied when the corner was more open. COMMENTS FROM MR AND MRS MILLAR Mr and Mrs Millar are anxious to make it clear that they had not anticipated their actions in erecting the fence would cause such a level of concern. They had assumed, given how far the fence is away from their immediate neighbour and there being no impact in terms of overshadowing, that there would be no issues. This is a very unusual situation where the private garden area relating to their property is detached from the property itself. However, it is nevertheless a private garden area which without the fence lacks any privacy whatsoever. Although the previous owner of 26 years chose not to provide privacy for their private garden, with a young family and concerns over security Mr & Mrs Millar hope that the immediate neighbour will understand their concerns. CONCLUSION It is fully accepted that the Council needs to ensure that the character and appearance of the conservation area is preserved. The applicants fully support the Council in this objective. However, based on assessments previously carried out by the Council relating to the erection of fencing within the wider conservation area, as detailed in this statement, something is fundamentally wrong with the conclusion that has been reach by the Council in this case. Within the wider context of the Comrie Conservation Area and previous decisions by the Council relating to fencing, it is considered that the fence at Commercial Lane does not affect the character and appearance of the Comrie Conservation Area. In particular, apart from the glaring inconsistencies detailed in this statement, no consideration has been given to visual mitigation through weathering or painting that has clearly been accepted by the Council elsewhere within the Comrie Conservation Area. In this regard, Mr and Mrs Millar are more than happy to paint the fence any colour which the Council deems appropriate. To summarise the key argument, where a particular property has a relatively low public profile in terms of significance within the conservation area then scope exists to accept a fence which would otherwise be unacceptable in a more prominent and valuable portion of the designated area. This statement fully demonstrates that the Council has acted with pragmatic and reasoned justification in approving fencing of a similar design at much higher profile locations within the conservation area. All Mr and Mrs Millar ask is that the Council give them fair and equal treatment based on the approach that the Council has adopted elsewhere within the Conservation Area. On the above basis I appeal to the Perth & Kinross Planning Review Body to overturn the recommendation offered by Planning Services. __________________________________________________________________________________________ 35 AYTOUN CRESCENT BURNTISLAND FIFE KY3 9HS
Page 19
LIST OF DOCUMENTS. Application for Planning Permission 25/00584/FULL – Erection of fence (in retrospect) At Achomer Commercial Lane Comrie Creiff PH6 2DP DOCUMENT 1: Planning Application Form. DOCUMENT 2: Decision Notice – 25/00584/FLL. DOCUMENT 3: Delegated Report of Handling – 25/00584/FLL DOCUMENT 4: Consultation response from Perth & Kinross Council Conservation Officer relating to 25/00584/FLL. DOCUMENT 5: Consultation response from Perth & Kinross Council Conservation Officer relating to St Kessogs Sq. DOCUMENT 6: Delegated Report of Handling - 19/00685/FLL Combruith Dalginross.
Page 20
DOCUMENT 1
Page 21
No embedded text on this page.
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
Achomer, Commercial Lane, Comrie, Crieff, PH6 2DP © Crown copyright and database rights 2025 OS 100054135. Map area bounded by: 277331,721887 277531,722087. Produced on 02 June 2025 from the OS National Geographic Database. Supplied by UKPlanningMaps.com. Unique plan reference: p4f/uk/1244088/1669941
Page 26
Scale 1:250 10m 10m 0 1 - Red line denotes property boundary 2 - Denotes hard standing Commercial Lane Garage Achomer Garden area Achomer Commercial Lane Comrie Perthshire PH6 2DP. Installation of replacement fence 7495 mm 10967 mm 7072 mm 7220 mm 3 - Green line denotes original fence
Page 27
Scale 1:250 10m 10m 0 1 - Red line denotes property boundary 2 - Screening fence 1.8m high 3 - 120mm Larch boards 25mm gap 4 - Denotes hard standing 5 - Denotes new fenceCommercial Lane Garage Achomer Garden area Achomer Commercial Lane Comrie Perthshire PH6 2DP. Installation of replacement fence
Page 28
1800 Scale 1:25 1.0m 1.0m0 1 - Screening fence 1.8m high 2 - 120mm Larch boards 25mm gap Achomer Commercial Lane Comrie Perthshire PH6 2DP. Installation of replacement fence
Page 29
Achomer Commercial Lane Comrie Perthshire PH6 2DP Planning Permission for a 1.8m Screening fence to replace existing fence following the same route along the curtilage of the property. The purpose of the replacement fence is to improve the security and general appearance of the existing fence and help to ensure the safety of the family with young children recently moved into the dwelling house known as “Achomer” The layout is odd, in that the house is separate from the garden making safety and security moving between dwelling house, garden and garage a priority. In addition to the house being separate from the garden there is significant traffic in Commercial Lane which is privately maintained is used generally by local people for parking when shopping. Furthermore, the increased site traffic including vans, trucks and excavators from the adjacent ongoing flood prevention works make a normally quiet area very busy. Fence Description • Follows route of existing fence along Achmore property boundary. • Total fence length 32.76m • Height of fence along route 1.8m • Fence is post & rail construction, vertically close boarded with 150mm boards & 25mm gap between boards. • Boards are treated larch & maintenance will be by Achmore householder.
Page 30
1 Burton Millar Limited Mr Burton Millar Cul Mhor South Crieff Road Comrie PH6 2HF Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street Perth PH1 5GD Date of Notice:4th August 2025 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT Application Reference: 25/00584/FLL I am directed by the Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts currently in force, to refuse your application registered on 6th June 2025 for Planning Permission for Erection of fence (in retrospect) Achomer Commercial Lane Comrie Crieff PH6 2DP Kristian Smith Development Management & Building Standards Service Manager Reasons for Refusal 1. The proposal, by virtue of its design, height and siting, has 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 & Kinross Placemaking Supplementary Guidance 2020. 2. The proposal, by virtue of its design, height and siting, is detrimental to the character and appearance of the Comrie 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. DOCUMENT 2
Page 31
2 3. The proposal, by virtue of its design, height and siting, restricts the view of road users and is detrimental to road safety. Approval would therefore be contrary to Policy 60B: Transport Standards - New Development Proposals 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. Notes 1. Following the refusal of this retrospective application, the applicant should be aware that this matter is now being referred to the Planning Enforcement Team. The plans and documents relating to this decision are listed below and are displayed on Perth and Kinross Council’s website at www.pkc.gov.uk “Online Planning Applications” page Plan Reference 01 02 03 04 05
Page 32
REPORT OF HANDLING DELEGATED REPORT Ref No 25/00584/FLL Ward No P6- Strathearn Due Determination Date 5th August 2025 Draft Report Date 1st August 2025 Report Issued by David Rennie Date 1st August 2025 PROPOSAL: Erection of fence (in retrospect) LOCATION: Achomer Commercial Lane Comrie Crieff PH6 2DP SUMMARY: This report recommends refusal of the application 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. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a fence around part of the boundary of a domestic garden in the centre of Comrie. The layout of the site is unusual in that the garden is remote from, and situated 30 metres to the southeast of, the applicant's dwellinghouse. The site is in the Comrie Conservation Area and there is a listed building to the west of the site. The application is retrospective as the fence was erected prior to the submission of this application. SITE HISTORY None PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION Pre application Reference: n/a DOCUMENT 3
Page 33
DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Development Plan for the area comprises National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) (LDP2). 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 7: Historic Assets and Places Policy 16: Quality Homes 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 principal policies are: Policy 1A: Placemaking Policy 1B: Placemaking Policy 27A: Listed Buildings Policy 28A: Conservation Areas: New Development Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals Statutory Supplementary Guidance • Supplementary Guidance - Placemaking (adopted in 2020)
Page 34
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Non-Statutory Guidance • Conservation areas CONSULTATION RESPONSES Conservation Team A conservation consultation was undertaken due to the proximity of the development to the Category C listed Former Secession Church on Commercial Lane. Given the physical separation of the subject site from the listed building, it is unlikely that the development would have a negative impact on the special historic or architectural interest of the listed building. Structures And Flooding No objection. Recommend an informative relating to flood risk be added to any approval. REPRESENTATIONS There were five objections to the application. The concerns raised relate to impacts on: • Visual amenity • Conservation area • Road safety These concerns are addressed in the Appraisal section below. Additional Statements Received: Screening Opinion EIA Not Required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not applicable Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations Habitats Regulations AA Not Required Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Not Required Report on Impact or Potential Impact eg Flood Risk Assessment Not Required
Page 35
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 NPF4 and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019. The relevant policy considerations are outlined in the policy section above and are considered in more detail below. In terms of other material considerations, involving considerations of the Council’s other approved policies and supplementary guidance, these are discussed below only where relevant. In this instance, section 14(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 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) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 is relevant and requires planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the designated conservation area. The determining issues in this case are whether; the proposal complies with development plan policy; or if there are any other material considerations which justify a departure from policy. Policy Appraisal Developments which are incidental to the enjoyment of an existing domestic property are generally considered to be supportable in principle. Nevertheless, consideration must be given to the specific details of the proposed development, within the context of the application site, and whether it would have an adverse impact on visual or residential amenity, the character and appearance of the place, or road safety. Assessment of the proposal against the relevant policies is provided below. Design, Layout and Visual Amenity The fence is a 1.8-metre-tall screen fence that has been constructed using 120mm wide larch boards with 25mm gaps between the boards. Despite narrowness of the gaps gives the fence a close boarded appearance when viewed at an angle. The fence has been erected along the northwestern and southwestern boundaries of the site, with part of the fence running along the boundary with Commercial Lane. To the south of the site, there is a wide area of open space, with the River Earn beyond. The applicant has stated that the fence is required for safety reasons, including for the safety of children. However, it is noted that the fence as erected does not fully enclose the garden: there is a 7.5-metre-wide opening along the southeastern boundary of the site. The submitted drawings do not include the erection of any additional fencing across this gap.
Page 36
Based on Street View images, the garden was previously enclosed by chain-link fences (approximately 1 – 1.2 metres in height) and hedges. Whilst there were also taller boundary treatments, these were to the northeast of the site and set well away from the road that bends around the site. Overall, the garden had a pleasant open appearance and was an asset to the area. Due to its relatively close boarded design and its height, the recently erected fence has a stark appearance. A fence of this design is appropriate between back gardens of houses in a suburban housing development. However, in this location, it has had a detrimental impact on the character of the garden and the character of the area – the pleasant open appearance has been lost. Due to its design, height and siting, the fence has a detrimental impact on the character and environmental quality of the application property and the surrounding area. As such, the proposal is 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 & Kinross Placemaking Supplementary Guidance 2020. Historic Environment Due to its design, height and siting as noted above, the proposal is detrimental to the character and appearance of the Comrie Conservation Area. In addition, the Comrie Conservation Area Appraisal notes that Commercial Lane provides a key view from Drummond Street to the River Earn. The recently erected fence is visible from Drummond Street and encroaches into the key view of the river, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Comrie Conservation Area. Accordingly, the proposal is 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. Given the distances involved, the proposed fence is not detrimental to the setting of the listed building to the west of the site. As such, the proposal is in accordance with Policy 7(c) of NPF4 and Policy 27A of LDP2. Road Safety Part of the fence has been erected adjacent to Commercial Lane where it meets a private road. The private road links to Ancaster Lane and serves a number of properties. On the submitted drawings (which appear to be accurate), it appears that the fence may be set back a sufficient distance from the corner of Commercial Lane and the private road to provide some visibility around the corner.
Page 37
However, in reality, the fence restricts visibility around the corner. On the site visit, the case officer drove along the road and was forced to stop and reverse back from the corner when another car approached; even though both vehicles were going at slow speeds, the approaching car was not visible until it was at the corner. The combination of the close boarded design, the height and the proximity to the corner makes the fence detrimental to road safety As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy 60B: Transport Standards - New Development Proposals of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2. Developer Contributions The Developer Contributions Guidance is not applicable to this application and therefore no contributions are required in this instance. Economic Impact The economic impact of the proposal is likely to be minimal and limited to the construction phase of the development. 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. 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.
Page 38
Reasons for Refusal 1. The proposal, by virtue of its design, height and siting, has 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 & Kinross Placemaking Supplementary Guidance 2020. 2. The proposal, by virtue of its design, height and siting, is detrimental to the character and appearance of the Comrie 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 its design, height and siting, restricts the view of road users and is detrimental to road safety. Approval would therefore be contrary to Policy 60B: Transport Standards - New Development Proposals 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. Informatives 1 Following the refusal of this retrospective application, the applicant should be aware that this matter is now being referred to the Planning Enforcement Team. Procedural Notes Not Applicable.
Page 39
PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION 01 02 03 04 05
Page 40
Comments to the Development Management & Building Standards Service Manager on a Planning and/or Listed Building Application Planning Application ref. 25/00584/FLL Comments provided by Jody Blake IHBC Service/Section Conservation Contact Details Description of Proposal Installation of replacement fence (in retrospect) Address of site Achomer, Commercial Lane, Comrie, Crieff PH6 2DP Comments on the proposal The subject site is located within the Comrie Conservation Area. A conservation consult was undertaken due to the proximity of the development to the Category C listed Former Secession Church on Commercial Lane. Given the physical separation of the subject site from the listed building, it is unlikely that the development would have a negative impact on the special historic or architectural interest of the listed building. The case officer will assess the proposal and its impacts on the character and appearance of the Comrie Conservation Area. Date comments returned 08/07/2025 DOCUMENT 4
Page 41
Comments to the Development Quality Manager on a Planning Application Planning Application ref. 18/00804/FLL Comments provided by Diane Barbary Service/Section Conservation Contact Details Description of Proposal Permanent retention of village square including installation of street furniture, feature gate, gabion wall and boundary treatments, erection of a shelter/store, alterations to parking area, landscaping and associated works Address of site Comrie Village Square, Drummond Street, Comrie Comments on the proposal The proposed site is centrally located in the Comrie Conservation Area, with listed buildings on either side (Ballacraine and Assynt), and directly opposite on Drummond Street. I am content that the proposed works protect the setting of the adjacent listed buildings and the wider conservation area. Recommended planning condition(s) Recommended informative(s) for applicant Date comments returned 29/06/18 DOCUMENT 5
Page 42
1 REPORT OF HANDLING DELEGATED REPORT Ref No 19/00685/FLL Ward No P6- Strathearn Due Determination Date 06.08.2019 Report Issued by Date Countersigned by Date PROPOSAL: Change of use, alterations to hostel (class 7) to form 5 flats, formation of parking, bin store, cycle store, landscaping and associated works LOCATION: Former Hostel Combruith Dalginross Comrie Crieff PH6 2ED SUMMARY: This report recommends approval of the application as the development is considered to comply with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no material considerations apparent which outweigh the Development Plan. DATE OF SITE VISIT: 11 June 2019 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The Former Hostel was originally built as the Bridgend Temperance Hotel in 1895. It became the War Memorial Institute after WWI before being converted in recent years to a hostel. The building is listed at Category C and occupies a prominent corner location within Comrie Conservation Area. This application seeks planning permission for the change of use of the building to residential, DOCUMENT 6
Page 43
2 formation of 5 flats formation of parking, bin store, cycle store, landscaping and associated works. SITE HISTORY 19/00980/LBC Alterations Pending Consideration 19/01164/FLL Erection of 3 dwellinghouses Pending Validation 19/01272/LBC Demolition of buildings Pending Validation PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION Pre application Reference: N/A NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through The National Planning Framework, the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), Planning Advice Notes (PAN), Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and a series of Circulars. Paragraph 141 of the SPP states that change to a listed building should be managed to protect its special interest while enabling it to remain in active use. Where development will affect a listed building, special regard must be given to the importance of preserving and enhancing the building and its setting. Listed buildings should be protected from demolition or other work that would adversely affect it or its setting. DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Development Plan for the area comprises the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2016-2036 and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2014. TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2016 – 2036 - Approved October 2017 Whilst there are no specific policies or strategies directly relevant to this proposal the overall vision of the TAYplan should be noted. The vision states “By 2036 the TAYplan area will be sustainable, more attractive, competitive and vibrant without creating an unacceptable burden on our planet. The quality of life will make it a place of first choice where more people choose to live, work, study and visit, and where businesses choose to invest and create jobs.” Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2014 – Adopted February 2014 The Local Development Plan is the most recent statement of Council policy
Page 44
3 and is augmented by Supplementary Guidance. The principal policies are, in summary: Policy HE2 - Listed Buildings There is a presumption in favour of the retention and sympathetic restoration, correct maintenance and sensitive management of listed buildings to enable them to remain in active use. 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 HE3A - Conservation Areas Development within a Conservation Area must preserve or enhance its character or appearance. The design, materials, scale and siting of a new development within a Conservation Area, and development outwith an area that will impact upon its special qualities should be appropriate to its appearance, character and setting. Where a Conservation Area Appraisal has been undertaken the details should be used to guide the form and design of new development proposals. Policy RD1 - Residential Areas In identified areas, residential amenity will be protected and, where possible, improved. Small areas of private and public open space will be retained where they are of recreational or amenity value. Changes of use away from ancillary uses such as local shops will be resisted unless supported by market evidence that the existing use is non-viable. Proposals will be encouraged where they satisfy the criteria set out and are compatible with the amenity and character of an area. Policy PM1A - Placemaking Development must contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment, respecting the character and amenity of the place. All development should be planned and designed with reference to climate change mitigation and adaption. Policy PM1B - Placemaking All proposals should meet all eight of the placemaking criteria. Policy NE3 - Biodiversity All wildlife and wildlife habitats, whether formally designated or not should be protected and enhanced in accordance with the criteria set out. Planning permission will not be granted for development likely to have an adverse effect on protected species. Proposed Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) The Proposed LDP2 2017 represents Perth & Kinross Council’s settled view in relation to land use planning and is a material consideration in determining planning applications. The Proposed LDP2 is considered consistent with the
Page 45
4 Strategic Development Plan (TAYplan) and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 2014. It is now the subject of an Examination Report (published 11 July 2019). This includes the Reporter’s consideration of issues and recommended modifications to the Plan, which are largely binding on the Council. It is therefore anticipated that they will become part of the adopted Plan; however, this is subject to formal confirmation. The Council is progressing the Proposed Plan (as so modified) towards adoption which will require approval by the Council and thereafter submission to the Scottish Ministers. It is expected that LDP2 will be adopted by 31 October 2019. The Proposed LDP2, its policies and proposals are referred to within this report where they are material to the recommendation or decision. OTHER POLICIES Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement 2019 This document replaces the 2016 Scottish Historic Environment Policy, and provides guidance to Planning Authorities on how to deal with planning applications which affect Listed Buildings and their settings. CONSULTATION RESPONSES External Consultees Scottish Water No objection Internal Consultees Transport Planning No objection. Development Negotiations Officer Contribution of £5,750 required towards affordable housing provision. Structures and Flooding No objection. Community Waste Advisor - Environment Service No objection. The developer is required to provide 1 x 1280 litre general waste bin and 1 x 1280 litre dry mixed recycling bin which will be collected on alternate weeks. REPRESENTATIONS No representations received. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED:
Page 46
5 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Not Required Screening Opinion Not Required EIA Report Not Required Appropriate Assessment Not Required Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Submitted Report on Impact or Potential Impact eg Flood Risk Assessment Bat and Swift Survey Submitted 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 for the area comprises the approved TAYplan 2016 and the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2014. The determining issues in this case are whether; the proposal complies with development plan policy; or if there are any other material considerations which justify a departure from policy. Policy Appraisal Policy HE2 states that there is a presumption in favour of the retention and sympathetic restoration, correct maintenance and sensitive management of listed buildings to enable them to remain in active use. 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. As the proposed scheme would protect the character and special interest of the listed building it complies with policy HE2. As the proposed change of use and external alterations would be in keeping with the character and appearance of both the listed building and the conservation area, and would result in the building being brought back into use, they would have a positive impact on the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment and residential amenity. The relevant criteria within policy PM1B are also met. Therefore the proposal is considered to comply with policies HE3A, RD1, PM1A and PM1B. A bat survey found limited evidence of, or potential for, bats and sifts within the area affected by the proposed development. On that basis the proposal is considered to comply with Policy NE3. Design and Layout and Conservation Considerations
Page 47
6 The proposed change of use is considered compatible with the residential character of the area and would secure a viable use for the building which would ensure its preservation. It was originally proposed to replace the existing timber windows with upvc however following discussion with the applicant this has been revised and timber windows on a like-for-like basis are now proposed. A condition has been included to ensure the detailing of the windows matches the existing. External changes to the appearance of the building would otherwise be confined to replacement and refurbishment of existing features on a like-for- like basis which would therefore have a positive impact on the character and appearance of both the listed building and the conservation area. The proposed parking area and bin store are located on the existing car park and as such there would be minimal change in terms of the character of this part of the site. As details of the proposed bin store, boundary treatment, materials and planting have not been included with the application a condition has been included to secure this. Landscape and Visual Amenity The impact of the proposed development in terms of landscape and visual amenity would be very minor. The appearance of the parking area would be improved from its present disused and overgrown condition and the restoration works would improve overall visual amenity. Residential Amenity As the proposed residential use is considered to be compatible with the predominantly residential character of the area there are no concerns regarding residential amenity arising from the proposal. Roads and Access The Transport Planning team have noted that the applicant has shown protection for the street lighting column between the two vehicle accesses; this is required to prevent any manoeuvring vehicles from striking the infrastructure. The applicant must discuss the bollard installation with the Roads Maintenance Partnership to ensure they will provide the necessary protection and an informative has been included to that effect. Conditions have been included to ensure that the parking and turning facilities would be maintained, street lighting columns protected and vegetation controlled to ensure sight lines are maintained. It is therefore considered that there would be no concerns regarding roads and access issues resulting from the proposed scheme. Drainage and Flooding
Page 48
7 There are no drainage or flooding issues arising from the proposed scheme. Ecology A bat and swift survey has been submitted which found limited potential for disturbance of protected species and nesting birds. Informatives have been included in line with the recommendation of the Biodiversity Officer and there are no further concerns regarding ecology arising from the proposed development. Developer Contributions A contribution of £5,750 is required towards affordable housing provision. Economic Impact The economic impact of the proposal is likely to be minimal and limited to the construction phase of the development. Conclusion In conclusion, the application must be determined in accordance with the adopted Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this respect, the proposal is considered to comply with the approved TAYplan 2016 and the adopted Local Development Plan 2014. I have taken account of material considerations and find none that would justify overriding the adopted Development Plan. On that basis the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. APPLICATION PROCESSING TIME The recommendation for this application has not been made within the statutory determination period as a result of the clock being stopped on the application to allow for the submission of a bat and swift survey and revised drawings. LEGAL AGREEMENTS None required. DIRECTION BY SCOTTISH MINISTERS None applicable to this proposal. RECOMMENDATION Approve the application
Page 49
8 Conditions and Reasons for Recommendation 1 The development hereby approved must be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings and documents, unless otherwise provided for by conditions imposed by this decision notice. Reason - To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved drawings and documents. 2 Prior to the development hereby approved being completed or brought into use, the turning facilities shown on the approved drawings shall be implemented and thereafter maintained. Reason - In the interests of road safety; to ensure the provision of acceptable manoeuvring space within the curtilage of the site to enable a vehicle to enter and leave the site in forward gear. 3 Prior to the development hereby approved being completed or brought into use, the car parking facilities shown on the approved drawings shall be implemented and thereafter maintained. Reason - In the interests of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate off-street car parking facilities. 4 Prior to the development hereby approved being completed or brought into use, the protection for the street lighting column must be installed to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. Reason - To protect the street lighting infrastructure 5 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a detailed landscaping and planting scheme for the site shall be submitted for the further written agreement of the Council as Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the height and slopes of any mounding or recontouring of the site, full details of all hard landscaping proposals including materials and installation methods and, species, height, size and density of trees and shrubs to be planted. The scheme as subsequently approved shall be carried out and completed within the first available planting season (October to March) after the completion or bringing into use of the development, whichever is the earlier, and the date of Practical Completion of the landscaping scheme shall be supplied in writing to the Council as Planning Authority within 7 days of that date. The scheme as agreed and implemented
Page 50
9 shall thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure a satisfactory standard of development and environmental quality and to reserve the rights of the Planning Authority. 6 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the proposed boundary treatments for the site including the bin store shall be submitted for the further written agreement of the Council as Planning Authority. The scheme as subsequently agreed shall be implemented prior to the completion or bringing into use of the development, whichever is the earlier. Reason - In the interests of visual amenity; to ensure a satisfactory standard of local environmental quality. 7 The windows shown on plan 19/00685/5 are not approved. The windows shall be as per drawing 19/00685/12 hereby approved, to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. Reason - In order to protect the special character of the Listed Building and the appearance of the Conservation Area. 8 Prior to installattion of the replacement windows hereby approved, details at 1:20 scale showing the astragals, glazing bars and trickle vents shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. The trickle vents shall be concealed and the details of the glazing bars and astragals shall match those of the existing windows to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. Reason - In order to protect the special character of the Listed Building and the appearance of the Conservation Area. 9 The conclusions and recommended action points within the supporting biodiversity survey submitted and hereby approved shall be fully adhered to, respected and undertaken as part of the construction phase of development. Particular attention is drawn to Section 5.5 Method Statement including General Recommendations and Recommendations: Nesting Birds in the submitted 'Bat roost and nesting Swift Assessment Survey, FDM Ecology, 2 August 2019'. Reason - In the interests of protecting environmental quality and of biodiversity.
Page 51
10 10 Prior to the completion of the development hereby approved 2 integrated bat bricks, 2 swift nest boxes or bricks and 3 house sparrow nest boxes shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of protecting environmental quality and of biodiversity. Justification The proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. Justification The proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. Informatives 1 This planning permission will last only for three years from the date of this decision notice, unless the development has been started within that period (see section 58(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended)). 2 This is approval of your application Ref no 19/00685/FLL for planning permission only. It does not include any approval for your related Listed Building Consent Ref no 19/00980/LBC. You should therefore not commence work until you have received Listed Building Consent. Carrying out alterations without Listed Building Consent is an offence. 3 Under section 27A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) the person undertaking the development is required to give the planning authority prior written notification of the date on which it is intended to commence the development. A failure to comply with this statutory requirement would constitute a breach of planning control under section 123(1) of that Act, which may result in enforcement action being taken. 4 As soon as practicable after the development is complete, the person who completes the development is obliged by section 27B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to give the planning authority written notice of that position. 5 The applicant is advised that the granting of planning permission does not guarantee a connection to Scottish Water’s assets. The applicant must make a separate application to Scottish Water Planning & Development Services team for permission to connect to the public
Page 52
11 wastewater system and/or water network and all their requirements must be fully adhered to. 6 The applicant should be aware of the requirements of the Council's Environment and Regulatory Services in relation to waste collection from the site and should ensure adequate measures are provided on site to allow for the collection of waste. 7 Due to the nature of the proposed work it is important to keep in mind the possibility of finding bats when doing work on the existing roof. If bats are found during works, the work should stop immediately and you should contact SNH at Battleby immediately for advice. Building works should avoid the times of year when bats are most vulnerable to disturbance. The summer months, when bats are in maternity roosts, and the winter months when bats are hibernating, should be avoided. Typically early spring and autumn months are the best times to do work that may affect bats. If you suspect that bats are present you should consult SNH for advice. For further information visit the Bat Conservation Trust website http://www.bats.org.uk/. Please note that bats are protected by law, and it is a criminal offence to deliberately harm, capture, kill or disturb a bat or its resting place. 8 Existing buildings or structures may contain nesting birds between 1st March and 31st August inclusive. The applicant is reminded that, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended (section 1), it is an offence to remove, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built. Planning permission for a development does not provide a defence against prosecution under this Act. Procedural Notes The planning permission decision notice shall not be issued until such time as the required Developer Contributions have been secured or paid in full. In the event the applicant does not either make the required payment within 28 days from the date the agent/applicant is advised of the need for the contributions, or complete a legal agreement for delayed payment within a 4 month period from the date the agent/applicant is advised of the need for the contributions the application may be refused under delegated powers without any further discussion with the applicant. PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION 19/00685/1 19/00685/2 19/00685/3
Page 53
12 19/00685/4 19/00685/5 19/00685/7 19/00685/10 19/00685/11 19/00685/12 Date of Report 08.08.2019
Page 54
No embedded text on this page.