Democracy Spraffa

(b) Planning Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Reference Documents (Pages 405-428)

Perth and Kinross Council · 15 April 2024
Back to Local Review Body — 15 April 2024 and its agenda

Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.

Original council PDF · Download plain text

Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.

Page 1

4(iii)(b) 
LRB-2024-06 
LRB-2024-06 - 23/01106/FLL - Change of use of flat to form
short-term let accommodation unit (in retrospect), 62
Monart Road, Perth, PH1 5UQ 
PLANNING DECISION NOTICE 
REPORT OF HANDLING 
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

Page 2

No embedded text on this page.

Page 3

No embedded text on this page.

Page 4

No embedded text on this page.

Page 5

REPORT OF HANDLING 
DELEGATED REPORT 
Ref No 23/01106/FLL
Ward No P12- Perth City Centre
Due Determination Date 5th December 2023 
Draft Report Date 28 November 2023
Report Issued by AMB Date 28 November 2023 
PROPOSAL:  Change of use of flat to form a short-term let
accommodation unit (in retrospect)    
LOCATION:  62 Monart Road, Perth, PH1 5UQ  
SUMMARY 
This report recommends refusal of a detailed planning application for retrospective
planning permission for the change of use of a residential flat within Monart Road to
a short term let 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 
This planning application seeks to obtain retrospective detailed planning permission
for the change the use of a residential flat on Monart Road, Perth to a STL - for the
use of both holiday and work/business purposes.   
The flat is two bedroomed and is located on the ground floor of a large, four storey
fairly modern residential complex which has communal stairs and landing areas that
are shared with other flats within the block. 
Principal entry is via a security door, then the flat is immediately to the left. To the
right is the internal door to another flat, and straight ahead is the internal door to the
communal stair well. 
In terms of the LDP2, Monart Road is located outwith the City Centre area of Perth
for the purposes of STLs and is therefore within an area which is considered to be
residential, with compatible uses.   
SITE HISTORY 
None specifically related to this flat, however there have been a number of recent
applications for STLs within the Monart Road area which have been refused by the
Council. 
PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION 
None undertaken.

Page 6

DEVELOPMENT PLAN 
The Development Plan for the area comprises National Planning Framework 4
(NPF4), the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) (LDP2) and
statutory supplementary planning guidance (SPG). 
National Planning Framework 4 
The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) is the Scottish Government’s long-term
spatial strategy with a comprehensive set of national planning policies.  This strategy
sets out how to improve people’s lives by making sustainable, liveable and
productive spaces.   
NPF4 was adopted on 13 February 2023. NPF4 has an increased status over
previous NPFs and comprises part of the statutory development plan. 
The Council’s assessment of this application has considered the following policies of
NPF4: 
• Policy 30: Tourism 
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. 
Within the LDP2, the site is located outwith the city centre area for the purposes of
STLs, and within an area of residential and compatible uses where the following
policies are applicable, 
• Policy 1A: Placemaking
• Policy 1B: Placemaking
• Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions
• Policy 17: Residential Areas 
• Policy 56: Noise pollution 
Statutory Supplementary Planning Guidance 
The following statutory SPG are applicable to this proposal, 
• Developer Contributions & Affordable Housing (adopted in 2020)
• Placemaking (adopted in 2020) 
OTHER PKC POLICIES 
Non-statutory Planning Guidance 
The following non-statutory PG is applicable, 
• Change of use of residential property to STL (2023)

Page 7

NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE 
The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through Advice Notes,
Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and a
series of Circulars.   
Planning Advice Notes 
The following Scottish Government Planning Advice Notes (PANs) and Guidance
Documents are of relevance to the proposal: 
• PAN 40 Development Management
• PAN 68 Design Statements 
National Roads Development Guide 2014 
This document supports Designing Streets and expands on its principles and is
considered to be the technical advice that should be followed in designing and
approving of all streets including parking provision. 
EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS RESPONSES 
None undertaken. 
INTERNAL COUNCIL RESPONSES 
Environmental Health have commented on the proposal and have no objections,
subject to a STL licence being applied for and granted. 
Communities Housing Strategy has indicated that the level of STL within the local
postcode area is not the at level where a STL control area would be considered. 
Developer Contributions Officer has indicated that there is no requirement for any
developer contributions or affordable housing provision. 
REPRESENTATIONS 
Eighteen letters of representations have been received, all of which are objecting to
the proposal. The main issues raised within the letters of representation relate to the
impact on residential amenity, and also parking concerns. 
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS RECEIVED 
Screening Opinion  EIA Not Required
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA):
Environmental Report
Not applicable
Appropriate Assessment under Habitats
Regulations
AA Not Required

Page 8

Design Statement or Design and Access
Statement
Not Required
Report on Impact or Potential Impact  Not Required 
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, the LDP2 and statutory SPGs. The relevant policy considerations are outlined
in the policy section above and are considered in more detail below.   
In terms of other material considerations, this involves acknowledgment of the other
similar applications which have been made and determined within the same area. 
The Council has also published non-statutory planning guidance on STLs, and whilst
this document does not have the same weighting as the Development Plan, its
content and intent are considered to be a material consideration on the
determination of STL applications.   
Policy Appraisal 
There are relevant policies contained in all parts of the Development Plan. 
Within the NPF4, Policy 30 Tourism) is supportive of STLs, providing that the
development would not impact on the local amenity of the area or would result in a
loss of residential accommodation where such a loss is not outweighed by
demonstrative benefits. 
In terms of the LDP2, Policy 1 (Placemaking) looks to ensure that all new
developments do not have an adverse impact on the areas in which they are located,
whilst Policy 17 (Residential areas) looks to protect residential areas form
inappropriate new uses and development. Policy 56 (noise) of the LDP2 also looks
to control noise nuisance. 
In terms of statutory SPG, the Council’s policies on Developer Contributions and
Placemaking are applicable. 
Land Use Acceptability 
Monart Road is a predominantly residential area comprising approx. 200 flatted
apartments in various large blocks. Across the Monart Road wider complex
(including this block) there will be mainstream residential properties which will be
privately owned for permanent residency, some will be rented, some will be student
accommodation, and some will most likely already in a STL use already. 
Some of these STLs may now be immune from planning enforcement, others not so. 
62 Monart is accessed via a shared communal access with a secure entry system,
which then leads to communal hallway area. As well as the properties internal front

Page 9

door, the hallway area has a doorway to a flight of stairs, and the internal front door
to only one other residential property. 
There will therefore be some potential for disturbance from guests / residents
arriving, leaving and using this flat on other resident with this block (albeit limited) –
and the Council’s recently published STL guidance recognises this as a potential
issue within flats in residential areas. 
It does however need to be emphasised that internally, there would be limited impact
on other properties, other than one other residential property due to only two
properties being served by the principal entrance. This is slightly different from the
other previously refused applications on other sites within Monart Road where the
potential for internal disturbance for higher. 
The area is however identified within the LDP2 as a residential area, with compatible
uses. There is therefore a strong need to protect existing residents’ amenity through
both the implementation of the new STL guidance, and also various parts of both
Policies 1 and 17 of the LDP2. 
There are two significant considerations to consider in this regard. 
The first is that the occupation of the STL for either holiday or work/business use,
may not actually generate additional footfall movements above that of a typical flat. A
STL does not automatically increase footfall, and whilst there might be an increase,
there is as much of a chance that the level of movements will either remain the same
or be less than a typical residential flat – depending on the circumstances of the
guest / occupier. It is very much a case by case matter, depending on the nature of
the occupiers - which makes the assessment of STL’s challenging – especially within
areas that are outwith (but close to) the city centre area of Perth – such as Monart
Road. 
Secondly, the location of the property is a significant consideration. 
The property is located within the city boundary of Perth, but outwith the city centre
area. This area is defined for the purposes of STL assessment as being the City,
Town and Neighbourhood areas and the City Centre Secondary Uses area. The
Monart Road area is residential in character with no commercial uses on the ground
floors. The only non-residential uses that may be existing within the area would
inevitably be existing STLs, which might be historic and as stated previously may be
immune from enforcement due to the 10-year rule. 
In this case, the applicant has not suggested that this property has been used for 10
years continuous, so it is assumed that it hasn’t. 
In light of this, the proposal is therefore considered to be inconsistent with the
relevant LDP2 polices and the STL guidance simply because it is within a residential
area and involves a flat, and there are not any obvious existing uses within the area
which would already impact on residential amenity.   
In terms of the NPF4, as well as protecting the character and amenity of areas
(discussed above), Policy 30 also looks to ensure that the loss of residential

Page 10

accommodation to STL is outweighed by demonstrative evidence of impact on local
economy. This property is a 2 bed property, so it would not be of the scale which the
Council is perhaps concerned about losing from the permanent housing stock in the
area. Accommodation which has 4 or more beds is more of a concern, and this is set
out in the STL guidance.   
Ultimately, this proposal could potentially impact adversely on the local area, and it
would result in a loss of a residential accommodation but not of a type / scale which
if huge concern to the Council. 
In light of this, on balance this proposal is considered to be incompatible with the
policy intent of Policy 30 of the NPF4 principally because the area is largely
residential, with little other uses. 
Visual Amenity, Design and Layout 
In terms of the appearance of the property, the proposed change of use will have no
impact, and there are no additional issues in terms of design or layout to consider. 
Residential Amenity 
Environmental Health have commented on the proposal and have raised no
objections to the proposal. 
In terms of noise matters, whilst the required STL licence will have set conditions
over noise nuisance, and how the property is operated, the planning system does
have some remit to ensure that new uses are compatible with existing uses,
especially when those existing uses are residential ones. 
As mentioned above, the site is in residential area which does raise some policy
implications in the context of Policy 56 of the LDP2. 
In this location, whilst there would be some degree of existing background noise
from existing residents’ movements, there would equally be the potential for some
extra noise disruption to occur if the flat was to be used as a STL and some of the
letters of representation suggest this also. This relates to when the property is being
used, and also during access and exiting of the property - within the shared areas.
The level of impact internally within the confines of shared hallways would however
be limited to impacting principally on one other resident. 
As discussed previously though, if managed appropriately (which will be key element
of the licence requirements), there should be no reason why the residential amenity
enjoyed by other residents of the block should be adversely affected by a potential
STL use – as its impact could easily be the same, or less than a typical house – if
the proposal was to be used for work, or business uses. 
There would be a higher chance that nuisance and disruption would occur if the use
was for holiday purposes, with a mix of occupants (as opposed to a single occupier)
– and for this property, that appears to be the business model.

Page 11

There is also the potential for new ‘faces’ to be a regular occurrence, and that not
knowing who your neighbours are could cause a degree of anxiety and concern for
permanent resident (in particularly the resident on the ground floor opposite),
especially those who may live alone, are elderly or may have additional support
needs. 
Anxiety is a planning consideration to some degree, however it is very much
subjective, and someone’s anxiety over a certain matter may not result in the same
feelings for another person. In this case, it will be fact that if the STL operates
successfully (in terms of a high occupancy rate) then there will changes in users.
However, there is no guarantee that the users of this STL will a) meet other
permanent residents within shared areas and b) will cause nuisance. 
STL are now covered by a separate licence, so in the event that this STL was
resulting in regular and constant issues it could potentially be addressed via the
licence, which could result in the operation being instructed to cease. 
Nevertheless, in this case there is more a balance of probability that some adverse
impact start to occur (and perhaps has been), so a precautionary approach is
therefore considered appropriate here – which ultimately means a refusal – and
which aligns with the guidance of the STL guidance in relation to areas which are
predominantly residential. 
Roads and Access 
There is parking provision within the area, and it is understood the property will have
its own allocated space. However, the property could generate the need for two or
more car parking spaces, and it has not been fully demonstrated that there is
sufficient parking provision to accommodate this. It is noted that a significant number
of the representations have raised this as an issue. 
Drainage and Flooding 
The proposal raises no issues in terms of drainage or flooding matters, which remain
unaltered. 
Conservation Considerations 
The proposal does not affect any Conservation Area, Listed Building or local
archaeology. 
Natural Heritage and Biodiversity 
The proposal raises no issues in terms of bio-diversity matters. 
Developer Contributions 
The proposal does not require any Developer Contributions or Affordable Housing
provision.

Page 12

Economic Impact 
The decision to refuse could have a negative impact on the local economy. 
VARIATION OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 32A 
The application has not been varied. 
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. 
1 By virtue of the potential for an increase in noise nuisance both when using
the property, and arriving/leaving the property, the proposal would impact
adversely on the character and amenity of the local area which is
predominately residential in character, particularly the residential amenity of
those living permanently in the block and close by. Accordingly, the proposal
is contrary to Policy 30(e) (Tourism) of the National Planning Framework 4
(2023) which states that new proposal for short term holiday letting will not be
supported where the proposal will result in an unacceptable impact on local
amenity and character of the area. 
2 By virtue of the shared entry arrangements, the flatted nature of the property
and the predominately residential character of the existing area, the proposal
would result in an increased potential for noise nuisance and general
disturbance to occur and affect other existing residents in the block, and those
living close by. It would also introduce a land use which is not compatible with
the surrounding predominately residential properties. The proposal is
therefore contrary to Policy 17 (Residential Areas) of the adopted Perth and
Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and the Council’s non-statutory
Planning Guidance on Short Term Lets which both seeks to protect existing
residential amenity, and Policy 1A of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local
Development Plan 2 (2019) which seeks to ensure that all new proposals
contribute positively to the surrounding environment. 
3 By virtue of the potential for an increase in noise nuisance both when using
the property and arriving/leaving the property the proposal is contrary to

Page 13

Policy 56 of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019)
which looks to protect sensitive receptors from noise generating sources. 
4 It has not been demonstrated that there is a sufficient level of either
designated or available parking to service the use of the property as a short
term let. The proposal is therefore contrary to the principles of the National
Roads Development Guide 2015 which requires all new developments to
have suitable parking provisions. 
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 
The applicant(s) should be fully aware that the continued use of the property as a
short-term let is unauthorised. The use of the property as a short term let should
therefore cease immediately. If the property continues to be used as a short term let,
then the Council will consider formal enforcement action without further discussions. 
Procedural Notes 
Not Applicable. 
PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION 
01, 02, 03

Page 14

No embedded text on this page.

Page 15

No embedded text on this page.

Page 16

No embedded text on this page.

Page 17

No embedded text on this page.

Page 18

No embedded text on this page.

Page 19

No embedded text on this page.

Page 20

No embedded text on this page.

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.