(b) Planning Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Reference Documents (Pages 249-260)
Perth and Kinross Council · 16 December 2024
Back to Local Review Body — 16 December 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(iii)(b) LRB-2024-45 LRB-2024-45 24/00902/FLL - Erection of replacement dwellinghouse, garage and associated works, Thistlebridge, Stanley, Perth, PH1 4PW PLANNING DECISION NOTICE (included in applicant’s submission, pages 184-185) REPORT OF HANDLING REFERENCE DOCUMENTS (included in applicant’s submission, pages 190-247)
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
REPORT OF HANDLING DELEGATED REPORT Ref No 24/00902/FLL Ward No P5- Strathtay Due Determination Date 17th August 2024 Draft Report Date 23rd September 2024 Report Issued by Andy Baxter Date 23 September 2024 PROPOSAL: Erection of replacement dwellinghouse, garage and associated works LOCATION: Thistlebridge, Stanley, Perth, PH1 4PW SUMMARY: This report recommends refusal of a detailed planning permission for a replacement of an existing dwelling on a site at Thistlebridge, outside of Stanley as the development is (still) considered to be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no material considerations apparent which justify setting aside the Development Plan. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL This planning application seeks to obtain a detailed planning permission for the replacement of an existing dwelling with a new dwelling, in a different location. The existing dwelling is located on a roadside site at Thistlebridge near Stanley, and is a single storey of ‘Dorran’ construction and has structural defects. It is proposed to move the replacement dwelling approx. 60m to the northeast onto an area of land significantly lower than the existing dwelling, and flatter. The site is part of a extended curtilage of the existing dwelling, however it appears not to have been used for that purposed for many years and a large proportion of it is now overgrown with vegetation and small trees. The proposed dwelling would offer living accommodation over two levels, with the upper level provided within the roof space via the use of dormers. A detached triple garage is also proposed. A new vehicular access is proposed which will require a degree of engineering due to the level changes across the site. The means of internal access down to the proposed dwelling has been amended slightly from a previously refused planning application. SITE HISTORY A very similar detailed proposal (23/02027/FLL) for the erection of replacement dwellinghouse, garage and associated works was refused earlier this year on the grounds of, 1 The location of the replacement dwelling does not respect the siting and location of the existing house in terms of its distance from the road or general
Page 4
locality, and limited justification for a substantial relocation has been brought proposed. The proposal is therefore contrary to the Council’s Housing in the Countryside Policies as contained within the adopted Peth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) (Policy 19) and its statutory supplementary guidance of 2020 (Housing in the Countryside). Both these policies seek to ensure that replacement houses respect the location and siting of the existing dwelling, unless there is proven justification why another location would create a better landscape fit. 2 As the proposal is not explicitly supported by policies contained within the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019), the proposal is contrary to Policy 9(b) (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings), which only supports new development on greenfield land when it is supported by relevant Local Development Plan policies. 3 It has not been demonstrated that the engineered vehicular access would not impact on either local or protected wildlife, or what bio-diversity enhancement measures are required. The proposal is therefore contrary to a) Policy 3 (Biodiversity) of National Planning Framework 4 (2023), b) Policy 41 (Bio- diversity) of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and c) the Council’s non-statutory planning guidance on Planning and Nature (2020), as bio-diversity interests have not been fully considered as part of the development proposals. This current application proposes a slightly different internal access arrangement, and also includes additional ecology and tree information. PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION None relevant to this proposal. DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Development Plan for the area comprises National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) (LDP2) and statutory supplementary planning guidance (SPG). National Planning Framework 4 The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) is the Scottish Government’s long-term spatial strategy with a comprehensive set of national planning policies. This strategy sets out how to improve people’s lives by making sustainable, liveable and productive spaces. NPF4 was adopted on 13 February 2023. NPF4 has an increased status over previous NPFs and comprises part of the statutory development plan. The Council’s assessment of this application has considered the following policies of NPF4: Policy 3: Biodiversity
Page 5
Policy 4: Natural Places Policy 6: Forestry, woodland and trees Policy 9: Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place Policy 17: Rural Homes Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 – Adopted November 2019 The Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) is the most recent statement of Council policy and is augmented by Supplementary Guidance. The site lies within the landward area of the LDP2, where the following policies are applicable, Policy 1A: Placemaking Policy 1B: Placemaking Policy 5: Developer Contributions Policy 19: Housing in the Countryside Policy 38: Environment and Conservation Policy 40: Trees Policy 41: Biodiversity Policy 47: River Tay Catchment Policy 60: Transport Standards Statutory Supplementary Planning Guidance The following statutory SPG are applicable to the proposal, Developer Contributions & Affordable Housing 2023 Housing in the Countryside 2020 Placemaking 2020 OTHER PKC POLICIES The following non-statutory PG are applicable to this proposal, Non Statutory Planning Guidance The following non-statutory PG are applicable to this proposal, Planning and Nature NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through Planning Advice Notes, Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and a series of Circulars. Planning Advice Notes The following Scottish Government Planning Advice Notes (PANs) and Guidance Documents are of relevance to the proposal:
Page 6
PAN 40 Development Management PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PAN 68 Design Statements National Roads Development Guide 2014 This document supports Designing Streets and expands on its principles and is considered to be the technical advice that should be followed in designing and approving of all streets including parking provision. EXTERNAL CONSULTATION RESPONSES Scottish Water have commented on the proposal and raised no issues. Perth And Kinross Heritage Trust has commented on the proposal and raised no concerns in relation to local archaeology. INTERNAL COUNCIL COMMENTS Environmental Health have commented on the proposal in terms of contaminated land and private water, and subject to conditions and informative notes they have no objections. Biodiversity Officer has commented on the proposal and raised some observations over the proposal and the submitted information. In the event of any approval being forthcoming, a number of matters still remain outstanding but these now appear to be addressable. Development Contributions Officer has indicated that as this proposal is for the replacement of an existing dwelling, there is no requirements for any developer contributions. Transportation And Development have commented on the proposal and have no objections subject to conditions being attached to any permission. REPRESENTATIONS None received. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS RECEIVED Screening Opinion EIA Not Required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not applicable Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations AA undertaken. Subject to appropriate measures being implemented during construction (CEMP) and on completion, there will be no adverse impact on the SAC.
Page 7
Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Not Required Report on Impact or Potential Impact Not Required APPRAISAL Sections 25 and 37 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises NPF4, the LDP2 and statutory SPGs. The relevant policy considerations are outlined in the policy section above and are considered in more detail below. In terms of other material considerations, this involves considerations of the Council’s other non-statutory policies and guidance, and these are discussed below only where relevant. The site’s previous planning history is also relevant. Policy Appraisal There are relevant policies contained in all parts of the Development Plan. Within the NPF4, support for new housing in the countryside is offered by Policies 9 (Brownfield, derelict and vacant and empty buildings) and Policy 17 (rural homes) – in certain instances. Policy 3 (biodiversity) places bio-diversity front and centre of all planning decisions, and Policy 4 (Natural Places) looks to ensure that our environmental asserts are protected from inappropriate new developments. Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) seeks to ensure that a high standard of design is brought forward for all proposals. Policy 6 (Forestry, woodland and trees) of the NPF4 gives new protection to areas of forestry, and in particular those areas which are part of ancient woodlands. In terms of the LDP2, the site is located within the landward area of the LDP2, where Policies 1 (Placemaking), 19 (Housing in the Countryside), 38 (Environment and Conservation), 40 (Trees), 41 (biodiversity), 45 (River Tay Catchment), 60 (Transport Standards) are all applicable. Policy 1 seeks to ensure that all new developments do not have an adverse impact on the area in which they are located, whilst Policy 19 is the LDP2 version of the HITC and needs to be read in conjunction with the SPG. Policy 41 seeks to ensure that both protected and local wildlife are fully considered. Policies 38 and 45 both looks to protect our environmental sensitive sites, with Policy 45 specifically relating to the River Tay SAC. In terms of SPG, the Council’s policies on Housing in the Countryside, Placemaking and Developer Contributions are all applicable. Land Use Acceptability Within the NPF4, support for new rural homes is offered (in certain instances) through firstly Policy 17, and then through parts of Policy 9. Within Policy 17, support is offered for the replacement of an existing dwelling via part viii, which states that
Page 8
support will be afforded to proposals which relates to the reinstatement of a former dwelling house or is a one-for-one replacement of an existing permanent house. This proposal is for a replacement on a one for one basis and this element is generally acceptable – especially bearing in mind the substandard nature of the existing dwelling. However, the extent the proposed re-siting of the replacement dwelling some 60m away to obtain a ‘better’ siting and environment for future occupiers of the dwelling, and perhaps to make the rebuild easier (less expensive) is not considered to be within the spirit of the policy. Policy 9 of the NPF4 also need to be considered, and this policy essentially offers support for new residential development on greenfield areas providing that the proposal accords with the relevant LDP policies – which in this case is the HITC policies, and those relating to Placemaking. The HITC policies as contained in both the LDP2 and the SPG offers support for proposals for the replacement of existing dwellings subject to a number or criteria being met. The first is accepted, insofar as the existing dwelling is not of any quality – which is the case here. It is not contested that to improve the dwelling to bring it up to modern standards will most likely be unviable financially. The principle of a replacement is therefore generally acceptable. The second principal criteria, the location of the replacement is however of a concern. The Council’s HITC policies state that for replacements, the siting of the new house should be similar to that of the existing building in terms of orientation and distance from the road, unless individual site conditions suggest that another position would create a better landscape fit. The policies go on to say that if an alternative position is sought, or the proposed house is to be of a significantly different scale, this should be justified in a supporting planning and design statement. The justification within the supporting statement suggests that the slopes to the rear (east) of the site limits the ability for a replacement to either be on the same site as the existing, or close to it, and that the only reasonable location is at the foot of the hill where the land is flatter. There is no doubt about the sloping nature of the land to the east, however there is a level of ‘usable’ ground where the existing dwelling is located and there could be options for a terraced or engineered (extended garden). In this resubmission a rough estimate of the cost has been provided, but there is not any substance to it. Simply moving an existing house from a location which is perhaps not desirable as opposed to be unworkable or unacceptable (i.e. through flood risk) is within the spirit of the HITC policies and to this end, the proposal is still considered to be contrary to the Development Plan for this reason. The amendment to the internal access from the previously refused application does not alter this view.
Page 9
Visual Amenity, Design and Layout In isolation, the proposal raises no issues in terms of its design, scale or layout. The issue for this proposal is the principle of the movement away from the location of the existing dwelling. Residential Amenity In terms of impacting on existing residential amenity, the isolated location of the proposed dwelling will mean that there would be no neighbours impacted upon. In terms of being able to provide a suitable level of residential amenity for future occupiers of the dwelling, there would be a suitable level of usable garden ground afforded to the new dwelling. Roads and Access The proposal raises no issues in terms of access or parking related matters. In the event of any approval being forthcoming, a standard condition in relation to the junction with the public road should be attached to any permission. Public Access The path along the southern side of the site leading down to the river is a core path. Whilst it is unlikely that there would be any adverse impact on this route, the event of any approval being forthcoming, a standard condition which ensures the protection of the path during the construction phase should be included on any decision notice. Drainage and Flooding The proposal raises no issues in terms of drainage or flooding matters. Any provide drainage arrangements will have to comply with the various technical standards of both SEPA and building standards. Conservation Considerations The proposal raises no issues in terms of impacting on a listed building, conservation area or local archaeology. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity To allow for the new vehicular access to be created, a significant amount of naturally overgrown vegetation will need to be removed, and this habitat could accommodate either local or protected wildlife – especially when the area is close to a major watercourse. The area of woodland to the north of the site is also part of an ancient woodland, which had extra protection through NPF4 and Policy 6. Generally, the additional information in relation to trees and biodiversity is acceptable, subject to some clarification on a proposed CEMP (to avoid pollution to the River Tay), the proposed CEZ to protect the ancient woodland and updates on invasive species plans, breeding bird and additional biodiversity enhancements. These could be
Page 10
reasonably controlled through pre-commencement and compliance conditions, and subject to this the proposal would accord with the requirements of In the absence of such information, the proposal is contrary to Policy 41 of the LDP2 and also Policy 3 of the NPF4, which seek to both protect wildlife and also provide bio-diversity enhancement. Contaminated Land Environmental Health have commented on the proposal and indicated that there is some risk of the proposed site being contaminated. In the event of any approval, a standard contaminated land condition should be attached to any permission. Private Water There are some known private water supplies and private drainage within the area which could be affected and impacted upon as a result of the proposal. In the event of any approval being forthcoming, standards conditions and informatives in relation to private water and infrastructure should be attached to any permissions. Developer Contributions The proposal is for the replacement of an existing dwelling, which is presently occupied. There is therefore no requirement of any developer contributions in relation to either Primary Education or Transport Infrastructure. Economic Impact The economic impact of the proposal is likely to be minimal and limited to the construction phase of the development. VARIATION OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 32A None made. PLANNING OBLIGATIONS AND LEGAL AGREEMENTS None required. DIRECTION BY SCOTTISH MINISTERS None applicable to this proposal. CONCLUSION AND REASONS FOR DECISION To conclude, the application must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this respect, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the Development Plan. Account has been taken of the relevant material considerations and none has been found that would justify overriding the Development Plan.
Page 11
Accordingly the proposal is refused on the grounds identified below. 1 The location of the replacement dwelling does not respect the siting and location of the existing house in terms of its distance from the road or general locality, and limited justification for a substantial relocation has been brought proposed. The proposal is therefore contrary to the Council’s Housing in the Countryside Policies as contained within the adopted Peth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) (Policy 19) and its statutory supplementary guidance of 2020 (Housing in the Countryside). Both these policies seek to ensure that replacement houses respect the location and siting of the existing dwelling, unless there is proven justification why another location would create a better landscape fit. 2 As the proposal is not explicitly supported by policies contained within the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019), the proposal is contrary to Policy 9(b) (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings) of the National Planning Framework 4 (2023), which only supports new development on greenfield land when it is supported by relevant Local Development Plan policies. Justification The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. Informatives None Procedural Notes Not Applicable. PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION 01-09 (inclusive)
Page 12
No embedded text on this page.