(c) Representations (Pages 87-128)
Perth and Kinross Council · 8 July 2024
Back to Local Review Body — 8 July 2024 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(i)(c) LRB-2024-19 LRB-2024-19 23/01765/FLL - Erection of dwellinghouse, land 80 metres south west of Gellybank Farm, Kinross REPRESENTATIONS
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
No embedded text on this page.
Page 6
No embedded text on this page.
Page 7
No embedded text on this page.
Page 8
No embedded text on this page.
Page 9
Mr Gordon Clark (Objects) Comment submitted date: Thu 14 Dec 2023 Last year there was a similar application for two properties in this area which was rejected. The reasons for rejection of two will be similar to rejecting one, I suggest you refer to last years application in this area for the reasons of rejection. My Objections are; This is a rural area where houses continue to be added which is inappropriate to to rural area. There is already approved planning for 8 chalets in adjacent area which have not been constructed yet, this will just add to the loss of this rural amenity. Water pressure in this area can drop to almost zero sometimes. Scottish Water have been aware of this problem for years however have not resolved it as yet. The addition of the chalets and the proposed additional property will only make this worse. Additional properties add additional traffic onto a narrow rural road (Kinross to Carsegour) which is unacceptable from a safety perspective. P&K council deem this road "rural" in their plans as not part of the council gritting programme.
Page 10
M e m o r To Development Management & Building Standards Service Manager Your ref 23/01765/FLL Date 15 December 2023 Communities a n d u m From Regulatory Services Manager Our ref KIM Pullar House, 35 Kinnoull Street, Perth, PH1 5GD Consultation on an Application for Planning Permission 23/01765/FLL RE: Erection of dwellinghouse at Land 105M South West Of Fasgadh, Gellybank Farm, Kinross for Mr Darren Stewart I refer to your letter email dated 28 November 2023 in connection with the above application and have the following comments to make. Contaminated Land Recommendation I have no objections to the application but recommend the undernoted conditions be included in any given consent. Comments There is a disused quarry within the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. The original size and depth of the quarry is unknown, as is the material used to infill the quarry after work there ceased. There is therefore the potential for localised ground gas production that could possibly impact on any residential properties being built on the site. There is also the possibility of contaminants being present in the fill therefore a full ground risk assessment should be carried out prior to building commencing. I therefore recommend the following condition be applied to the application. Conditions EH41 Development shall not commence on site until an evaluation for the potential of the site to be affected by contamination by a previous use has been undertaken and, as a minimum, a Preliminary Risk Assessment (Phase 1 Desk Study) has been submitted for consideration and accepted by the Council as Planning Authority. If the preliminary risk assessment identifies the need for further assessment, an intrusive investigation shall be undertaken to identify; I. the nature, extent and type(s) of contamination on the site II. measures to treat/remove contamination to ensure the site is fit for the use proposed III. measures to deal with contamination during construction works IV. condition of the site on completion of decontamination measures.
Page 11
Prior to the completion or bringing into use of any part of the development the measures to decontaminate the site shall be fully implemented in accordance with the scheme subsequently agreed by the Council as Planning Authority. Verification that the scheme has been fully implemented must also be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority.
Page 12
Mrs Mary Freer (Objects) Comment submitted date: Fri 15 Dec 2023 Ref planning application 23/01765/FLL Please consider the below objections in regards to the above planning permission: Residential Amenity: Contrary to the planning statement the applicant has not clarified the status of the neighbouring farm and livery. Whilst it is correct that it is no longer a working farm or livery the buildings are in regular and increasing use for engineering work as well as for private equestrian use. As a result the noise levels will be similar to that of any working farm or livery. Access Road: We have a major concern with the current access road which is in poor repair and actively degrading. This has not been addressed by the applicant and our concerns from the previous application still stand: As such it will not withstand the extra volume of traffic that further houses will create. The current occupants of the accessed homes had been providing regular maintenance with pothole filling to manage the road however in March 2022 we received a solicitor's letter from (REDACT) was in sole charge of co-ordinating road maintenance going forward starting from May 2022. As a result negligible further maintenance has been carried out allowing the road to fall into disrepair. To manage this extra traffic the road will need to be upgraded to a fully tarmacked road with appropriate drainage as a condition of planning at the developers' expense. Additional traffic along the access road also increase danger to all users, there will need to be warnings and speed restrictions in place as well as the safe passing places. Road Drainage and Flood Risk: Appropriate drainage and ditch management is essential. The drainage ditch adjacent to road directly above the proposed building site is at capacity. In Late February/March 2021 it burst its banks and proceeded to flood and damage the road, the flood water travelled on through the proposed development site to the ditch. This damage required the road to be repaired. The ditch has flooded over the road into the proposed plot twice since the previous application, see photos. The flooding occurs above the proposed drainage track and as such it is unclear whether this will mitigate this flood risk. This is a real and relevant flood risk to the road and the proposed development which will only be compounded once the development at the top of the road has been completed, resulting in an increase in water drainage via the ditch. Has full attention been given to flooding risk in this respect been taken into account, as with current climate change and the development at the top of the road this flood risk is only going to increase putting the road and the proposed development at risk of regular flooding and damage to the access road. Trees and Biodiversity: Following the previous planning refusal the applicant aggressively cut back the hedge on the road border, this has not been maintained since and due to the
Page 13
topography of the land has made little to no difference to visibility. It was however a big detriment to the hedge and its wildlife. See above photo. Again contrary to the planning statement there will be loss of existing hedging to create the new entrance to the plot. In addition to this as direct neighbours to the planned property we offered, prior to any planning permission and any hedge planting, to pay for the difference in cost to enable the developers to plant a more environmentally friendly and natural native hedge. This was refused and instead a solely leylandii hedge was planted to border the length of our property. This directly goes against the Perth and Kinross council place making guidance. Development in Perth and Kinross: There are a large number of new developments in the Kinross and Milnathort area currently. Gellybank farm has been entirely developed and as such has little to no active farmland remaining as it has all already been developed by the applicant and his family. I question the need to unnecessarily reduce yet more green space in what is already an over populated area, when there is plenty housing development elsewhere not on green land. As stated in the previous refusal the site is not part of an existing building group. Existing Development: The developer has an existing development project at the top of the road, which has not been progressing. Despite having planning permission granted in 2019 they are yet to make any progress in building work. We would request that one project was completed prior to a new one being permitted. Further Development: We are also concerned that if this single dwelling was approved then the applicant would request planning permission for the original 2nd dwelling, if this was to be realised this would hugely affect our privacy and outlook. Given the extent of building and planning already carried out in this area by the applicant and his family we would request that if this planning is permitted it would be with a no further build clause on this site. Water Supply: Our property requires a storage tank and pump to increase water pressure to supply sufficient water supply. In addition to this last winter a frozen pipe resulted in a small leak which immediately drained the communal tank resulting in water shortage for all houses. The water tank currently in place to supply the houses has insufficient capacity for more houses. As a result of this I would question if the infrastructure is capable of supplying another dwelling with sufficient water supply and pressure. Refuse System: The current refuse system is not coping with the existing number of houses, the bins are consistently full to bursting and to cope with the extra developments its capacity will need to be increased.
Page 14
Comments to the Development Quality Manager on a Planning Application Planning Application ref. 23/01765/FLL Comments provided by Lachlan MacLean Project Officer – Transport Planning Service/Section Transport Planning Contact Details TransportPlanning@pkc.gov.uk Description of Proposal Erection of dwellinghouse Address of site Land 80 Metres South West Of Gellybank Farm, Kinross Comments on the proposal The applicant is proposing to erect a three bedroomed dwellinghouse on former agricultural land. Parking will be provided on site for two vehicles, which is in line with the requirements of the National Roads Development Guide. The vehicle access to the properties will be via the existing track that serves a number of properties including the development site. The track to the site has been formed with a sealed surface for an acceptable distance from the C458 public road network and encompasses the length of the bin storage area for the easy manoeuvrability of the waste containers for the waste collection operatives, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Vehicle access from Gellybank onto the C458 public road The track to the development is formed with compacted material along the remainder of its length from the vehicle access. In the previous application it was noted that due to white posts, large rocks and an open ditch, there was little opportunity to pass other vehicles, should the need arise. The applicant is proposing to install a new passing place; however, this appears to be outwith the red line boundary of the application. Further details required. As previously advised the previous application, the applicant was requested to provide the visibility splay, which hasn’t been supplied. Further details required. The applicant has yet to supply information on the visibility splay for the vehicle access and further details are requested for the passing place, so Transport Planning are not in a position to support this application.
Page 15
Recommended planning condition(s) Recommended informative(s) for applicant Date comments returned 15 December 2023
Page 16
Comments to the Development Management & Building Standards Service Manager on a Planning Application Planning Application ref. 23/01765/FLL Comments provided by Lucy Sumner Service/Section Planning & Housing Strategy Contact Details Development Contributions Officer: Lucy Sumner Email: TESDevelopmentContributions@pkc.gov.uk Description of Proposal Erection of dwellinghouse Address of site Land 105M South West Of Fasgadh Gellybank Farm Kinross KY13 0LE Comments on the proposal NB: Should the planning application be successful and such permission not be implemented within the time scale allowed and the applicant subsequently requests to renew the original permission a reassessment may be carried out in relation to the Council’s policies and mitigation rates pertaining at the time. THE FOLLOWING REPORT, SHOULD THE APPLICATION BE SUCCESSFUL IN GAINING PLANNING APPROVAL, MAY FORM THE BASIS OF A SECTION 75 PLANNING AGREEMENT WHICH MUST BE AGREED AND SIGNED PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL ISSUING A PLANNING CONSENT NOTICE. Primary Education With reference to the above planning application the Council Developer Contributions Supplementary Guidance requires a financial contribution towards increased primary school capacity in areas where a primary school capacity constraint has been identified. A capacity constraint is defined as where a primary school is operating at over 80% and is likely to be operating following completion of the proposed development, extant planning permissions and Local Development Plan allocations, at or above 100% of total capacity. This proposal is within the catchment of Kinross Primary School. Recommended planning condition(s) Summary of Requirements Education: 1 x £5,164 Total: £5,164 Phasing It is advised that payment of the contribution should be made up front of release of planning permission. The additional costs to the applicants and time for processing legal agreements for single dwelling applications is not considered to be cost effective to either the Council or applicant. The contribution may be secured by way of a Section 75 Agreement. Please be aware the applicant is liable for the Council’s legal expense in addition to
Page 17
their own legal agreement option and the process may take months to complete. Recommended informative(s) for applicant Payment Before remitting funds the applicant should satisfy themselves that the payment of the Development Contributions is the only outstanding matter relating to the issuing of the Planning Decision Notice. Methods of Payment On no account should cash or cheques be remitted. Scheduled within a legal agreement This will normally take the course of a Section 75 Agreement where either there is a requirement for Affordable Housing on site which will necessitate a Section 75 Agreement being put in place and into which a Development Contribution payment schedule can be incorporated, and/or the amount of Development Contribution is such that an upfront payment may be considered prohibitive. The signed Agreement must be in place prior to the issuing of the Planning Decision Notice. NB: The applicant is cautioned that the costs of preparing a Section 75 agreement from the applicant’s own Legal Agents may in some instances be in excess of the total amount of contributions required. As well as their own legal agents fees, Applicants will be liable for payment of the Council's legal fees and outlays in connection with the preparation of the Section 75 Agreement. The applicant is therefore encouraged to contact their own Legal Agent who will liaise with the Council’s Legal Service to advise on this issue. Other methods of payment Providing that there is no requirement to enter into a Section 75 Legal Agreement, eg: for the provision of Affordable Housing on or off site and or other Planning matters, as advised by the Planning Service the developer/applicant may opt to contribute the full amount prior to the release of the Planning Decision Notice. Bank Transfers All Bank Transfers should use the following account details; Sort Code: 834700 Account Number: 11571138 Please quote the planning application reference. The Council operate an electronic direct debit system whereby payments may be made over the phone. To make such a payment please call 01738 475300 in the first instance. When calling please remember to have to hand: a) Your card details. b) Whether it is a Debit or Credit card. c) The full amount due. d) The planning application to which the payment relates. e) If you are the applicant or paying on behalf of the applicant.
Page 18
f) Your e-mail address so that a receipt may be issued directly. Education Contributions For Education contributions please quote the following ledger code: 1-30-0060-0001-859136 Indexation All contributions agreed through a Section 75 Legal Agreement will be linked to the RICS Building Cost Information Service building Index. Accounting Procedures Contributions from individual sites will be accountable through separate accounts and a public record will be kept to identify how each contribution is spent. Contributions will be recorded by the applicant’s name, the site address and planning application reference number to ensure the individual commuted sums can be accounted for. Date comments returned 12 December 2023
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.
Page 25
Planning was given in 2015 to Mr and Mrs T and E Stewart for a chalet development at Gellybank Farm. The decision notice dated 13th August 2015, point 7 states The access road from the public road to the application site shall be upgraded in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by and to the satisfaction of this Council as Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any other development. Reason – In the interests of road safety.” We feel that this statement by PKC planning department sets a precedent and should be applicable to all planning applications and future developments at Gellybank Farm. The farm road should be upgraded for safety reasons, prior to any further planning applications being granted at Gellybank Farm. Flood Risk The access road to the proposed development runs adjacent to an open drainage ditch. Mr Thomas Stewart, owner of the road, maintains the ditch. The ditch is becoming wider each time it is cleared, resulting in the access road narrowing. This ditch has overflowed on several occasions over the past few years the most recent incident being in 30 December 2022 (pictures attached).
Page 26
The resultant flooding caused significant damage and subsidence to the road, with the excess water flowing into the development site. The water drainage is hampered as it has to flow uphill in the ditch that lies adjacent to the boundary south of the proposed planning site and new access road. The water from the ditch should run freely into a drainage pipe which runs underneath the road and discharges into the Gellybank Burn. This matter requires to be addressed as a priority with the drainage ditch being altered and fully piped to ensure that any flooding risk is mitigated. It is unclear from the plans submitted whether the proposed piping will mitigate this flood risk. We believe that the ditch would have to be piped to allow ample room for the new access road to be made.
Page 27
Existing Development of Gellybank Farm The farm has already seen significant diversification as Mr and Mrs Thomas Stewart and family have already built 7 houses in Gellybank. In 2015, Mr and Mrs Thomas Stewart had outline planning granted for the development of 8 holiday lodges. A renewal of permission was granted in 2018 and full planning permission was granted in 2019. In the subsequent 4 years only some groundworks have been completed with no sight of any further progress being made. Mr Darren Stewart and his partner currently live on site in a caravan and are responsible for the development of the holiday lodges. We believe that the applicant should complete this unfinished development prior to this application for a further property being considered. Yours faithfully Euan and Laura Smith
Page 28
Mr David and Rachel Charity (Objects) Comment submitted date: Tue 19 Dec 2023 With regards to the submission of a planning application for the erection of another dwelling at Gellybank Farm we are concerned about additional housing being built on a site which has an outstanding application for 8 holiday chalets yet to be built and therefore its impact on the surrounding local road and community is still undetermined. We expressed concern when the previous application was submitted for two dwellings at this site and these concerns remain. This rural area has been increasingly subject to sporadic housing putting increased stress on a narrow, twisting local access road. Coupled with a general change in shopping habits traffic from delivery vehicles has increased. This, in conjunction with traffic from other local enterprises, has turned the road into a thoroughfare. This road is not gritted in winter and is treacherous and is used as a cycle route in summer adding to traffic.
Page 29
No embedded text on this page.
Page 30
No embedded text on this page.
Page 31
1 CDS Planning Local Review Body From: gavin freer Sent: 25 April 2024 21:06 To: CDS Planning Local Review Body Subject: Planning application 23/01765/FLL Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from an external organisation. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, Regarding planning application 23/01765/FLL. This application has been sent for review by the applicant. This application has been refused twice by the planning authority because the plots do not meet the criteria that Perth & Kinross planning have adopted, placemaking guidance & housing in the countryside guidance. No. 5 on the planning appeals guidance it says that the review decision by law has to be made in line with development plan. Aswell as not meeting any place making guidance, the property planned does not fit in with the others and will not contribute to or enhance the area in any way. Thanks Gavin & Mary Freer
Page 32
1 CDS Planning Local Review Body From: Rachel Charity Sent: 30 April 2024 18:07 To: CDS Planning Local Review Body Subject: LRB-2024-19 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from an external organisation. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Sirs, With regards to Planning Application : 23/01765/FLL which was refused in January 2024 for a number of reasons, particularly that it is contrary to Policy 9(b) of National Planning Framework 4 and Policy 17: Rural Homes of NPF4, as the application has been resubmitted under appeal, please could our comments which were submitted in objection to the original application be taken into account where relevant. Thank you in advance for your attention. Kind regards, David and Rachel Charity Sent from my iPhone
Page 33
Dear Sir/Madam, 23/01765/FLL | Erection of dwellinghouse | Land 80 Metres South West Of Gellybank Farm Kinross I refer to the above planning application which was refused by PKC Planning Committee on 17 January 2024. I can confirm that all the reasons for our objection detailed in our letter dated 18 December 2024 still stand namely: Access and Parking Flood Risk Existing Development of Gellybank Farm In addition to the information contained within our letter, it is clear from viewing historical satellite imagery contained within the PKC Report of Handling – Delegated Report dated 16.01.2024 that the applicant and his family, over a number of years, have developed a greenfield site to build 2 houses and create an additional 2 housing plots. This proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 19 of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2, the associated SG and therefore also Policy 9 of NPF4 as this is a greenfield site which is not explicitly supported by policies of the LDP as outlined in Policy 9(b) of NPF4. On the basis that the application does not meet the legislative criteria required for planning permission to be granted, I would urge you to refuse this appeal. Yours faithfully Laura & Euan Smith
Page 34
CDS Planning Local Review Body From: Sent: 30 April 2024 19:30 To: CDS Planning Local Review Body Cc: 'A Alison Smith (ICE)' Subject: RE: LRB-2024-19 CAUTION: This email originated from an external organisaon. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open aachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Sir / Madam, Further to the recent email advising that Mr D Stewart is appealing the decision to decline the applicaon to build a dwelling house at Gellybank Farm, we would like to re-confirm our original objecons. We are not experts in planning maers and are basing our objecons on observaons made from living at Gellybank for the last 22 years. This is the second planning applicaon that has been made on this green field site which has been duly and righully declined by planning. * Overdevelopment - There was only one house on this site in 2000, if this was granted there would be 8 dwelling houses and 8 Chalets. The applicant has only completed some groundwork on the chalet development, surely this should be completed before undertaking another building plot. * Contrary to LDP(2019) and to the new NPF4 on at least 10 different policies. This proposed site and a further two ‘gap’ sites have all been arficially created boundary by the owners of Gellybank Farm. This can clearly be seen in the photographs included in the Report of Handling. * Road safety - clear site entering and exing Gellybank Farm is very poor. The main road is a ‘C’ classed road and as such does not get gried in the winter and many secons are not possible to have two cars passing without going onto the verge. This road is also heavily ulised by local farmers carrying out their day-to-day acvies. There are no public transport provisions for this community, with the excepon of school buses. * The open ditch on the farm road adjacent to the proposed site has been very close to flooding on many occasions this winter. The farm road and “open ditch” will require significant investment if this development was passed. Soluons to this were not included in the original applicaon. We hope that these points are again taken into consideraon at the forthcoming LRB meeng. Kind Regards Ross and Alison Smith
Page 35
1 CDS Planning Local Review Body From: Lynn and Gordon Clark Sent: 01 May 2024 13:31 To: CDS Planning Local Review Body Subject: Ref:LRB-2024-19 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from an external organisation. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Sir / Madam, Further to the recent email advising that Mr D Stewart is appealing the decision to decline the application to build a dwelling house at Gellybank Farm, we would like to re-afirm our original objections. Last year there was a similar application for two properties in this area which was rejected. The reasons for rejection of two will be similar to rejecting one, I suggest you refer to last years application in this area for the reasons of rejection. My Objections are; This is a rural area where houses continue to be added which is inappropriate to to rural area. There is already approved planning for 8 chalets in adjacent area which have not been constructed yet, this will just add to the loss of this rural amenity. Water pressure in this area can drop to almost zero sometimes. Scottish Water have been aware of this problem for years however have not resolved it as yet. The addition of the chalets and the proposed additional property will only make this worse. Additional properties add additional traffic onto a narrow rural road (Kinross to Carsegour) which is unacceptable from a safety perspective. P&K council deem this road "rural" in their plans as not part of the council gritting programme. Regards Gordon Clark
Page 36
10/05/24 Perth and Kinross Local Review Body Applicaon Ref : 23/01765/FLL LRB-2024-19 Response by appellant - Mr Darren Stewart to representaons made to the Review by neighbours. With reference to the above subject and objecons raised by residents, we address each of their points, as follows:- Mr and Mrs Clark deem it inappropriate to connue to add further houses to (this) rural area. We presume they too live in the same rural area, in a house built here. It feels a lile ironic, that they oppose the very thing, for others, that they themselves are doing. They make reference to the Cabin (not chalets) Development. Any reference to the Cabin Development is irrelevant to this applicaon, it is a separate body of business, which has already been rafied. Mr and Mrs Clark make reference to water pressure in the area, we feel that they should take their grievance up with Scosh Water, as this is a separate issue altogether. We are unaware of exactly where Mr and Mrs Clark live, but if they are local they will be aware of the extensive works being carried out by Scosh Water at the moment on the Chance Inn road, at the moment. With regards to us, we are in possession of a flow and pressure test carried out by Scosh Water Horizons, which shows that there is no problem with water pressure. Mr and Mrs Clark refer to increase in traffic leading to safety and gring issues on the Chance Inn road. This road is, like many others in Perthshire, a ‘country road’. Every driver who has obtained a Drivers Licence, must have passed a theory and praccal test in order to drive on a public road and do so safely, in accordance with law and road condions. Almost every country road (plus town roads) have cyclists/walkers/horse riders frequenng them. People, generally speaking, are aware of this. Personally, we have no knowledge of any driving incidents that have occurred on the Chance Inn road at all. I’m sure any stascs for incidents on this road, will be logged with the local authority and can easily be checked. With regards to gring, most small roads, whether in town or rural are not gried anyway and most drivers, again, know this and drive accordingly. Mr and Mrs Charity make reference to Council Policy contravenons, all policy responses have been addressed by our planning consultant, with respect, please refer to his correspondence. Mr and Mrs Charity also re-iterate much of what was said by Mr and Mrs Clark. Mr and Mrs Freer have made quite a number of objecons and we will address them all, as best we can.
Page 37
Firstly, we must point out, for the purposes of transparency, that Mr and Mrs Freer have a vested interest in ensuring this applicaon is refused. Mr and Mrs Freer have openly stated, in the past, that they want to add this land to their own porolio. Mr and Mrs Freer state that their buildings (which neighbour the applicaon land) are “in regular and increasing use for engineering work” and imply that the noise levels they generate is akin to any working farm or livery. They do have a couple of horses and stables, that is correct. They state they use their building for engineering work. On their tle deeds, they have no right of access over Gellybank Farm roads for any engineering business (class 5 use) and as far as we know, there have been no applicaons made by them to Perth and Kinross Council for change of use of their outbuildings for such a venture. We have been advised that Mr and Mrs Freer are currently subject to planning enforcement acon ref FS-case578825820, in connecon with this. Mr and Mrs Freer state that the access road is in “poor repair and is acvely degrading”. Gellybank Farm road is no different from any other farm road and does get pot holes (when we are bombarded with sustained heavy rain). We then, at our first opportunity (when weather and other work permits us) refill the pot holes. Every resident of Gellybank Farm road is absolutely aware of this. Mr and Mrs Freer insinuate that our level of pot hole filling is somehow below the standard of pot hole filling that they themselves carried out prior to us and that this has led to the road becoming apparently worse. If this were the case, we would have thought that it would have been too dangerous to ride a horse on it or drive up it with a baby sing on your lap, behind a steering wheel, for example, but yet it happens, we’ve seen it. What doesn’t help is to then have Gellybank Farm road users race up and down on their quad bike or bounce up and down at excessive speed with a trailer aached. It looks like an act of sabotage really. We will happily endeavour to place signs on the road to ask users to abide by a 10 MPH speed limit and respect the road for all of us, hopefully that would help alleviate some of the concerns for Mr and Mrs Freer. With regards to extra volume on the road, we feel that there would be lile detrimental impact. Mr and Mrs Freer state that the farm road should have a tarmac surface. It should be noted that the farm road is not a flat road, it has hills. We get rain followed by freezing temperatures, in Winter. This road would just become a skang rink with tarmac and users would most certainly end up in the first property’s garden at the boom of the hill. The current road surface, at least provides some tracon. It is our opinion that a Tarmac surface would be a safety issue in Wintery condions. The farm road currently has 3 passing places, which seem to work perfectly well. Mr and Mrs Freer state that the ditch near the proposed building site is at capacity/cannot cope. All the ditches at Gellybank Farm are perfectly capable of doing their job. On the few days of the year, where there is monsoon type rain, everywhere - Gellybank Farm included - has (very temporary) excess water on the road. Obviously, the extra water that enters Gellybank Farm, does not originate on the Farm, it flows down hill from Cockairney and downhill from the brow of the Chance Inn road and from the flooding at the Woods property. So, they are
Page 38
quite correct, it overflowed in late February 2021 and we think one other me. We have plans in place to upgrade our ditches in due course, as part of our ditch management plan and will inform the residents of Gellybank Farm, when this will occur, if it impacts them. Their comment in regards to the Cabin Development site adding to the flood is irrelevant. Mr and Mrs Freer stated that we have “aggressively cut” a hedge that borders the site. The hedge in queson was overgrown (towards the road) and we simply maintained it. We only cut hedges and trees outwith breeding season, in consideraon of the wild life. We acvely promote wildlife in other areas of the farm, leaving secons to grow wild to afford them a habitat. We are a huge supporter of wild life and are offended at the insinuaon that we would do something to deliberately destroy it. Mr and Mrs Freer state that they are concerned regarding any loss of hedge. We have planted many trees and hedging on the farm recently and anything we may have to remove or maintain, will be more than compensated elsewhere on the farm, should it need to be. Mr and Mrs Freer state they wanted to pay for trees on our land bordering them and that we refused. This is correct, the reason is that we do not wish to enter into any transacons with them, whatsoever. Mr and Mrs Freer make reference to planning in the Kinross and Milnathort area, this is also irrelevant. They insinuate that Gellybank Farm has lile to no acve farming remaining. Gellybank Farm has 84 acres of farmland, the farm is used for the grazing of sheep and growing of silage. We suggest that there is a fair amount of acve farming. Mr and Mrs Freer state that there is plenty development “elsewhere” for others to live. Just not where they do, it appears. Further reference is then made about the Cabin Development at the top end of the farm and again is irrelevant to this applicaon. It is a separate project, with a separate schedule, just as many other businesses have separate projects ongoing at the same me. Our business scheduling is nothing to do with the neighbours, it is our opinion that the residents objecng here are just throwing as much mud about as possible to see what scks in order to vindicvely hamper our family in any way they can. With regards to Mr and Mrs Freer’s comments in respect of their water supply, they should be aware that their water supply does not come from the pump house servicing the rest of the farm, so we are puzzled regarding their comment about the water pipe bursng and emptying the tank. We are unaware of this situaon and perhaps Mr and Mrs Freer could advise us where they got this informaon ( in wring) in order we may follow up on this maer. No one else seemed affected by it, that we know of. Mr and Mrs Freer state the refuse system is not adequate. We can confirm that some residents are not flaening boxes and we regularly have to empty the cardboard (industrial) bin to break down large boxes that are being place in whole. That is not really our place to do this, but we do it, if everyone was more considerate, there would be ample space in the bin. We are not aware of any other refuse spilling out, the best people to answer that would be the Refuse Department. With regards to Mr and Mrs Freers policy comments, with respect, please refer to our planning consultant’s correspondence.
Page 39
Mr and Mrs (Ross and Allison) Smith start off their objecons by describing our family living condions and other business venture. They seem to hold contempt, against my father to have had the audacity to build the Farmhouse they live in and then renovate and sell the two steading houses next door to him. Thereaer they proceed to describe the family dynamics, before giving an opinion on how we should run our business. We are absolutely disgusted that Mr and Mrs Smith decided to publicly describe our private life, in an aempt to belile us, something we would not dream of doing to them. Because it is irrelevant, we will not give any explanaon whatsoever to Mr and Mrs (Ross and Allison) Smith of what (extensive) works we have already carried out on the Cabin Development. As stated me and me again, the Cabin Development is a separate business venture. We are puzzled as to why Mr and Mrs Smith are targeng us in this way, as we have had very lile to do with them in the 24 years the family has owned the farm. Even less so, now that Mr and Mrs Smith have their own private road from their house to Cockairney road and thus can avoid the farm (road and houses), anyme they want. Mr and Mrs Smith next object to the locaon of the plot pertaining to this applicaon, stang that it used to be a grass field. At one point, in bygone years, Mr and Mrs Smith’s house, was also a grass field. Ironic really. With regards to the comment in relaon to the field itself, this has been dealt with by the planning consultant. Mr and Mrs Smith are concerned that the plot pertaining to this applicaon will be “in isolaon”. It’s not. If you travelled the length and breadth of Britain, you will find countless houses in true isolaon, not another house to be seen for miles. We’re not sure what they are trying to achieve with this one, we find this objecon ludicrous. They then comment on the ditch - this has already been covered, earlier on. They then instruct Perth and Kinross Council to refuse this applicaon. Mr and Mrs (Ross and Allison ) Smith claim that there are ongoing issues with the access road. We assume that they too are making reference to pot holes appearing when there’s heavy rain from me to me. Mr and Mrs Smith further state that Gellybank Farm residents have a road fund and that they also all filled in pot holes together. It feels like they ( the objecng residents) have appeared to have taken excepon to us having moved onto the farm ( parents - Mr and Mrs Tom and Ellen Stewart - are elderly now). We are assisng my parents with the praccal running and administraon of family land, this also includes filling pot holes on the Farm road. The whole scenario is actually infanle. Mr and Mrs Smith also demand the Farm Road to be Tarmac . Tarmac won’t work on this farm road, for the reasons already stated. Mr and Mrs Smith can always use their own road and thus save themselves the trauma of travelling on a road that they feel is an issue. Why would you willingly put yourselves through such a trauma, when you have alternaves in place? Truly perplexing indeed. To date, there have been no accidents or other incidents causing injury on the Farm road, so we are unsure as to what Mr and Mrs Smith would require us all to be safe from. They are well aware that there have always been passing places.
Page 40
Mr and Mrs Smith then make reference to the main public road, known locally as the Chance Inn Road. Like a lot of roads in Scotland, it is a single country road, which can facilitate 2 cars passing each other, obviously common sense prevails and you slow down. On occasion, you have to pull over (the odd horse, lorry or school bus), it’s no great inconvenience really, as there are many field entrances to pull into. Most country dwellers understand this and its part of the way of life in the countryside. We are unaware of any accidents or incidents pertaining to the public road, in recent years either. These stascs, if there are any, is easily checked with the local authority. With regards to water pressure issues. As they are well aware, they do not have a direct mains water supply, to their property. Their water supply is fed from the previously aforemenoned pump house. As all residents are aware, Scosh Water are currently upgrading their pipe work in this area, whether or not this is relevant to water pressure, remains to be seen. We cannot comment on this aspect. The bin storage area was installed by us to house the 4 industrial sized bins that were sited near the entrance. At our expense, we dug out and concreted a secon of our banking and created a wooden shelter for the bins to make it look beer. Shortly aer, with no warning (or we would have accommodated it, of course) 2 further industrial bins were deposited at the entrance by the Council. We have plans to extend our bin storage area, in due course. Mr and Mrs (Euan and Laura ) Smith seem to require clarificaon in connecon with Gellybank Farm access road maintenance. It is fairly simple, if there are pot holes in our road, we will fill them ( on an ad hoc basis - like the residents used to, prior to us moving onto the farm ). If the road requires more extensive repair, the residents will be informed, as per their tle. Mr and Mrs Smith re-iterate much of the same as their neighbours regarding road surface and tarmac etc. They are suggesng that any future upgrade to the road will be at our expense. Let us be clear, all residents of Gellybank Farm have it in their property tle, that they have right of access over Gellybank Farm Road to get to their properes. On the tle, it clearly states that they are liable to a poron of the expense for the upkeep of Gellybank Farm Road. This is a legal document. The fact that we haven’t invoked that during pot hole filling, is to their benefit, most people would have been grateful. Mr and Mrs Smith are twisng words, when they refer to the Gellybank Farm Road Fund. It is true, that all residents pay into a fund ( in effect, saving up together, should the road require an expensive upgrade). It is true, that the Stewart family don’t pay into the fund. This decision was made by us when we moved onto the family farm, as we didn’t want to be involved in any community fund with the neighbours. That is our right. Not because of any Planning refusal, as Mr and Mrs Smith have suggested. We are just not that pey. Mr and Mrs Smith thereaer provide photos of the Farm Road, with it’s pot holes. Yes, that’s what happens somemes, then they get filled. Sadly, Mr and Mrs Smith didn’t feel the need to include photos of the road with the pot holes filled. What should be clarified is that the photograph (prior to pot hole filling) is dated 14th December 2023. The pot holes were filled on the 15th December 2023. Their objecon leer is dated 18th December 2023. As you can tell from these dates, their whole point is moot. We assume this part of their objecon is for dramac effect.
Page 41
Mr and Mrs Smith, like the others, then refer to the Cabin development, again we state, this is irrelevant. They further re-iterate what has already been said about the ditch, this was answered earlier on, in this leer. Mr and Mrs Smith have supplied more photos regarding the flooded ditch. This was a direct result of a deluge of monsoon level rain, which most of Britain was also subjected to. It is certainly not a daily occurrence. They again, have elected not to supply photos of the repaired road. Mr and Mrs Smith go on to discuss our Farm Diversificaon and state that we have “already built 7 houses” on the farm. They are incorrect, The Farmhouse, the 2 steadings and the first coage, were already exisng buildings, on the Farm, prior to my father purchasing it, they were therefore renovated. Two houses were built by us, one of which is occupied by Mr and Mrs Tom and Ellen Stewart. The remaining building, which is occupied by Mr and Mrs Freer, was not built by us and is nothing to do with us or the farm, whatsoever. We had absolutely no input with it at all. We feel, that Mr and Mrs Smith do not have the right to dictate how we conduct our business, with regards to the Cabin Development or any other business venture we have. For some reason, they felt the need to describe our living condions and refer to my wife of 22 years - who has done absolutely nothing to any of these neighbours. It is really quite disturbing, we would never have discussed publicly, their family or businesses. To close, it is fair to say that coming to live on the family farm, aer having gone through a horrendous few years with health and other stressful issues before, has the feeling of having gone from the frying pan into the fire. We are deeply stressed by the vicmisaon inflicted upon us by these neighbours. What makes it worse, is that these are intelligent, professional people, who should know beer. For a number of families to gang up on an elderly couple and their son (and it would now also appear, his wife), for the most trivial of reasons, is nothing short of abhorrent. We have said absolutely nothing back, up unl this point. This unwarranted behaviour towards us, has to stop or we will be forced to take further legal advice and acon, in an effort to protect ourselves from them. We constantly feel aacked. We respecully request that the Review board see these objecons for what they really are. A low-level aempt, by desperate people, to use the authories as yet another tool, to bully a family they appear to be jealous of. Yours Sincerely, Darren Stewart Gellybank Farm Kinross Perthshire Scotland KY13 0LE
Page 42
No embedded text on this page.