(c) Representations (Pages 51-84)
Perth and Kinross Council · 16 September 2024
Back to Local Review Body — 16 September 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-2024-29 LRB-2024-29 23/01987/FLL – Siting of ancillary accommodation unit (in retrospect), The Walled Garden, Garth, Fortingall, Aberfeldy, PH15 2NF 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
Mr Ron Alexander (Objects) Comment submitted date: Wed 20 Mar 2024 My main objection is that this pod was erected without planning permission. As it has clearly been erected with accommodation in mind, planning permission was clearly required. The PKC planning checklist lists several questions and states clearly that if the answer to any of these questions is 'Yes', then planning permission is required. The first question concerns the use of the building "Is your garage/shed/garden building for overnight accommodation?" As the answer to this is 'Yes', planning permission was clearly required, but was not applied for. Another key aspect of planning permission is how foul waste is dealt with. Apparently, foul waste from the pod has been ducted into a private sewage system without consultation. The location of the pod is also an issue, as it imposes itself both on a local drive and the main Garth drive. Although it is an unsightly addition to Garth, the location could not have been more obvious. It certainly does nothing to enhance the visual amenity of the area. The location of the pod is also unwelcome in that it overlooks both the above- mentioned drives. It also overlooks the back garden of another property which a family often uses and in which kids often play. For the above reasons, I object to this application.
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
No embedded text on this page.
Page 10
No embedded text on this page.
Page 11
No embedded text on this page.
Page 12
No embedded text on this page.
Page 13
No embedded text on this page.
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
Comments to the Development Quality Manager on a Planning Application Planning Application ref. 23/01987/FLL Comments provided by Jody Blake Service/Secti on Conservation Contact Details Description of Proposal Siting of ancillary accommodation unit (in retrospect) Address of site The Walled Garden, Garth, PH15 2NF Comments on the proposal The subject site contains a formal stone walled garden in the shape of a square. Historic mapping shows that the walled garden was built in association with the Category B listed Garth House and was built around the same time and is therefore considered to be curtilage listed. Historic mapping shows a structure on the northern wall of the walled garden in 1898, likely a hot house associated with the garden. The historic mapping shows a clear relationship between Garth House and the walled garden, set within the formal gardens of the house. Figure 1 - 1862 OS map
Page 22
Figure 2 – 1898 OS Map The proposal is for retention of an existing free-standing eco-pod located outwith the south elevation of the walled garden. The eco-pod is single storey with a barrel roof and clad in painted larch timber. The ends of the pod are unpainted. The eco-pod is not physically attached to the walled garden, nor have any new openings in the wall been created. NPF4 Policy 7 c) states that Development proposals for the reuse, alteration or extension of a listed building will only be supported where they will preserve its character, special architectural or historic interest and setting. Development proposals affecting the setting of a listed building should preserve its character, and its special architectural or historic interest. The proposed (existing) eco-pod would have a visual impact on the walled garden from the southern approach. However, the eco-pod only obscures a small section of the walled garden which does not detract from the special interest and interpretation of the walled garden. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed eco-pod would have a neutral impact on the listed garden wall. Date comments returned 03/04/2024
Page 23
SPR Planning Local Review Body From: Sent: 18 July 2024 20:27 To: SPR Planning Local Review Body Subject: Re: LRB-2024-29 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. Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town & Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation & Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Application Ref: 23/01987/FLL – Siting of ancillary accommodation unit (in retrospect), The Walled Garden, Garth, Fortingall, Aberfeldy, PH15 2NF – Mrs A Pigny Further representation in relation to the review of the original decision. I have already objected to this application and wish to comment on the review by the Perth and Kinross Local Review Body, which has been requested by the applicant. A key point is that the decision to refuse the application clearly quotes the PKC Planning policies which the application fails to comply with. If this review finds in favour of the applicant, this would appear to render these policies redundant. As these policies are intended to ensure that inappropriate buildings, with negative impacts on the neighbourhood, are not permitted, this could create a dangerous precedent. If this application is allowed to go ahead and key planning policies over-ridden, it would be difficult to exercise control over future similar developments. This cannot be an acceptable outcome. A further point concerns the approach taken by the applicant. It appears that very clear advice on the PKC Planning website, concerning which types of buildings do / do not require planning permission, was ignored. It was clearly the responsibility of the applicant to comply with this advice. It also appears from other objections, that some neighbours appear to have felt misled by the applicant's description of the purpose of the building i.e. as an office. As has already been pointed out, a more open, collaborative approach could have averted the costs, time and distress that this application has caused. Regards, Ron Alexander
Page 24
SPR Planning Local Review Body From: Suzie Ogilvie Sent: 23 July 2024 10:06 To: SPR Planning Local Review Body Subject: Re: LRB-2024-29 Attachments: pod photo.jpg 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. Application Ref: 23/01987/FLL – Siting of ancillary accommodation unit (in retrospect), The Walled Garden, Garth, Fortingall, Aberfeldy, PH15 2NF – Mrs A Pigny Many thanks for your email. I would like to reiterate all of the arguments set out in the original objection but would note in particular that the decision referenced that our privacy at Garth House was protected by the presence of mature trees. We acknowledge that there is cover in summer, but as highlighted previously, the trees are deciduous and for 7 months of the year, there would be a clear view from the pod into our garden given the pod's elevated position, thereby impacting our privacy and right to enjoy the garden. I reattach below a copy of the photo taken from our garden during the winter months. I would be happy to discuss further. Best regards, Ms S Ogilvie
Page 25
No embedded text on this page.
Page 26
Glenlyon & Loch Tay Community Council July 25th. 2024 Re: LRB 2024-29- Notice of Review (redacted) The Community Council (CC) stands by its original objections to this application and is fully supportive of the Planning Officer’s Decision Report; his decision to refuse it and the Decision Notice. However, having read the Notice of Review the CC would like to make the following comments: Introduction: The applicant clearly states that the pod is for ancillary accommodation for the existing house. As such it matters not whether it is considered listed or not, it definitely does not comply with LDP2 Ancillary and Annex Accommodation Supplementary Guidance. It is as far away from the main house as it can be and still be within its curtilage, some 65 metres, It is isolated without even visual connection. Grounds of Appeal / Review: Para.3 LDP2 Policy 1A refutes that argument and it is doubtful that Planning Officers need a suggestion from an applicant about obtaining legal advice. 1.There appear to be two conflicting statements: “The character of the Garth area is not defined by the properties within it”,... “The diversity of builds in Garth is arguably its established character…” In fact, Garth owes its special character to its landscape designed by James McLaren. The present -day eclectic mix of architecture is, none the less architecture and the buildings, dwelling houses. The pod is alien to both the landscape and the building-type being nearer the hutting/shed end of the spectrum than dwelling house; more commonly associated with tourist camp sites; and does not respect the established character and amenity of the area. 3. It is elevated. Screen shot below of App. 23/01987/FLL Elevation and Floor and CC photo:
Page 27
Screening trees and shrubs are deciduous and therefore have little effect for 7 months of the year when, being close to the West Drive, passers-by and anyone in the garden of Garth House can be clearly seen from the pod and vis versa. 4. Whether the pod is in the rear garden is questionable. According to Circular 1/2014: Householder Permitted Development Rights, “Principal elevation” is used to identify the front of the dwellinghouse and mostly this is the side which fronts a road. This would make the southside of the Walled Garden the Principal Elevation as it faces the West Drive, even though the main entrance is on the eastern side. The main windows are also on the south side. Therefore, the pod is in the front garden and not the rear as claimed . It does not sit comfortably on its plot. It is perched on a knoll, close to and above the West Drive which is the main access to the west side of the Garth Estate. Conclusions. The Planning Officer has a duty to respond to objectors; “neighbours and others”. Re: Appendix A - E.mail 18th. April 2024: Despite the Planning Officer’s helpful suggestions, in the Decision Report, to re-site the pod the applicant is adamant that this is not physically possible. This is questionable. Therefore, must be able to gain access and it has been reported that the bottom of drive was widened for that purpose. Therefore, it should be possible to move the pod to the back/north of the house either as a whole or in sections. Alternatively, the northern garden could be accessed via the field behind it.
Page 28
Comment – To return to Conclusions, the rather belligerent tone could perhaps best be directed to the professional who gave the applicant wrong advice in the first place rather than at the Planning Officers who have a responsibility to implement National, Regional and Local planning policy. The CC respectfully asks the Local Review Body, when making its decision, to consider the implications of setting a precedence as it would not like to see a rash of pods or similar suddenly appearing inappropriately in its area. Thank you. Regards, Susan Dolan-Betney, Chair
Page 29
SPR Planning Local Review Body From: Jackie Polakowska Sent: 25 July 2024 00:00 To: SPR Planning Local Review Body Subject: LRB-2024-29 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. Having read the reasons for seeking a review of the refusal of this retrospective planning application, which seems to me to lack new evidence and rather miss the point, I would like to make the following comments. The pod has no relationship or connection whatsoever to the house on the walled garden site, from which it cannot even be seen. It looks prominent in its elevated position on a very public site above the main access roadway which it overlooks.The trees around it are deciduous, so for most of the year it is highly visible. It is very out of keeping with what is otherwise an attractive roadway, and spoils the look of the main entrance area to the walled garden. As the walled garden is not listed, this eases restrictions on where the pod can be situated either within the garden's walls or behind the house on the north side. A crane was used to deliver the pod so a crane could be used to lift it over the wall into the front of the main garden. It would also be possible to lift it with a crane and take it up the field to the west of the property (with the farmer's permission) at the top of which there is only a low metal fence for the pod to be lifted over, and into the area to the rear of the house. Alternatively, I believe this type of pod can be disassembled which would facilitate moving it, so despite what the applicant claims, it would not be impossible to relocate it. I would like to point out that a significant proportion of residents of the small hamlet of Garth have taken the trouble to object. The applicant, during a conversation near the pod before applying for retrospective planning permission, told me that the suppliers of the pod had informed her that planning permission was not required. The combative attitude in the applicant's conclusion to her reasons for requesting a review might be better directed towards whoever gave incorrect advice about requirements for planning permission. This application clearly contravenes the planning requirements for ancillary accommodation and approval would set an undesirable precedent for future applications. Please uphold the decision to refuse. Jacqueline Polakowska
Page 30
7th August 2024 Lisa Simpson Clerk to the Local Review Body Council Building, 2 High Street, PERTH, PH1 5PH By email: Planninglrb@pkc.gov.uk Dear Ms Simpson Application Ref: 23/01987/FLL – Siting of ancillary accommodation unit (in retrospect), The Walled Garden, Garth, Fortingall, Aberfeldy, PH15 2NF Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the representations received. On the basis that the submissions raise no new issues, we haven’t any further comments to add to our appeal. Attached are pictures which we hope will aid the LRB to contextualise our appeal . As already noted, the LRB are welcome to visit to view our property in person. We appreciate your consideration. Many thanks Amanda and Patrick Pigny
Page 31
Contextual map Version date TITLE NUMBER 14/03/2024 PTH63273 BRITISH NATIONAL GRID EASTING/NORTHING 100m 275559, 747771 Survey Scale Print Scale 1:2500 1:2500 @ A4 CROWN COPYRIGHT © This copy has been produced on 14/03/2024 with the authority of Ordnance Survey under Section 47 of the Copyright and Patents Act 1988. Unless there is a relevant exception to copyright, the copy must not be copied without prior permission of the copyright owner. OS Licence no AC0000820447. This extract may contain Ordnance Survey features captured at other scales. PTH63273 Page 1 of 2 Front door and garden Back garden The Walled Garden outlined in red X marks ecopod Approved 5 bed housebuild here Approved 5 bed housebuild here Approved house and garage extension here AirBnB
Page 32
Aerial view Outlook east
Page 33
Outlook from door Outlook west
Page 34
No embedded text on this page.