(a) Notice of Review and supporting documents (Pages 167-184)

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.

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)(a) 
LRB-2024-31 
LRB-2024-31
24/00727/FLL - Erection of fence (for a temporary period), 2
Greenacres, Grange, Errol, Perth, PH2 7TB 
PAPERS SUBMITTED
BY THE
APPLICANT

Page 2

No embedded text on this page.

Page 3

'U
2°
7< (N
n 2-
H
U
3
E
h Notice of Review
D
O
E NOTICE OF REVIEW
0
: UNDER SECTION 43A(8) OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (As AMENDED)IN
g, RESPECT OF DECISIONS ON LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS
N
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCHEMES 0F DELEGATION AND LOCAL REVIEW PROCEDURE)
(SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (APPEALS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2008
IMPORTAuT: Please Ed and follow the guidggg noteg ggrovied when comHietig this fem.
Failure to gum all the [gleaym infomtio could in liaggg mgr notlg of gvigwa
Use BLOCK CAPITALS if completing in manuscript
Applicant(s) Agent (if any)
Name Name 1:]
Address 2. GR et-zu ACQ £5 Address
aRANC 6
mac I
pER-T H 5H IKE
Postcode PH). 7T8 Postcode
Contact Telephone 1 Contact Telephone 1
Contact Telephone 2 _ Contad Telephone 2
Fax No _ Fax No
E-mail' E mail' :
Mark this box to con rm all contact should be
through this representative: D
Yes No
" Do you agree to correspondence regarding your review being sent by e-mail? IZ/ I:I
Planning authority
Planning authority s application reference number 2. 00'] 2 L L.
Site address 2. G¢ E~ c zb, qNqC, £22m. emmsume
PH L "1TB
Description of proposed Erech'on of tempo (-0 n; F? "-66
development
Date of application Date of decision (if any)
Note. This notice must be served on the planning authority within three months of the date of the decision
notice or from the date of expiry of the period allowed for determining the application.
Page 1 of 4

Page 4

'U
2°
E r , '.
H
U
3
E
h Notice of Review
3 Nature of application
0
N
E 1. Application for planning permission (Including householder application) E
a 2. Application for planning permission in principle E]
g, 3. Further application (including development that has not yet commenced and where a time limit
°° has been imposed; renewal of planning permission; and/or modi cation, variation or removal of [:1
a planning condition)
4. Application for approval of matters speci ed in conditions [:1
Reasons for seeking review
1. Refusal of application by appointed of cer E
2. Failure by appointed of cer to determine the application within the period allowed for D
determination of the application
3. Conditions imposed on consent by appointed of cer |___I
Revlew 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 andlor inspecting the land
which is the subject of the review case.
Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the
handling of your review. You may tick more than one box if you wish the review to be conducted by a
combination of procedures.
1. Further written submissions E]
2. One or more hearing sessions
3. Site inspection
4 Assessment of review documents only, with no further procedure E]
If you have marked box 1 or 2, please explain here which of the matters (as set out in your statement
below) you believe ought to be subject of that procedure, and why you consider further submissions or a
hearing are necessary: A
Site inspection
in the event that the Local Review Body decides to inspect the review site, in your opinion:
Yes No
1. Can the site be viewed entirely from public land? El
2 is it possible for the site to be accessed safety, and without barriers to entry? E D
If there are reasons why you think the Local Review Body would be unable to undertake an
unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here:
if viewed Rom roadside I Phage be aware PKG t- Pk¢ propev-L, {J
in Q be vnpk Innik, :3: core 1'; required.
Page 2 of 4

Page 5

'U
2°
7s . .
('1 ' Q
H
U
3
E
h Notice of Review
3 Statement
0
N
. You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all
3 matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. Notg: you may not
fly have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that
g 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.
if the Local Review Body issues a notice requesting further information from any other person or body,
you wiIl have a period of 14 days in which to comment on any additional matter which has been raised by
that person or body.
State here the reasons for your notice of review and all matters you wish to raise. If necessary, this can
be continued or provided in full in a separate document. You may also submit additional documentation
with this form.
Sc: GH'ocked docwnh
Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed of cer at the time the Yes N0
determination on your application was made? [3 g
If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising new material. why it was not raised with
the appointed o icer before your application was determined and why you consider it should now be
considered in your review.
Page 3 of 4

Page 6

'U
2°
7< A .n t
H
U
3
N
E Notice of Review
3 List of documents and evidence '
O
E Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with
3 your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review.
g Al'l-oclneoi dacumcnr W-H\ Fexi end p;e14 1-,;
Note. The planning authority will make a copy of the notice of review, the review documents and any
notice of the procedure of the review available for inspection at an of ce of the planning authority until
such time as the review is determined. It may also be available on the planning authority website.
Checklist
Please mark the appropriate boxes to con rm you have provided all supporting documents and evidence
relevant to your review:
Full completion of all parts of this form
K] Statement of your reasons for requiring a review
[g All documents, materials and evidence which you intend to rely on (e.g. plans and drawings
or other documents) which are now the subject of this review.
Note. Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or
modi cation, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval
of matters speci ed in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number. approved
plans and decision notice from that earlier consent.
Declaration
l the applicantlagent [delete as appropriate] hereby serve notice on the planning authority to
review the application as set out on thls form and in the supporting documents.
Signed Date
Page 4 of 4

Page 7

E Dear Sir/Madam,
E We are writing to you to appeal the decision made by Perth and .Kinross
3 Planning department on 4th July that has denied our application for a
N temporary fence on our property at 2 Greenacres, Grange, Errol.
Our submission was based on providing security and safety tor-our
prOperty as it is situated adjacent to a busy road where the speed limit has
recently been increased and a number of cars have also stopped outside
the back garden to view/case the property
We will outline below why we think .it is essential that we have some form of
screening for our property for safety and security purposes, highlight
the inconsistencies in the application of planning rules in the hamlet of
Grange, and further illuminate a series of decisions that appear to illustrate
a bias against this development and our plot in particular.
1. Security
2. Privacy
3. Discussions with the planning department
4. Inconsistencies
5. Apparent bias against this development
6. Proposed plan of action
7. Summary.
1. Security.
Our primerconoem is the security of the property. When we purchased the
property prior to it being built it was not possible to see the plot for trees
along the roadside, although from a distance further along the road the
Page 1 of 12

Page 8

E unsightty former chicken tarm could be viewed. Unfortunately as part of the
E council s planning requirements a number of those trees had to be
3 removed due to their poor state. This has resulted in a number of large
3 gaps in screening coverage between the road and our property, as shown
" in the photographs below. This permits full view of our garden, office pod
and house from the road. Cars are able to stop at this opening, and many
have, to took into the property. It is not illegal to do so and we can't
stop people from stopping their cars at this point. The ease that anyone
can hop over the fence and access the garden and office pods means that
we cannot leave anything out in the garden.
" N
. w?" ' ~24». . .
¢ _' J l n _
The office pod is an obvious target for thieves. I work from home and use
some very expensive computer equipment which I am very reluctant to
leave out in such a vulnerable position. This, combined with the increased
speed limit which allows trucks and cars to pass at nearly 60 mph, makes
working in the pod near impossible. Unless we can screen the area and
reduce the speed limit, the office pod will remain an expensive white
elephant.
Page 2 of 12

Page 9

E Ourmostpressing secutityconcern is that .we are being cased for
E future theft. Cars stopping to look in is common. We have had one set
E of strangers claiming to be lost in the back-garden who we asked tovleave.
3 When Stephen goes away for work reasons, Fiona does feel vulnerable
m with regards to the security situation. There have been a number of theft
incidents in the Carse of Gowrie this year. We would like to prevent that
happening to us.
We also have concerns that the glaring gaps in security would be taken into
account by our insurance company in the event of any break in.
2. Privacy
Currently our back garden is open to view to car drivers, cyclists and
pedestrians. We are not exhibitionist by nature, so would like to be able to
sit in our back garden without people waving to us as they go by.
Our plan is to plant hedging and trees to screen the current gaps with the
road, which would be in keeping with the rest of the garden, providing a
consistent countryside took. However, this will take time to grow, which is
why the erection of a temporary fence was proposed. As well as providing
security and privacy, the tence would provided protection for the growing
trees and hedging from the wind which frequently whistles down the Carse.
3. Discussion with Planning Department
During the submission process i had a number ot lengthy and constructive
discussions with the planning officers from the Perth and Kinross planning
department. it was only when the application was passed upwards in the
organisation that objections were raised. Our submission started as a full
wooden fence the length of the property adjacent to the road, with options
of being at the boundary line, or 3 m in. Upon initial discussion this
was reduced to a more limited area, covering the most open regions as
illustrated in the photo above. The application then was amended to
propose that the fence was temporary (5 years) to aliow the trees
and hedging to grow to a sufficient height to provide adequate screening.
This amended plan was considered as an elegant solution as it allowed our
security and privacy concerns to be alleviated and would retain and
Page 3 of 12

Page 10

§
§ enhance the countryside visual acuity that was the main concern of the
E planning department. This also meant that we would not have to introduce
3 any other quicker growing hedging or trees that might seem incongruous
3 compared to the rest of the foliage.
,, 55, '35 é?
\ ' f   f f { g 0" [CD 115' 5: §-
: »,   3330 5.;
1 1* A , \\ / I u- __
:2 1 :2 . jf _ o-_:." -   -_
, = * 5* :5} -vx o ws i fi:
5&5 .35"  i 5/" mi:
_§ -§1 :24 ? , i ?; s
As you will see from the planning department documentation, this
elegant solution was rejected based on the following :
a. Not in the original plan
b. Not meeting the visual acuity requirements
We would contend, security issues notwithstanding, that neither of these
reasons are valid.
The original plans did not include a fence tor Plot 8 in our development
(more in next section), which has subsequently been approved.
Page 4 of 12

Page 11

g
E With regards to visual acuity, considering it was a derelict chicken farm with
E rotting trees beforehand, the current situation is a
E considerable improvement, even with a small area of temporary fencing.
w Our proposed fencing will be partially screened by the existing trees and
will look considerably more natural than the the stark wooden fence erected
on plot 8.
The only impactvthatour fence proposal would have is to restrict people s
view of our house and garden.
Having received the rejection notice from the Planning department in
the spirit of trying to be constructive and proactive, we asked them what we
would be, allowed to use, to provide screening for security purposes. The
response from the planning department was that we would have to make
do with the hedging we have now and wait for it to grow to a sufficient
height to provide screening. The current inadequate stage of the hedging
is shown below.
Page 5 of 12

Page 12

o um - t , ~ .. - -. .. :(Lé71
o m ? W w -l QW
. k , > _ .-~;_ 5,5513; '2 33: ! ":8 
1 I g," 7 .:%,$§ i% » Z. V A _: é _
.- 4 gs. ,zu f f V.?- 31.4, ' x .v 1 . 3 Fi  . 21,:
O. s i
The planning officer admitted that there had not been sufficient oversight
from their department regarding the landscaping plans submitted by the
Good House company . We are the unfortunate victims of this oversight.
There was 119 hedging planted in many of the gaps between the trees, and
in the small amount that has been planted, the beech has died off and the
hornbeam is doing relatively ok. Beech hedging won't grow under trees. So
basically what we have been left with to provide privacy and security" is a
1m high wire fence (which is virtually invisible), and about 5 hornbeam
plants for a stretch of 38 m.
As you can see in the photo below, and was reported by the Good House
Company s tree inspector, a lot of the soil will not support any form of rapid
growth of hedging.
Page 6 of 12

Page 13

S
v m  f i -w : -,.- 1
9 me "5
-J " ' v42; :»:':::; :T.¥; :~ Wt 35.:
, 2:??? ~. Em  e": :7 1 :
5' sfhagia _ m "3 
4. Planning inconsistencies.
As part of our research prior to submitting the application, we looked at
whether any other property in the hamlet of Grange has a 6 foot fence that
was adjacent to the road. We observed at least four. We also
were informed by our neighbours, Plot 8 adjacent to the road also, that they
have permission for a fence and it would be constructed at the conclusion
of the house build. Plot 8 is the last of the eight properties in the
development to be completed.
Two key points to consider here:
1. Plot 8 fence will be permanent, not temporary
2. Plot 8 fence is within the current 20mph zone, not within the 60 mph
zone which is adjacent to our property.
Given the fact that we have considerably more security, privacy and traffic
speed/noise concerns, this inconsistency in application of the planning
rules appears very unfair. l have included some pictures of the recently
erected fence on Plot 8. The visual acuity argument clearly is no longer
Page 7 of 12

Page 14

n
E remotely valid given the erection of this permanent wooden fence. Plot 8
E have a nice secure, private garden in a 20 mph zone, while we have an
3 open, insecure, noisy garden in a 60 mph zone. It would be laughable if it
2 were not having such a detrimental affect on our mental health.
E l r . 1 . . \ f ,
'7 p » 3
" r " 5 9r 
, 5; . ,1 " ' N
// 3*
.. ,. Wk 1
ll"?
.» 9*
Page 8 of 12

Page 15

E 5. Apparent bias against this development
E Listed below is a series of issues/decisions which have negatively impacted
4 the Greenacres development, and specifically our plot (no. 2).
a. Planning permission initially denied for solar panels
b. Increase in speed limit outside property
0. Rejection for application for garden waste permit
d. Rejection of temporary fence application
a. Planning permission initially denied for solar panels.
This is an issue that the Appeals committee may already be familiar with as
the committee ultimately overturned this rather perplexing decision. The
building warrant for plot 2 was delayed by Perth and Kinross planning
department on the basis that the solar panel thickness was not correct.
These were the same solar panel dimensions as approved and installed
on the first four houses in the development (as well as most of the
previous houses built by the Good House Company). The ruling
was overturned upon appeal, but not before our entry date into the house
was put back six weeks. We moved house a few days before Christmas,
ultimately ruining our first Christmas in our new house.
b. Increase in speed limit outside property.
This is a serious safety issue for our development. The removal of the 40
mph buffer zone allows cars and trucks to pass/approach the entrance to
the development at higher speed than before. Vehicles use this section of
road as a speed track now. While primarily a safety issue, it is also a noise
issue for the residents adjacent to the road, impacting mental health.
I have been liaising with Counciler Angus Forbes on this issue. It should
get resolved, but no specific timeframe has been committed to, so it could
be months or years!!!.
c. Rejection for application for garden waste permit
Page 9 of 12

Page 16

E A minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but perhaps representative of
E the issues we have with Perth and Kinross council. A permit for putting
3 garden waste in our brown bin was rejected, despite other houses in the
2 development having one. Another perplexing decision I!
d. Rejection of temporary fence application
The subject of this appeal and another decision that is both perplexing and
upsetting.
While I suspect that all of the decisions above have been taken individually,
the cumulative effect is a projection of bias against our plot, making us feel
particularly unwelcome in our new home district.
We really did not envisage when we moved to Perthshire that we would be
embroiled in so many planning issues just to be able to live in a safe,
secure and happy home.
6 . Fraposed plan of action
There are two pathways depending upon the success of this appeal.
a. Assuming success we will adhere to the plan that was submitted.
However, rather than put in a full wooden fence over that area we may
place willow panels as illustrated below. We were only allowed one option
in the planning application, which was the wooden fence. This was also
submitted prior to the amendment from permanent to temporary fencing.
However, we believe that as a temporary measure, the willow or hazel
panels will actually look better and blend in better with surrounding
trees and hedging. The fence may also provide a minimal degree of of
acoustic dampening to the noise of the speeding traffic.
Page 10 of 12

Page 17

E
Q . 5 vs V h 4 {.32- "1::
B 1- ; \\ gk  : W
E '1 i l. e a; '
9 - a , "Wiigi- W
; > , :. hr; "f'khb-Egg
b. If the appeal is rejected we could consider trying to put in faster
growing hedging and trees, though ultimately this would have
an incongruous look, which is not what we want. This will, however take
time, and leave us with a serious security concern for a number of years.
As already mentioned, there is also the issue of whether any form of
hedging would actually grow under the existing trees.
Alternatively, we may consider selling up and moving to a safer location.
again something we really don t want to do, as we really want to spend the
rest of our lives in Perthshire. This has become a very stressful situation for
us, adversely affecting our mental health.
7. Summary
Page 11 of 12

Page 18

E In summary, we believe that the rejection of our application is grossly
E unfair. The security, privacy and noise issues are having a major
g detrimental effect on our mental health.
We would like to ask the committee to please reverse the decision made by
Perth and Kinross planning department, and allow is to place a temporary
screening fence on our property. We would advocate that the decision to
reject the application is unfair and inconsistent. We believe that we have
provided an elegant solution which will allow us security and privacy,
while ultimately enhancing the visual acuity of the area.
Best Regards
Dr. Stephen Anderson and Fiona Dempster
Stephen Anderson
Page 12 of 12