(c) Representations (Pages 133-202)
Perth and Kinross Council · 11 November 2024
Back to Local Review Body — 11 November 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-2024-36 LRB-2024-36 24/00695/FLL - Erection of a dwellinghouse and associated works, land 100 metres north west of Inchadney, Old Amulree Road, Kenmore, Aberfeldy 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
No embedded text on this page.
Page 10
No embedded text on this page.
Page 11
No embedded text on this page.
Page 12
Mr John Nevin (Objects) Comment submitted date: Mon 10 Jun 2024 With regards to Skorpa Ecology report ,I would comment as follows ,Tree 1 is a European silver fir ,Abies alba not a Wellingtonia as stated on another plan a Sita spruce and Deodar cedar are referred to as firs .Both in excess of 20metres directly above build site on the embankment they wish to part dig out . I note comments about nesting bird season as the photos on page 37,38,49 and 50 show the cut remains and fires of tree cut down during march when the applicant started to clear the site . Pine martins , red squirrels are seen on a weekly basis and also picked up on security cameras . An otter has been seen occasionally at the lower gate with roe and sika deer frequently.And once a wild cat .I fail to see how they could comment on same after 2 days . The plot is at the bottom of a 900ft hill and most of the water drains down to the plot site ,white butter bur thrives in damp locations and covers the plot along with the road side thereby absorbing a great deal of water coming down . During periods of rain the road directly below site floods .In Bidwells report the last photo shows the water lying on the road , having damaged the road surface due to constant flooding . This in winter is an ice hazard and during rain spells cars throw water on pedestrians. There are no pavement in this location . Near the East boundary is un underground stream surfacing 10 meters from the road this can also be in spate draining directly onto the carriageway. To build on this site will only increase flooding and damage . The entrance to the site as indicated is extremely dangerous to pedestrians, due to high banking on east side with very restricted vision , pedestrians have to walk down the road . To date no one has been struck but I fear it's only a matter of time . The glebe of Inchadney has been here since 1760 and undeveloped, this plot joins the two main fields to the east and west and provides an unrestricted wildlife corridor . The glebe has been the spiritual home to many residents with some locals being married here , with only 3 owners in 268 Years The development in the area has been massive , and much of the wild life ,Has been condensed into other parts and the glebe is one of them .Recently it has been noted that far more wild life is fighting for space in the surrounding area. The amount of pedestrian traffic is increasing greatly .With the expansion of the marina and the amount of staff and visitors to the castle , this small road will only get busier ,and every one has to walk down the main carriageway as again , there is are no pavements . The old manse is one of the few surviving Georgian buildings in Kenmore and was built the same time as Kenmore Bridge and having the same architect. John Baxter .
Page 13
Who was renowned in his day to build a modern house of this type directly in front of it , in the original garden ,I feel detracts from the original plans and designs of Baxter. I have lived here for nearly 9 years , hence I can confidently comment on the wildlife . For the above reasons I object to the proposed development
Page 14
No embedded text on this page.
Page 15
POS REFERENCE: - POS-P-0090---Land 100 Metres North West Of Inchadney Old Amulree Road Kenmore Aberfeldy PH15 2HE24/00695/FLL OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF MR J NEVIN REFERENCE: - 24/00695/FLL ADDRESS: - Land 100 Metres North West Of Inchadney Old Amulree Road Kenmore Aberfeldy PH15 2HE24/00695/FLL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: - Erection of a dwellinghouse and associated works
Page 16
No embedded text on this page.
Page 17
No embedded text on this page.
Page 18
2.0 THE APPLICATION - ERRORS, OMISSIONS AND LACK OF INFORMATION THE APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VALIDATED. 2.1 The Heads of Planning Scotland (HOPS) – Validation Guidance Note sets out the national standard for the validation and determination of planning applications and other related consents. The application has been reviewed against this guidance note and it is clear that the submission falls below the required standards and as a consequence this application should not have been validated. Concerns with the Drawings Location Plan(s) 2.2 The HOPS validation standard on location plans (see section 4 paragraphs 4.1 to 4.5 confirms: - 2.3 A single location plan produced to a scale of either 1:1250 or 1:2500 will normally be required to be submitted with your application. Depending on the location of your application a supplementary location plan may also be required to be submitted with your application. 2.4 The purpose of the location plan is to clearly define the extent of the application site in relation to its surroundings and also to provide sufficient detail in order for ourselves or any other interested party to be able to locate the application site and, as such, the plans submitted should typically be Ordnance Survey based. 2.5 If the submitted plan is Ordnance Survey based, it should contain the relevant copyright and licensing information to demonstrate that the plan has been legally sourced. If the submitted plan is not Ordnance Survey based it should be clearly stated on the plan and also contain an acknowledgement as to where it was sourced. 2
Page 19
2.6 The location plan produced to either of these scales should show the following: - ● The application site boundary accurately outlined in RED ● Any other surrounding land under the same ownership as the application site outlined in BLUE ● Surrounding road names/numbers ● All surrounding property names/numbers ● The direction of north clearly indicated ● A copyright disclaimer/acknowledgement relating to the source of the plan ● An accurate scale bar 2.7 With regards to supplementary Location Plans the guidance confirms: - 2.8 For applications in rural/remote locations it will often be necessary for a supplementary location plan to also be required. These plans can be submitted in a variety of recognised scales, being 1:5000, 1: 10,000 or 1: 25,000, and should show the following: - ● The application site boundary accurately outlined in RED, although where this is not possible due to the scale used the location of the proposed development should be clearly identified with sufficient detail to cross reference this plan to the more accurate 1:1250/1:2500 plan ● The direction of north clearly indicated ● Road names/numbers should also be clearly shown along with an indication of the nearest settlements to your proposals ● An acknowledgement relating to the source of the plan ● An accurate scale bar 2.9 The submitted location plan and rural location plans have been reviewed and it fails to meet the above validation criteria. 3
Page 20
● There is no copyright disclaimer/acknowledgement relating to the source of either location plan. 2.10 Updated Location plans are required. Site Plan(s)/Block Plan(s) 2.11 The HOPS standard on Site Plan(s)/Block Plan(s) (see section 6 paragraphs 6.1 to 6.3 confirms: - 2.12 A proposed site plan will be required in all instances where the proposals involve development on the ground regardless of their proposed purpose. Depending on the nature of the proposals it may also be required to submit a copy of an existing site plan. However, your local Planning office will be able to advise if this will be necessary. A site plan produced to a scale of 1:100, 1:200 or 1:500 will be acceptable. Site plans are required as they provide a more detailed and accurate overview of the application site in terms of the area to be occupied by your proposals and their relationship to their surroundings. 2.13 As noted above, the following list of what should be shown on your site plan will not be required in every case and as such reference should be made to the separate guidance available covering your particular type of proposal. The submission of part site plans may also be required under certain circumstance, such as large sites where the actual areas of works are remote from each other. Contact with your local Planning office is highly recommended should you be considering submitting only a part site plan. 2.14 The following list along with the example plan shown in figure 9 on the next page indicates what may be asked for and how it should be shown: 1. Produced to a scale of either 1:100, 1:200 or 1:500 2. Application site boundary outlined in RED 4
Page 21
3. Any surrounding land owned or controlled by the applicant outlined in BLUE 4. The direction of north 5. An accurate scale bar 6. All land and buildings located within a 20 metre radius of the application site boundary identified 7. The accurate footprint/roof plan profile of all existing and proposed buildings and structures located within the application site with appropriate annotation to identify them 8. The extent and type of any hard surfacing with the application site boundary identified. Where this is proposed rather than existing this should be clearly stated 9. A note of any boundary treatments such as walls and fences including their height. Where these are proposed rather than existing this should be clearly stated 10.The access arrangements (vehicular and pedestrian) to the application site should be clearly shown 11.A written dimension showing the distance from any part of your proposals to any part of the application site boundary. Note that if you are proposing multiple buildings or structures then a written dimension will be required from each 12.Areas of hard and soft landscaping clearly defined 13.If connection to an existing private water supply or private drainage system is proposed then the connection point to the supply or system should be clearly annotated within the application site outlined in RED 14. Where a completely new private water supply or private drainage system is proposed then the full details of the supply or system should be clearly annotated within the application site outlined in RED. This is also the case for alterations/upgrading works to such supplies or systems 2.15 The submitted proposed block plan has been reviewed and it fails to meet the above validation criteria: - 5
Page 22
● All land and buildings located within a 20 metre radius of the application site boundary have not been identified or detailed. ● There are no written dimensions showing the distance from any part of the proposals to any part of the application site boundary. 2.16 It is worth noting that the requirement for accurate dimensions to be shown on plans is discussed in the following Scottish Public Services Ombudsman investigation of Glasgow City Council (see Appendix POS 2.1.2). Concerns with the Application Redline Boundary 2.17 The HOPS validation document confirms within section 5 that: - 2.18 Where the application relates to new build proposals the whole area required to accommodate the proposals should be outlined in RED. This includes any area which is required for vehicular and pedestrian access, parking, landscaping, garden ground, private water supply and drainage facilities, SUDS, visibility splays or any other part of the proposals which would constitute development should be contained within the single site outlined in RED. 2.19 With regards to access arrangements it confirms: - 2.20 When your proposals incorporates the formation of a new access which joins a public road, the entire length of the existing/proposed access road should be included within the application site boundary shown on the location and site plans. This should fully encompass all land required for the new road or alterations to the existing one, from its bellmouth where it joins the public road to its entry point(s) to the development site. 2.21 Where you propose alterations to an existing access, the land required to carry out the alterations should be outlined in red in addition to the site of 6
Page 23
the proposed development itself. If your site does not adjoin a public road, you will need to explain in the application how it will be accessed. We appreciate that in some instances it may not be feasible to accurately show the full extent or detail of the proposals in either the format or scaling of the plans and drawings noted elsewhere in this document and as such the following alternatives should be noted. Location Plans at a scale of the most appropriate of the following will be acceptable: (1:5,000) (1:10,000) (1:15,000) (1:20,000) 2.22 Based on Planning Objections Scotland’s review of the access arrangements have not been appropriately detailed to meet the HOPS validation requirements as works to form visibility splays at the site entrance would mean that works would require the alterations to the retaining and boundary walls adjacent to the carriageway with works to the west of the site baffling outwith the redline boundary of the site and the applicants ownership. 2.23 Planning Objections Scotland note that the inclusion of this additional area of land to accommodate the visibility splay to the West would require a fresh application (with a further neighbour notification exercise undertaken due to the revised boundary). The revised boundary may also have ramifications for the land ownership certificate/declaration that has currently been served, this would require to be updated to confirm the owner(s) of additional areas of land have been notified correctly. Elevations 2.24 The HOPS document on Elevations (see section 7) provides details of the validation standards for existing elevations as well as proposed elevations. With regards to proposed elevations: - 2.25 Proposed elevations will be required in the majority of cases where proposed alterations or extensions will affect the external appearance of the existing property or structure which is the subject of the planning 7
Page 24
application. These plans should show all elevations of the proposals and should be produced to a scale of either 1:50 or 1:100. The plans should be sufficiently detailed to give a true representation of the detailing of the building or structure as it stands at the moment. Details of the proposed external finishes should also be shown on the plans. For clarity this means any visible underbuild, walls, roof, windows, doors and in certain instances rainwater goods. An accurate scale bar should also be included on your plans along with written dimensions noting height to eaves and roof ridge and the overall length and breadth of the proposals. 2.26 The proposed elevations have been reviewed and they fall below the standard prescribed in the HOPS validation standards: - ● There are no written dimensions noting height to eaves and roof ridge and the overall length and breadth of the proposals.The accuracy of the scale bar cannot be verified. 2.27 Again, it is worth noting that the requirement for accurate dimensions to be shown on plans is discussed in the following Scottish Public Services Ombudsman investigation of Glasgow City Council (see Appendix POS 2.1.2). Sections and Levels Plans 2.28 The HOPS validation standards on sections and level plans is covered in (section 10), this stipulates: - 2.29 In certain circumstance and depending on what is being proposed the planning authority may require additional section or levels plans, these may be requested as either existing or proposed or both. Site sections and site levels plans may be required where your proposals involve a change in ground level or when you are proposing to develop an uneven site in order for us to determine how your proposals will interact with their surroundings. Section plans may be required as either site sections or 8
Page 25
building sections. Typically site sections are only requested where there are significant changes in ground levels proposed to give an accurate indication of how the site will look compared to how it is at present. Building sections will typically be required where a new build is proposed in order to show finished floor levels in order for us to determine the impact of your proposals on their surroundings. Below you will find some further information on each of these plan types. 2.30 Where existing and proposed site sections are required they should be produced to a scale of either 1:100 or 1:200, the number and location of where the sections should be taken will depend on the nature of your proposals. These plans should also contain an accurate scale bar. 2.31 Where existing and proposed building sections are required they should be produced to a scale of either 1:50 or 1:100, typically only one section will be required showing a cross section through each of the existing and proposed buildings with finished floor levels clearly indicated although this will depend on the nature of your proposals. These plan should also contain an accurate scale bar 2.32 Where existing and proposed site levels plans are required they should be produced to a scale of either 1:200 or 1:500. These plans should contain an accurate scale bar along with showing the direction of north and clearly identifying a fixed off-site datum point. Generally, contours should be shown at 0.5m intervals 2.33 From Planning Objections Scotland review the submission is substandard for the following reasons: - ● Existing and proposed site sections - The site has complex topography. Only one site section is produced. Further site sections should be sought to clearly illustrate the extent of cut and fill. Site sections should also illustrate the work required to form the new 9
Page 26
vehicular access and the associated engineering retaining structures required. ● The existing and proposed site levels plans do not identify a fixed off-site datum point. 2.34 It is also worth noting that the requirement for accurate information on site levels and sections has been raised before in the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman case which investigated Aberdeenshire Council (see Appendix POS 2.1.4). 2.35 Planning Objections Scotland’s review of the submission thus far has illustrated a number of shortcomings and based on the HOPS document the application should not have been validated by the Planning Authority. It is worth noting that the submission also falls short of the information required SG Annex D Circular 3/2013 (see Appendix POS 2.1.1). 3.0 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLANNING APPLICATION ASSESSMENT 3.1 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. 3.2 The operation of section 25 of the Act was given consideration in The House of Lord's judgement on City of Edinburgh Council v the Secretary of State for Scotland (1998). If a proposal accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations indicating that it should be refused, permission should be granted. If the proposal does not accord with the development plan, it should be refused unless there are material considerations indicating that it should be granted. The judgement also set out the following approach to deciding an application: ● Identify any provisions of the development plan which are relevant to the decision, 10
Page 27
● Interpret them carefully, looking at the aims and objectives of the plan as well as detailed wording of policies, ● Consider whether or not the proposal accords with the development plan, ● Identify and consider relevant material considerations for and against the proposal, and ● Assess whether these considerations warrant a departure from the development plan. The Development Plan 3.3 Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) require the determination of the proposal to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises NPF4 and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019. The applicable policies associated with this proposal are as follows:- National planning Framework 4 (NPF 4) ● NPF4 Policy 1: Tackling the climate and nature crises ● NPF4 Policy 2: Climate mitigation and adaptation ● NPF4 Policy 3: Biodiversity ● NPF4 Policy 4: Natural places ● NPF4 Policy 6: Forestry, woodland and trees ● NPF4 Policy 7: Historic assets and places ● NPF4 Policy 9: Brownfield, vacant and derelict land ● NPF4 Policy 13: Sustainable transport ● NPF4 Policy 14: Design, quality and place ● NPF4 Policy 17:Rural homes ● NPF4 Policy 20: Blue and green infrastructure ● NPF4 Policy 22: Flood risk and water management ● NPF4 Policy 23:Health and safety 11
Page 28
Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 (LDP) ● Policy 1A: Placemaking ● Policy 1B: Placemaking ● Policy 2: Design Statements ● Policy 6: Settlement Boundaries ● Policy 15: Public Access ● Policy 19: Housing in the Countryside ● Policy 27: Listed Buildings ● Policy 32: Embedding Low and Zero Carbon Generating Technology in New Development ● Policy 38: Environment and Conservation ● Policy 39: Landscape ● Policy 40: Forestry, Woodland and Trees ● Policy 41: Biodiversity ● Policy 42: Green Infrastructure ● Policy 47: River Tay Catchment Area ● Policy 52: New Development and Flooding ● Policy 53: Water Environment and Drainage ● Policy 60: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements Material Considerations 3.4 From a review of case law there are two main tests in deciding whether a consideration is material and relevant: ● It should serve or be related to the purpose of planning. It should therefore relate to the development and use of land, and ● It should relate to the particular application. 3.5 The following material considerations are applicable in the assessment of the Planning Application: - 12
Page 29
● National Roads Development Guide ● PAN 61 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems ● Ciria SUDS Manual (c753) ● PAN 79 Water and Drainage ● BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction to Construction - Recommendations ● PKC Landscape SPG ● PKC Flood Risk and Flood Risk Assessments ● PKC Housing in the Countryside ● PKC Placemaking ● PKC Planning and Biodiversity ● River Tay SAC Guidance ● Historic Environments Scotland’s Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting. 3.6 The case officer’s Report of Handling should detail and assess all the relevant planning policies as well as the material considerations as required by the House of Lord Judgement and as detailed in the following maladministration cases POS 4.1.2 and POS 4.1.3. 3.7 It is noted that the supporting Planning Statement does not cover all the applicable policies and material considerations detailed above Policy Appraisal 3.8 To fully comment on the proposal's relationship with the Development Plan and associated material considerations further information is required as discussed in section 2 of this report. 3.9 Planning Objections Scotland’s view, based on the information submitted to date, is that the proposed development fails to comply with the development plans. 13
Page 30
NPF4 Policy 1. Tackling the climate and nature crises 3.10 Policy 1 confirms that when considering all development proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. 3.11 An ecological report has been submitted in support of the application however the content of the report cannot be reviewed in full as the formatting of the report results in cut-off sentences which makes it illegible. 3.12 Our client has reviewed the report (despite the formatting issues) and notes that the site is regularly used by protected species and biodiversity (otter and red squirrels) and is of the view that the ecological study underplays the bio-diversity resource at this site. Notwithstanding this concern the ecological report does not include any biodiversity enhancement measures to promote nature recovery and restoration measures. 3.13 This policy also seeks to address the global climate emergency. No zero carbon or climate mitigation is incorporated into the scheme. 3.14 The application does not comply with NPF4 - 1. Tackling the climate and nature crises. NPF4 Policy 2: Climate mitigation and adaptation 3.15 This policy seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. There are no details highlighting ho the development has been sited and designed to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible (criterion a) or how it has been sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change, such as overland surface water flows (criterion b). 14
Page 31
3.16 The application does not comply with NPF4 - 2: Climate mitigation and adaptation. NPF4 Policy 3: Biodiversity PKC Policy 41: Biodiversity PKC Planning and Biodiversity SPG 3.17 This policy seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. This proposal does not contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity (NPF4 Policy 3 criterion a). No appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity are provided, in accordance with national and local guidance contravening NPF4 Policy 3 criterion c), PKC Policy 41 Biodiversity and the associated PKC Planning and Biodiversity SPG. NPF4 Policy 4: Natural places PKC Policy 38: Environment and Conservation PKC Policy 47: River Tay Catchment Area PKC River Tay SAC Guidance 3.18 NPF4 Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. 3.19 The site is adjacent to The River Tay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which has the highest wildlife accolade as it is designated as an SAC and is part of the Natura 2000 network – a series of internationally important wildlife sites throughout the European Union. 3.20 Criterion a) of NPF4 Policy 4 confirms that development proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment, will not be supported. While criterion b) confirms that development proposals that are likely to have a significant effect on an existing or proposed European site (Special Area of Conservation or 15
Page 32
Special Protection Areas) and are not directly connected with or necessary to their conservation management are required to be subject to an “appropriate assessment” of the implications for the conservation objectives. 3.21 The Council’s SPG associate with the River Tay SAC provides advice on the types of appropriate information and safeguards to be provided in support of planning applications. In this case the extent of engineering operation (cut and fill) on this steep sloping site will likely result in increased sediment and a reduction in water quality. No Construction Method Statement is provided to demonstrate:- ● pollution prevention safeguards, including drainage arrangements and the possible use of siltation traps, settlement tanks and bunds; ● storage and disposal of materials, including the siting of stockpiles, use of buffer strips and disposal methods; ● construction site facilities, including extent and location of construction site huts, vehicle equipment, and materials compound; ● timing, duration and phasing of construction, particularly in relation to salmon and lamprey migration/spawning; 3.22 Furthermore the proposal does not link to the mains sewerage system and instead incorporates a new private sewerage treatment system. No ground investigation has been undertaken and no drainage impact assessment has been provided to evidence that it has been appropriately designed and whether any direct outfalls to the loch are required. 3.23 Taking the above into account there is insufficient information for the ‘Competent Authority’ to complete an appropriate assessment of the application. As it stands the proposal conflicts with NPF4 Policy 4: Natural places and PKC Policy 38: Environment and Conservation, Policy 47: River Tay Catchment Area and PKC River Tay SAC Guidance. 16
Page 33
NPF4 Policy 6: Forestry, woodland and trees PKC Policy 40: Forestry, Woodland and Trees BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction to Construction - Recommendations 3.24 NPF4 Policy 6a confirms that development proposals that enhance, expand and improve woodland and tree cover will be supported. This proposal makes no provision for the enhancement, expansion or improvement to woodland tree cover; it therefore conflicts with NPF4 Policy 6a. 3.25 Criterion 6b stipulates Development proposals will not be supported where they will result in: i. Any loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, or adverse impact on their ecological condition; ii. Adverse impacts on native woodlands, hedgerows and individual trees of high biodiversity value, or identified for protection in the Forestry and Woodland Strategy; iii. Fragmenting or severing woodland habitats, unless appropriate mitigation measures are identified and implemented in line with the mitigation hierarchy; iv. Conflict with Restocking Direction, Remedial Notice or Registered Notice to Comply issued by Scottish Forestry. 3.26 Similar provisions are contained within Policy 40: Forestry, Woodland and Trees. 3.27 The site and immediate surrounding land incorporates a tree resource that is particularly important to the landscape setting of South Loch Tay and the Listed Building Inchadney. The importance of the tree resource is highlighted in the previous report of handling for the site which refused application 15/00526/IPL. While a tree survey has been submitted with 17
Page 34
this application our client has noted that some of the trees have been erroneously identified and on this basis suggests the tree survey should be reviewed by the Council ‘Tree Officer’. 3.28 As discussed under section 2 of this report the extent of cut and fill has not been adequately detailed on site sections. Undertaking construction and engineering works on this site will result in a significant amount of recontouring and large working area to install retaining features. To fully understand how construction works and the installation of utilities (drainage, water supply etc) relate to this site an arboricultural method statement should accompany the submission to enable a robust assessment against NPF4 Policy 6: Forestry, woodland and trees, PKC Policy 40: Forestry, Woodland and Trees and BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction to Construction - Recommendations NPF4 Policy 7: Historic assets and places PKC Policy 27: Listed Buildings Historic Environments Scotland’s guidance Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting 3.29 NPF4 Policy 7: Historic assets and places seeks to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places. Criterion c) confirms that development proposals affecting the setting of a listed building should preserve its character, and its special architectural or historic interest. 3.30 Inchadney, the ‘Manse of Kenmore’ is a category C listed building which sits in an elevated position above the site. The 2015 report of handling acknowledges that from the listed building views are likely to be minimal. However, the case officer’s assessment of the 2015 application was envisaging a modest bungalow, see the second last paragraph under the ‘Policy Appraisal’ heading. It also notes that the development of the site would lead to a change in the site's overall character especially if the tree resource is not maintained. 18
Page 35
3.31 As noted above there is a lack of information on whether this site can be developed without resulting in a significant impact and loss of the tree resource at the site. In any case what is proposed under this application is a modern and imposing two story structure. Taking account of the guidance within Historic Environments Scotland’s guidance Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting. The proposal is considered to adversely affect the setting of the category C listed building. NPF4 Policy 13: Sustainable transport PKC Policy 15: Public Access PKC Policy 60: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements National Roads Development Guide 3.32 There has been no provision of low or zero-emission vehicle and cycle charging points in safe and convenient locations, contrary to NPF4 13b (iv). 3.33 There is no safe, secure and convenient cycle parking to meet the needs of users and which is more conveniently located than car parking, contrary to NPF4 13b (v). 3.34 NPF4 Policy 13 criterion vi) seeks the incorporation of safety measures in the design and layout of development. Requirements for visibility splays are contained within the National Roads Development Guide and the Scottish Government’s Designing Streets document while PKC Policy 60 also seeks appropriate access and egress. In this case the visibility splays and access arrangements to the site are not adequately detailed as explained in section 2 of this report. 3.35 Not achieving the required visibility splay will also adversely affect the safe operation of the National Cycle Route Route 7 along the site frontage contrary to PKC Policy 15: Public Access. 19
Page 36
NPF4 Policy 9: Brownfield, vacant and derelict land 3.36 This policy encourages, promotes and facilitates the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, to help reduce the need for greenfield development. 3.37 Criterion b) of Policy 9 confirms that proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. 3.38 This is an unallocated site adjacent to the settlement boundary of Kenmore and there is no explicit support for the proposal as discussed under the Rural Homes Policy or PKC Policy 19: Housing in the Countryside and the associated Housing in the Countryside SPG. NPF4 Policy 14. Design, quality and place 3.39 Policy 14a confirms that development proposals should be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. 3.40 Policy 14b notes that development proposals will be supported where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places:- ● Healthy: Supporting the prioritisation of women’s safety and improving physical and mental health. ● Pleasant: Supporting attractive natural and built spaces. ● Connected: Supporting well connected networks that make moving around easy and reduce car dependency ● Distinctive: Supporting attention to detail of local architectural styles and natural landscapes to be interpreted, literally or creatively, into designs to reinforce identity. 20
Page 37
● Sustainable: Supporting the efficient use of resources that will allow people to live, play, work and stay in their area, ensuring climate resilience, and integrating nature positive, biodiversity solutions. ● Adaptable: Supporting commitment to investing in the long-term value of buildings, streets and spaces by allowing for flexibility so that they can be changed quickly to accommodate different uses as well as maintained over time. 3.41 While Policy 14c confirms that development proposals that are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places, will not be supported. 3.42 The lack of information as set out in section 2.0 of this report means that a detailed assessment of the application cannot be undertaken against the six qualities of successful places. Updated drawings are required to enable a detailed consideration of how the proposal could impact visual amenity and the qualities of the landscape. 3.43 Based on the information to date the proposed accommodation has not been designed to improve the quality of this rural area contrary to criterion (a). It is not considered to meet the aims identified in the ‘six qualities of successful places’ contrary to criterion (b) and (c), in particular the dominance of the structure is not considered to create a ‘pleasant’ and attractive built space, it is not ‘distinctive’ or taken account of local architectural styles or interpreted them in a way to reinforce local identity, it is not ‘sustainable’ by integrating nature positive and biodiversity solutions. 21
Page 38
NPF4 Policy 17:Rural homes PKC Policy 6: Settlement Boundaries PKC Policy 19: Housing in the Countryside PKC Housing in the Countryside SPG. 3.44 The site is over 400m out with the settlement boundary of Kenmore, as defined in the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan. The development does not comply with PKC Policy 6 which seeks to contain development within the settlement boundaries. 3.45 Policy 17 of NPF4 is relevant and seeks to encourage and promote and facilitate affordable and sustainable homes in the right locations and provides criteria in which proposals for new rural homes will be accepted. PKCpolicy 19 - Housing in the Countryside of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 (LDP2), it is acknowledged that opportunities do exist for housing in rural areas to support the viability of communities, meet development needs in appropriate locations while safeguarding the character of the countryside as well as ensuring that a high standard of siting and design is achieved. Thus the development of single houses or groups of houses which fall within the six identified categories will be supported. 1) Building Groups 2) Infill site 3) New houses in the countryside on defined categories of sites as set out in section 3 of the Supplementary Guidance 4) Renovation or replacement of houses 5) Conversion or replacement of redundant non-domestic buildings 6) Development on rural brownfield land 22
Page 39
3.46 Planning Objection has reviewed the detailed criterion within the SPG and no support can be gleaned from any category one through to six. 3.47 The applicant’s supporting planning statement considers that support can be gleaned from Category 1 Building Groups, Category 2 Infill Development and Category 3.1 original garden ground. Category 1 Building Groups:- 3.48 For the purposes of this Supplementary Guidance a building group is defined as 3 or more existing buildings of a size at least equivalent to a traditional cottage and which, when viewed within their landscape setting, appear as a group. The majority of the buildings in the group should be either residential or be suitable for conversion to residential under Category 5 of this guidance. Premises which are smaller than a traditional cottage, such as small domestic garages and outbuildings, will not count towards the requirement for at least 3 buildings. 3.49 The proposed plot does not relate to a building group consisting of 3 or more existing buildings as it is detached and remote from neighbouring buildings. It is worth noting that this conclusion was also reached in the assessment of the 2015 application. 3.50 The site cannot be considered as part of the existing building group at Inchadeny, the site is detached from existing nearby dwelling houses by over 70 metres and is only bound to the south by an existing residential dwelling and gardens. The sites location, with largely open land on either side would not lead to any dwelling being viewed as part of the existing group, nor as an extension to any existing building group. Therefore the proposals are not considered to be in compliance with Policy RD3 (a) Building Groups. 23
Page 40
Category 2 Infill Developments:- 3.51 The SPG confirms that the development of up to 2 new houses in gaps between established houses, or a house and another substantial building at least equivalent in size to a traditional cottage, may be acceptable where the plot or plots created are comparable in size to the neighbouring plots and have a similar size of road frontage. There are no neighbouring houses either side of the plot that share the same road frontage. The proposal is not an infill development. Category 3.1 Existing Gardens:- 3.52 This category is only applicable to new house or houses within a walled garden (which is not applicable here) or new house or houses within the original garden ground associated with an existing country or estate house. 3.53 A country or estate house is defined as a large house set within its own estate or extensive grounds. This section does not apply to domestic scale gardens or where gardens have been created at a later date, for example, by the change of use of agricultural land to garden ground. Incdaney is not considered to be a country or estate house meeting this definition. This conclusion was also reached in the assessment of the 2015 application. 3.54 Under section 3.1 a) of the Supplementary Guidance consideration can be given to new dwellings in an established garden. New dwellings may be appropriate in established gardens, associated with a country/estate house, which provide an appropriate landscape setting, but where development would not fundamentally affect the qualities and integrity of the site. The site is a mixture of garden ground and self-seeded/rough grassland and trees, with a maintained grass path cutting across the site. Inchadney is not considered as a country/estate house given the overall modest size of Inchadney and overall site area of 1.3 hectares, including 24
Page 41
application site, garden ground, Inchadney and Hill House as shown on drawing 15/00536/1. Further to this, the erection of a dwelling within the existing garden/wooded area would have a significant impact on the qualities and character of the area. Inchadney and the wider sites character is considered to be in keeping with the established character of dwellings in the surrounding area, dispersed developments of individual properties with large gardens. These characteristics would be detrimentally impacted by the proposals. The grass and trees presently on the site also add to the character of the area, on this sloping site which is within 15m of Loch Tay at its nearest point. Whilst the present ‘in principle’ application suggests a dwelling could be placed within the site, even a modest bungalow would require cutting of the slope which is considered to have an unacceptable impact on the character of the local area. 3.55 Taking the above into account no support can be gleaned from NPF4 Policy 17:Rural homes, PKC Policy 6: Settlement Boundaries PKC Policy 19: Housing in the Countryside and PKC Housing in the Countryside SPG. NPF4 Policy 20: Blue and green infrastructure NPF4 Policy 22: Flood risk and water management PKC Policy 42: Green Infrastructure PKC Policy 52: New Development and Flooding PKC Policy 53: Water Environment and Drainage 3.56 Policy 20 (a) notes that development proposals that result in fragmentation or net loss of existing blue and green infrastructure will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal would not result in or exacerbate a deficit in blue or green infrastructure provision, and the overall integrity of the network will be maintained. 3.57 While 20 (b) stipulates that development proposals for or incorporating new or enhanced blue and/or green infrastructure will be supported. 25
Page 42
Where appropriate, this will be an integral element of the design that responds to local circumstances. 3.58 In this case the site the proposal severs existing woodland/green infrastructure , it is therefore contrary to Policy 20a and 20b. Furthermore the proposed layout restricts the ability to deploy nature based Suds Green/Blue Infrastructure solutions to meet the aims incorporated in Policy 42: Green Infrastructure and PKC Policy 53: Water Environment and Drainage. 3.59 Our client has highlighted that a significant amount of water can cascade down this steep hillside and no drainage strategy has been incorporated into the site layout to deal with this potential flood risk. The proposal does not illustrate compliance with NPF4 Policy 22: Flood risk and water management or PKC Policy 52: New Development and Flooding NPF4 Policy 23:Health and safety 3.60 NPF4 Policy 23 seeks to protect people and places from environmental harm, mitigate risks arising from safety hazards and encourage, promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing. 3.61 Due to the steep topography of this site, ground conditions are a significant constraint. The extent of recontouring to create an access and level platform along with the insertion of retaining structures will likely compromise the stability of the existing embankment. Greater clarity on stability is required as discussed in POS_2.1.7_SPSO_201405656_Aberdeenshire_Council. This is particularly important given the tree resource, the proximity of the River Tay SAC and the landownership/listed building above the site. 26
Page 43
4.0 HUMAN RIGHT IMPLICATIONS 4.1 This proposal has potential Human Right implications for neighbours in terms of alleged interference with privacy, home or family life (Article 8) and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (First Protocol, Article 1). 4.2 Planning Objections Scotland is of the view that refusal of the application or withdrawal are the only measures that can be deployed to ensure compliance with the Human Right Act. Proceeding on this basis would constitute a justified and proportionate control of the use of property and is necessary in the public interest to ensure there is no interference with Article 8 and First Protocol, Article 1. 27
Page 44
5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 The errors, omissions and lack of information associated with this submission means the application should be withdrawn or refused. 5.2 Notwithstanding the lack of information, taking account of the issues identified within section 4 of this report the planning application also fails to comply with NPF4 and the adopted PKC Local Development Plan. With regards to material considerations there are none of significant weight that would warrant approval of the application in light of the conflicts with the Development Plans. 5.3 Again it is worth reiterating that clarity, openness and fairness are essential elements of the planning process, not opening up any amended plans or additional information to scrutiny would be a failure of the system, local democracy and natural justice. Our client reserves the right to make commentary on any further submissions by the developer. 28
Page 45
POS_2.1.1_SG_Annex_D_Circular_3_2022
Page 46
65 Annex D Plans and Drawings 1. All applications should be accompanied by a location plan and almost all will require a site plan. Where the applicant owns some or all of the “neighbouring land” (see paragraph 4.15 of the main circular), a plan showing such land must be included. The following are not statutory requirements but an indication of what planning authorities can reasonably expect by way of a minimum of information on these plans. Planning authorities may also publish their own guidance in this regard. Location plan – this must identify the land to which the proposal relates and its situation in relation to the locality: in particular in relation to neighbouring land. Location plans should be a scale of 1:2500 or smaller. Neighbouring land owned by the applicant – where required, this could be incorporated into the above plan or on a separate plan of similar scale. Site Plan – this should be of a scale of 1:500 or smaller and should show: • The direction of North; • General access arrangements, landscaping, car parking and open areas around buildings; • The proposed development in relation to the site boundaries and other existing buildings on the site, with written dimensions including those to the boundaries; • Where possible, all the buildings, roads and footpaths on land adjoining the site including access arrangements; • The extent and type of any hard surfacing; and • Boundary treatment including walls or fencing where this is proposed. 2. The range of other plans and drawings will depend on the scale, nature and location of the proposal. Planning authorities should consider providing guidance on the levels of information expected in different types of case. The following plans and drawings will not be required in every case, but the list indicates the sort of minimum information which should be included where necessary: Existing and proposed elevations (at a scale of 1:50 or 1:100) which should: • show the proposed works in relation to what is already there; • show all sides of the proposal; • indicate, where possible, the proposed building materials and the style, materials and finish of windows and doors; • include blank elevations (if only to show that this is in fact the case); • where a proposed elevation adjoins another building or is in close proximity, the drawings should clearly show the relationship between the buildings, and detail the positions of the openings on each property.
Page 47
66 Existing and proposed floor plans (at a scale of 1:50 or 1:100) which should: • explain the proposal in detail; • show where existing buildings or walls are to be demolished; • show details of the existing building(s) as well as those for the proposed development; and • show new buildings in context with adjacent buildings (including property numbers where applicable). Existing and proposed site sections and finished floor and site levels (at a scale of 1:50 or 1:100) which should: • show a cross section(s) through the proposed building(s); • where a proposal involves a change in ground levels, show both existing and finished levels to include details of foundations and eaves and how encroachment onto adjoining land is to be avoided; • include full information to demonstrate how proposed buildings relate to existing site levels and neighbouring development; and • show existing site levels and finished floor levels (with levels related to a fixed datum point off site), and also show the proposals in relation to adjoining buildings (unless, in the case of development of an existing house, the levels are evident from floor plans and elevations). Roof plans (at a scale of 1:50 or 1:100) to show the shape of the roof and specifying details such as the roofing material, vents and their location.
Page 48
POS_2.1.2_SPSO_201605668_Glasgow_City _Council_(dimensions, scale on plans) RTPI Member No. 47188
Page 49
SPSO decision report Case: 201605668, Glasgow City Council Sector: local government Subject: handling of application (complaints by opponents) Decision: some upheld, recommendations Summary Mr C lives in a conservation area. An application for planning permission for external alterations to a property neighbouring his was submitted to the council. The proposal was to increase the height of the roof of an existing utility building and associated works to create additional living space. Mr C submitted objections to the proposal. The council produced a report of handling of the application and granted full planning permission subject to conditions. The first of these was that the development had to be implemented in accordance with the approved drawings. Mr C was concerned that the council's decision had been procedurally flawed and based on inaccurate information. He complained to the council about this. At both stages of the council's complaints procedure the responses stated their conclusions that the decision had been taken properly and on the basis of accurate information. Mr C was dissatisfied with these responses and raised his complaints with us. We upheld Mr C's complaints that statements in the report were inaccurate (specifically statements that the pitch of the roof 'will match' the main house and that the rooflights will be 'invisible from a public area'); that the approved drawings associated with the application did not contain sufficient written dimensions to ensure that the precise location and scale of what was being proposed was clear; and that the council did not respond reasonably to some of Mr C's complaints. We did not uphold complaints that the evaluation of the application against relevant guidance was unreasonable or that the inadequacies of the report of handling meant that the decision on the application was unreasonable. Recommendations What we asked the organisation to do in this case: Apologise to Mr C that they did not respond reasonably to some of his complaints about the handling of the application. Provide Mr C with a direct response to his complaint. Amend the approved drawings for the application to ensure the precise location and scale of what was being proposed, and has been approved, is clear. What we said should change to put things right in future: Relevant council staff should be reminded that statements of fact in reports of handling should be accurate. Relevant council staff should be reminded that approved drawings should be adequately dimensioned to ensure the precise location and scale of what is being proposed is clear. In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:
Page 50
Relevant council staff should be reminded that issues raised in complaints should be directly responded to. We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) POS Reference 2.1.2 Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. https://www.spso.org.uk/decision-reports/2017/december/decision-report-201605668-201605668
Page 51
POS_2.1.4_SPSO_201508154 Aberdeenshire_Council (finished floor level inaccuracies) RTPI Member No. 47188
Page 52
SPSO decision report Case: 201508154, Aberdeenshire Council Sector: local government Subject: handling of application (complaints by opponents) Outcome: upheld, recommendations Summary Mr and Mrs C raised concerns about the council's handling of various planning applications for a site, including their home. In particular, they said that certain applications failed to protect their home by ensuring that its floor level and that of its neighbour were built to a similar level. As a consequence of this, they said that the council failed to assess the impact of their neighbour's sun lounge on their amenity and privacy. We made enquiries to the council who confirmed that they had since established that the levels of the properties concerned were not in accord with the applications granted and the houses were not built as envisaged. The difference in levels had led to Mr and Mrs C's property being overlooked. We took independent planning advice and we found that one of the properties concerned was too high, whereas, the other was too low. The consequence of this was that overlooking of Mr and Mrs C's house was unavoidable. The council were largely responsible for this. Similarly, because the floor levels were incorrect, the council would not have been able to properly assess the impact of the neighbours' sun lounge on Mr and Mrs C's property. We upheld the complaint. Recommendations We recommended that the council: make a formal apology to recognise the situation; review the staff guidance notes to include the treatment of window alterations during the course of development as consent variations or as permitted development; make a formal apology for their inability to assess the impact of the sun lounge; be prepared to meet the costs of any agreed solution; and review staff guidance notes on planning application handling with regard to successive permissions issued for the same site; the consistency of conditions which require to be carried through from one permission to any future permission; consideration of site levels and especially any proposed changes for residential amenity and overlooking. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) POS Reference:- 2.1.4 Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. https://www.spso.org.uk/decision-reports/2017/may/decision-report-201508154-201508154
Page 53
POS_2.1.POS_2.1.7_SPSO_20140SPSO_2014056565656_AberAberdeenshire_ Council_(GrGround Stability at Boundary)
Page 54
SPSO decision report Case: 201405656, Aberdeenshire Council Sector: local government Subject: handling of application (complaints by opponents) Outcome: upheld, recommendations Summary Mr C's garden bordered a field. The council granted planning permission for a residential development on the field. To achieve the desired ground levels for the new site, it was necessary for the developer to dig down some three metres. This resulted in a steep banking being created, running the length of Mr C's western boundary, partly in the garden of one of the new properties and the remainder within an amenity space (an area designed to enhance enjoyment of the surroundings) at the development. Mr C found that his garden ground was being eroded with earth slipping down the banking into the new development. He complained to the council about the lack of retaining wall but was advised that this was not something that would normally be considered under the remit of a planning application. They maintained that this would normally be included by the applicant as part of their proposal, rather than at the insistence of the council. The council also advised Mr C that it was not a building control matter and that he should seek legal advice if he felt the actions of others had had a negative impact on his property. After taking independent advice from a planning adviser, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We found that the council had consistently maintained that no specific consideration was given to stability as this was considered to fall outwith the remit of the planning service. The adviser did not agree with this approach and considered that, given the significant change in ground level from Mr C's property to the new development, this should have been a material consideration in the council's planning report. We also found that there had been issues with a condition that was attached to the new development's planning permission and that this had caused confusion for local residents such as Mr C. Recommendations We recommended that the council: issue Mr C with an apology for the errors surrounding the condition in question within the planning application; provide evidence of the new processes that are in place to prevent a recurrence of such an issue with planning conditions in future; issue Mr C with an apology for the failure to take all material considerations into account when determining the planning application; and consider how they can assist Mr C to stabilise his entire western boundary at no cost to himself, or otherwise facilitate this outcome. If following consideration, this is not possible, appropriate financial redress should be offered to Mr C. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) POS Reference:- 2.1.7 Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. https://www.spso.org.uk/sites/spso/files/decision_summaries/201405656.pdf
Page 55
POS_4.1.2_SPSO_ 201606059_Edinburgh City_Council (failure to take account of applicable development plan policy) RTPI Member No. 47188
Page 56
SPSO decision report Case: 201606059, The City of Edinburgh Council Sector: local government Subject: handling of application (complaints by opponents) Decision: some upheld, recommendations Summary Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application. In particular that the council had failed to consider their waterside development policy (policy Des 9), had failed to consult with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and had unreasonably accepted that works for the planning application were initiated on time. Mr C also complained about the council's communication with him. We took independent planning advice. We found that that policy Des 9 should have been referred to in the report of handling (a report containing information on a planning application). It was not possible to know whether this policy had been taken into consideration during the processing of the planning application, as was required. We also found that it was not possible to say whether consideration of policy Des 9 would have resulted in a different outcome. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. We also found that SEPA should have been consulted and we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We did not find any evidence that the council had unreasonably accepted that works for the planning application were initiated on time and we did not uphold this part of the complaint. Regarding communication, we found that some of the issues raised by Mr C had been not been adequately addressed, however, other issues raised by him had been reasonably clarified. We were concerned that a further response letter had had to be issued to Mr C. The council had accepted that there had been a delay in responding and that Mr C should not have had to submit a formal complaint to prompt a full response to his enquiries. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. Recommendations What we said should change to put things right in future: Development plan policies relevant to the processing of any particular application should be referenced in the report of handling. Where a statutory consultation appears to be required as part of the processing of a planning application, but has not taken place, this should be explained in the report of handling. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) POS Reference:- 4.1.2 Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. https://www.spso.org.uk/sites/spso/files/decision_summaries/201606059.pdf
Page 57
POS_4.1.3_SPSO_201605227 The_City_of_Edinburgh_Council (Policy and Material considerations) RTPI Member No. 47188
Page 58
SPSO decision report Case: 201605227, The City of Edinburgh Council Sector: local government Subject: handling of application (complaints by opponents) Decision: upheld, recommendations Summary Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application to extend a restaurant near his home. Mr C was concerned that a parking policy had not been taken into account when determining the application and that the planning service had not waited on a consultation response from the roads service at the council before approving the application. During their own consideration of the case, the council accepted that parking had not been covered in the planning officer's report for the application and they apologised for this failing. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that there was no evidence that the relevant policy for parking had been considered when determining the planning application. While there was no statutory requirement to await a roads service consultation response before determining the application, the advice we received highlighted that proceeding without all the relevant information was a key shortcoming. However, there was no evidence that proceeding without the consultation response made any difference to the council's decision to approve the application. On balance, we upheld the complaint. However, based on the advice we received, we did not consider that there was any further action that the council were required to take in respect of the application. We did make a recommendation to ensure that material considerations and relevant policies are taken into account when determining a planning application in the future. Recommendations What we said should change to put things right in future: All material considerations should be taken into account when determining a planning application. The correct policies should be identified and referenced in the report of handling. We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) POS Reference:- 4.1.3 Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. https://www.spso.org.uk/decision-reports/2017/may/decision-report-201508154-201508154
Page 59
No embedded text on this page.
Page 60
No embedded text on this page.
Page 61
No embedded text on this page.
Page 62
Mr Stephen Griffin (Objects) Comment submitted date: Thu 13 Jun 2024 The application does not comply with Policy 19 on housing in the countryside. The application acknowledges that it needs to satisfy this policy, but in fact it does not meet any of the six criteria for support. An application for outline planning permission in 2015 (15/00536/IPL) was refused for this reason. The criteria are the same in the current Local Development Plan, and nothing has changed in the area to change the analysis. The site is not in a "building group" as that requires at least three existing substantial buildings. Even on the applicant's analysis (which is ambitious to say the least) there are only two, and none of the criteria for building group would appear to be satisfied. The supporting statement states that the site is "sandwiched between" two properties and a road, so is an infill site (para 2.5). This is misleading. To be an "infill site" the site would need to be in between two existing properties - this site is not; it is downhill from two properties and between the lower property (the historic manse) and the road. This is clearly not an infill site. The supporting statement also says that the site is within a country or estate house grounds. This justification was also tried and rejected in 2015: the rejection clearly states that the site is "within the garden grounds of an existing dwellinghouse but is not considered to be a country house / estate". This is enough to require the council to refuse the current application, but there are additional serious concerns about the proposal, as mentioned in the community council's objection dated 6 June 2024. Flood risk: The application states that it is not in an area of flooding risk, and that it will not increase the flood risk elsewhere. As can be seen from other objections, this is inaccurate. The site is at the bottom of Kenmore Hill, and absorbs a lot of rainwater. As the council notes, the area nonetheless floods, and a new development on the site would exacerbate this. Biodiversity and environment: It is remarkable that no evidence of any protected mammal species was found during the survey. I have seen pine martens use the site for access, and red squirrels are seen here on an almost daily basis. The site is adjacent to the River Tay SAC, and there is not enough information in the application to understand the potential adverse effects on biodiversity and the environment from the development, change to the shape of the hill, tree cutting etc. The proposals would appear to breach National Planning Framework (NPF) policy 20 by causing fragmentation of the green infrastructure currently used by protected wildlife. Health and safety: I share the concerns raised by the community council about road safety. This is a very dangerous stretch of single track road, with very poor visibility, high pedestrian usage, and no pavement.
Page 63
Mr William Howie (Objects) Comment submitted date: Thu 13 Jun 2024 My main concern relates to road safety in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. The adjacent lochside road is already hazardous to road users, particularly pedestrians, who regularly walk along the road to and from Kenmore and Taymouth Marina. There are no pavements, no lighting and the road is persistently affected by large amounts of surface water draining from the elevated land, on which the development is proposed to be built. In Winter months, the surface water readily forms thick ice. Introducing an inevitable area of hardstanding associated with the development will exacerbate surface water accumulation on the road. In addition, emerging traffic onto the road, given present hazards, will further impact the safety of road users.
Page 64
No embedded text on this page.
Page 65
No embedded text on this page.
Page 66
No embedded text on this page.
Page 67
No embedded text on this page.
Page 68
No embedded text on this page.
Page 69
No embedded text on this page.
Page 70
No embedded text on this page.