Item 4(iv) LRB-2023-08
Perth and Kinross Council · 24 April 2023
Back to Local Review Body — 24 April 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
4(iv) LRB-2023-08 LRB-2023-08 22/02034/FLL – Erection of dwellinghouse, land 80 metres north west of Spoutwells Farm, Meikleour INDEX (a) Papers submitted by the Applicant (Pages 533-596) (b) Decision Notice (Pages 553-554) Report of Handling (Pages 555-564) Reference Documents (Pages 573-578) (c) Representations (Pages 599-614) 531
Page 2
532
Page 3
4(iv)(a) LRB-2023-08 LRB-2023-08 22/02034/FLL – Erection of dwellinghouse, land 80 metres north west of Spoutwells Farm, Meikleour PAPERS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 533
Page 4
534
Page 5
Page 1 of 5 Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street Perth PH1 5GD Tel: 01738 475300 Fax: 01738 475310 Email: onlineapps@pkc.gov.uk Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid. Thank you for completing this application form: ONLINE REFERENCE 100618188-001 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Agent Details Please enter Agent details Company/Organisation: Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * First Name: * Building Name: Last Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Telephone Number: * (Street): * Extension Number: Address 2: Mobile Number: Town/City: * Fax Number: Country: * Postcode: * Email Address: * Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? * Individual Organisation/Corporate entity Houghton Planning Ltd Paul Houghton MRTPI Whins Road Alloa Business Centre 07780117708 FK10 3RF Scotland Clacks Alloa paul@houghtonplanning.co.uk 535
Page 6
Page 2 of 5 Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Mr Grant Perth and Kinross Council Roy Alloa Business Centre c/o Houghton Planning Ltd FK10 3SA Land 80 Metres North West Of Spoutwells Farm Meikleour Scotland Alloa Whins Road paul@houghtonplanning.co.uk 536
Page 7
Page 3 of 5 Description of Proposal Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters) Type of Application What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? * Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions. What does your review relate to? * Refusal Notice. Grant of permission with Conditions imposed. No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal. Statement of reasons for seeking review You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters) Note: you are unlikely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account. You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes No Determination on your application was made? * If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters) Erection of dwellinghouse See Local Review Statement 537
Page 8
Page 4 of 5 Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters) Application Details Please provide the application reference no. given to you by your planning authority for your previous application. What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * Review 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 and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case. Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. * Yes No Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the handling of your review. You may select more than one option if you wish the review to be a combination of procedures. Please select a further procedure * Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it will deal with? (Max 500 characters) Please select a further procedure * Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it will deal with? (Max 500 characters) In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion: Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? * Yes No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? * Yes No Planning application as submitted, including drawings Report of Handling Decision Notice 2007 Consent Paperwork 2012 Consent Paperwork Local Review Statement Applicant's Personal Statement 22/02034/FLL 19/01/2023 Holding one or more hearing sessions on specific matters By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates 16/11/2022 See Local Review Statement See Local Review Statement 538
Page 9
Page 5 of 5 Checklist – Application for Notice of Review Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid. Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. * Yes No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this Yes No review? * If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name Yes No N/A and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the review should be sent to you or the applicant? * Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what Yes No procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? * Note: You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. You may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that 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. Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on Yes No (e.g. plans and Drawings) which are now the subject of this review * Note: Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice (if any) from the earlier consent. Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mr Paul Houghton MRTPI Declaration Date: 17/02/2023 539
Page 10
540
Page 11
1 | P a g e LOCAL REVIEW STATEMENT INTRODUCTION This Local Review Statement has been prepared on behalf of Mr and Mrs Grant Roy by Paul Houghton MRTPI of Houghton Planning Ltd. It relates to the refusal under delegated powers of detailed planning application Reference: 22/02034/FLL for “Erection of dwellinghouse” at land 80 metres North West of Spoutwells Farm, Meikleour. The application was refused by Decision Notice dated 19th January 2023 for the following two reasons: “1. The site is not part of an existing building group which comprises 3 or more existing buildings, does not have a natural and defined site boundaries which are capable of absorbing the development proposed and would not have a close relationship with the existing buildings by virtue of its physically divorced location. The proposal is therefore contrary to the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) Policy 19 (Housing in the Countryside) and the Council's Housing in the Countryside Guide 2020 supplementary guidance, which firstly define a building group as being 3 or more existing properties and secondly seeks to ensure that new development which extends building groups do so into established and natural sites which have a close relationship to the existing grouping. 2. The proposal would result in a new dwelling being located in an open corner of a wider agricultural field, with no existing landscape features or site containment to the north and east. This would result in a visually incongruous development within the rural countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 17 of the approved National Planning Framework 4 (2023) which requires all new rural homes to be appropriately sited”. This Statement sets out the reasons why it is considered that planning permission can be granted in this instance. It is requested that the Local Review Body undertake a site visit, as in that way they can see the remains of the now demolished cottage, which is central to the case that will be argued below. A hearing has also been asked for, as that will allow councillors to question Mr Roy, his architect, and Mr Houghton, about the claim made below that a 2007 planning permission for a single dwelling (Reference 07/02624/FUL), and granted to Strathdean Developments Ltd, has been lawfully implemented. It is also possible that a later planning permission (Reference 12/00047/FLL), also granted to Strathdean Developments Ltd, has also been lawfully implemented. The existence of an extant planning permission significantly changes how this local review should be determined for the reasons we discuss below. The remainder of this Statement follows the same order as the Report of Handling. 541
Page 12
2 | P a g e APPLICANT’S PERSONAL STATEMENT “We were both born in Perth and have spent most of our lives living, working and bringing up our children in Perthshire. For myself, this included 20 years with Hydro Electric, working closely with rural communities. We always planned to spend our imminent retirement in the peace and tranquillity of the Perthshire countryside and to ease our transition into retirement with an eco-friendly, self- build project. We sold the family home and moved into rented flat in January 2022 to pursue this dream. When the plot at Kirkton of Lethendy came on the market, it looks like the perfect option. It was for sale by auction, with a guide price of £100k, and had four previously successful planning applications. The auction timescales precluded a deeper planning investigation but the “plot-like” guide price and the very positive planning history suggested that it was a “safe bet.” To date, we have spent over £92,000 buying the plot and professional fees to get to the planning stage. This represents approximately one third of our total build budget, described as “very tight” by our architect but our intention was to be very “hands-on” to make up any shortfall. The refusal of planning permission has a devastating affect on our retirement plans. We intended to utilise our collective pension pot to fund a very energy-efficient, low maintenance house. Down the line we planned to draw on the equity that we will be investing, financially and physically, to help fund ongoing retirement. On a personal level, a failure to gain planning permission, does not simply extinguish local couple’s rural self-build dream, it shatters our retirement plan. We will need to delay retirement for several years and downscale significantly to cope with the financial loss. We are more than willing to work with planning authority to find a way to permit this development and appreciate your consideration of the options available”. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The background to the case, description of development, and description of the site and surrounding area, as set out in the Report of Handling, are agreed. SITE HISTORY The site has a long, and detailed, planning history extending back to 2004, as below. The drawings, Reports of Handling, and Decision Notices, of the 2007 and 2012 planning applications are being submitted with this Local Review. • Approved 24th November 2004 - Reference 04/02014/OUT Demolition of existing cottage and erection of a replacement dwellinghouse and formation of a new access (in outline) • Approved 24th November 2004 - Reference 06/00062/OUT Demolition of the existing cottage and the erection of a replacement dwellinghouse including garage and formation of new access road (in outline) 542
Page 13
3 | P a g e • Approved 25th February 2008 - Reference 07/02624/FUL Erection of a dwellinghouse • Approved 12th March 2012 - Reference 12/00047/FLL Erection of a dwellinghouse The interest that can be gleaned from the earliest planning history in 2004 and 2006 is that until the 2007 planning application was granted, the cottage clearly still existed on site and, significantly, demolition was a key part of the proposed development at that time. That then brings us to the 2007 planning permission, which does not include demolition in the description of development, but which shows this happening on the approved site plan, with the cottage shown with a hatched line, and for the existing access to be widened (see below). Also important is that this planning permission had no pre-commencement conditions attached, and was ‘live’, and capable of implementation, until 19th February 2013. For the purposes of this Statement, commencement of development/lawful implementation means the following. 1. Complying with Section 27 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 in that a material operation had taken place before planning permission expired, usually 3 years from the date that the planning permission was granted, which was brought in by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006, which amended Section 58 of the 1997 Act. Prior to that the duration of a planning permission was usually 5 years. A material operation is defined in the Act under sub section (4) as “(a) any work of construction in the course of the erection of a building, (b) any work of demolition of a building, (c) the digging of a trench which is to contain the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building, (d)the laying of any underground main or pipe to the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building or to any such trench as is mentioned in paragraph 543
Page 14
4 | P a g e (c), (da)any placing or assembly of equipment as is mentioned in subsection (6) of section 26 in waters described in paragraph (b) or (c) of that subsection,] (e)any operation in the course of laying out or constructing a road or part of a road, or (f) any change in the use of any land which constitutes material development”. 2. Complying with Section 27A (1) of the 1997 Act (introduced by section 6 of the 2006 Act), which requires that a planning authority be notified of the date work is expected to commence before the work actually commences on any development for which planning permission has been granted. This is normally done by the submission of a Notice of Initiation of Development. This requirement came into force on 3rd of August 2009. 3. Complying with any pre-commencement conditions attached to the grant of planning permission. In relation to item 3, case law suggests that a distinction must be drawn between: (1) a condition that simply requires some action to be undertaken before development is commenced, which would generally not prevent a development being lawfully commenced; and (2) a condition, which expressly prohibits any development taking place before a particular requirement has been met, i.e. it goes to the heart of the permission, and a breach of which could well mean that a development has not been lawfully commenced. Applying the above to the 2007 consent, we know that the case officer visited the site on 18th January 2008 because it says so in the Report of Handling. We also know that the cottage existed at that point in time because the Report of Handling includes the following photograph that shows that. It also shows a partly formed access in the approved position. 544
Page 15
5 | P a g e We also know that the cottage was demolished sometime between 18th January 2008 and 9th February 2012 because the case officer for the 2012 planning permission says so in the Report of Handling for that application, as follows: “A small cottage previously stood within the site adjacent to the roadside but this has since been demolished.” Therefore, a material operation, in this case the demolition of a building, occurred between those two dates. That is before the 2007 planning permission would have expired on 19th February 2013. The photograph below, taken recently in January 2023, shows the site as it exists today. As can be seen, the cottage has gone, although councillors will be able to see the remains on site if they go there, including some foundations remaining in situ, and the photograph also shows that the access, and road through the site, have been further excavated. The pile of rubble at the end of the site, in the photograph, is material from the demolition of the cottage, which remains on site. 545
Page 16
6 | P a g e It is accepted that no Notice of Initiation of Development has been submitted, or so we believe. However, that was only required after the 3rd of August 2009, so if demolition occurred prior to that, no such Notice was required. If demolition occurred after that date, a Notice would have been required. However, in our view, the absence of a Notice is not of such legal importance that it should render an otherwise lawfully implemented planning permission unlawful. There is no case law that says that, but that would appear to be a reasonable stance to take of what is a technical breach. Put another way, there have been examples of a Notice being submitted retrospectively by Houghton Planning Ltd albeit not in Perth and Kinross that has been accepted by a local planning authority as being legitimate. Finally, the 2007 planning permission has no pre-commencement conditions. For the above reasons, it is considered that the 2007 planning permission has been lawfully implemented. Finally, it is appreciated that the case officer suggests submission of a Certificate of Lawfulness. However, as councillors will appreciate, the evidential bar for that is high, and the onus of proof is on the applicant to show that the planning permission has been implemented on the balance of probabilities. It may be possible to gather the necessary information for such an application. However, in the meantime, it is considered that the evidence provided above shows that a reasonable person can assume that it is more likely than not that the 2007 546
Page 17
7 | P a g e planning permission has been implemented, which is considered enough for the purposes of considering this Local Review. NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE The only change since the application was determined relates to the approval of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), which the Local Review Body’s Planning Advisor will no doubt comment upon EXTERNAL CONSULTATION RESPONSES AND REPRESENTATIONS We have no comments, other than stressing that there were no comments (objections) on this application from neighbours. APPRAISAL Land Use Acceptability Before considering compliance with policy and guidance, the first question that councillors need to ask themselves is whether the 2007 planning permission is extant. We say it is and, if that is accepted, then this current proposal is simply amending that extant planning permission by changing one house type for another. In that instance, there is no need to really consider policy and guidance at all, and planning permission can be granted. If, however, councillors are hesitant as to whether the 2007 planning permission is live, then they may only wish to consider this planning history as being a material consideration, with the weight attached to it varying based upon the level of certainty that they give to the evidence of implementation presented above. That weight could range from very significant, i.e. we (as councillors) are pretty certain it is extant, to significant, i.e. we are reasonably certain it is extant, and downwards from there. Our hope is that councillors will see the 2007 planning permission as a very significant, or, at least, a significant material consideration. In either case, it is sufficient, in our view, to grant planning permission provided any non- compliance with policy and guidance is of a minor to middling nature. Turning then to policy and guidance, it is accepted that the key consideration for this proposal is whether the proposal complies with the Council’s Housing in the Countryside Guidance (March 2020). It is also accepted that the Building Groups category (Category 1) does not apply to this site, and nor is it an Infill Site (Category 2). Instead, the two categories that can be considered are the Replacement House one (Category 4) and, to a lesser extent, the Redevelopment of Rural Brownfield Land category (Category 6). Dealing with the Replacement House category (Category 4) first, then this turns on there being an unbroken line of paperwork from the cottage existing through to the current application, if that is accepted to exist, then planning permission can be granted with the new proposed dwelling being a replacement of the prior existing cottage, which is more or less, we think, what the case officer is suggesting in the Report of Handling. It is accepted that with the previous cottage being a ruinous house, the current proposal does not fully comply with the current guidance because this assumes that there “is substantial visible evidence of the structure of the original building above ground level to enable its size and form to be identified”, which was not the case when the previous consents were granted. 547
Page 18
8 | P a g e However, we agree with the case officer in that NPF4 Policy 17 helps us in that regard because this policy is more relaxed on this issue than the Council’s guidance, and there does not seemingly need to be any remaining evidence on site of a dwelling above ground for the policy to be applied. The Report of Handling comments further on this point. In terms of brownfield land, the guidance states that Category 6 applies to “sites which have either been completely cleared of all buildings and structures, or where some foundations or substructures remain providing that buildings above ground level have been removed”. That more or less applies here, with the main cottage having been demolished, although some of the foundations remain, and could be viewed at a site visit. It is accepted that a contaminated land investigation, and remediation plan, have not been provided. However, the guidance states that these are required in most, and not all cases. In this case, no contamination condition has ever been attached to any of the previous planning permissions, so it was reasonable for Mr Roy to have not provided one here. A standard contamination, and remediation, condition can be added to any consent granted. As for the remainder of the guidance, it is considered that the new dwelling will be small scale, as required, and an improvement on what previously existed, i.e. the cottage, and is a well- designed dwelling that will complement the site and surrounding area. The design quality is, indeed, emphasised by the case officer. It will fit well within the existing landscape setting, and further landscaping proposed by the applicant will help it settle in further over the years, as the site matures. It is appreciated that, as the case officer says, that the site is open at the moment. However, that guidance relates to Category 1, and no such equivalent guidance relates to Categories 4 and 6. That is also the case for his comments on the physical, and visual, relationship of the site with the buildings on the other side of the road, which is a Category 1 issue in the main. Mr Roy is not aware of any “pressing requirements for other uses on the site such as business or tourism”. Visual Amenity, Design and Layout We agree with the case officer that the design of the dwelling is of a high standard, and all siting and layout matters raised in the guidance can be addressed. It is also accepted that the site is open at present. However, that can be changed by a suitably worded landscaping condition being applied, and that being implemented alongside building the dwelling. Residential Amenity We agree with the case officer that there will be no amenity impacts for neighbours, and that the new occupiers will also have an acceptable level of private and usable amenity space. Roads and Access No comments. 548
Page 19
9 | P a g e Drainage and Flooding No comments. Conservation Considerations No comments. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity No comments. Developer Contributions A developer contribution is acceptable. Economic Impact The economy faces a difficult period over the next couple of years at least. This will mean that new housebuilding will contract leading to the possible loss of jobs in the construction and housebuilding sectors. Therefore, it will be important to support and allow new housebuilding to hopefully keep people employed. To give this perspective, the construction sector is massively important to the Scottish and Perthshire economies in good times and bad. Across Scotland, construction employs around c.7% of the workforce and contributes c. 8% of Gross Value Added. A study in 2016 by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners ‘The economic and social benefits of home building in Scotland’ for Homes for Scotland estimated that 4.1 jobs were supported for every single home built, and that each new homeowner will contribute c. £6,000 per annum to the local economy. Those figures will now be much higher. In addition, c. £300,000+ will be invested in the local supply chain by the applicant whilst the Council will benefit directly from Council Tax. For these reasons, much more weight should be given to this issue than has been by the case officer. Conclusion Based upon the analysis above, it is considered that the site has an extant planning permission granted in 2007 and, as such, this planning application can be approved as a straightforward amendment to that planning permission. Secondly, the proposal can anyway be approved, we say, under Category 4 of the Council’s Housing in the Countryside Guidance (March 2020). Alternatively, the proposal can be considered acceptable in line with Redevelopment of Rural Brownfield Land (Category 6). In each case, the planning history is a material consideration, with the weight attached to it, in effect, being relative to the strength of the evidence we have provided. The proposal otherwise conforms to all other policy and guidance, and there are no material considerations that suggest that planning permission should not be granted. Indeed, those that exist suggest approval is the appropriate course of action. For those reasons, it is hoped that the Local Review Body will allow this local review, and grant detailed planning permission subject to conditions. 549
Page 20
550
Page 21
Personal statement from Grant & Lorna Roy We were both born in Perth and have spent most of our lives living, working and bringing up our children in Perthshire. For myself, this included 20 years with Hydro Electric, working closely with rural communities. We always planned to spend our imminent retirement in the peace and tranquillity of the Perthshire countryside and to ease our transition into retirement with an eco-friendly, self-build project. We sold the family home and moved into rented flat in January 2022 to pursue this dream. When the plot at Kirkton of Lethendy came on the market, it looks like the perfect option. It was for sale by auction, with a guide price of £100k, and had four previously successful planning applications. The auction timescales precluded a deeper planning investigation but the “plot-like” guide price and the very positive planning history suggested that it was a “safe bet”. To date, we have spent over £92,000 buying the plot and professional fees to get to the planning stage. This represents approximately one third of our total build budget, described as “very tight” by our architect but our intention was to be very “hands-on” to make up any shortfall. The refusal of planning permission has a devastating affect on our retirement plans. We intended to utilise our collective pension pot to fund a very energy-efficient, low maintenance house. Down the line we planned to draw on the equity that we will be investing, financially and physically, to help fund ongoing retirement. On a personal level, a failure to gain planning permission, does not simply extinguish local couple’s rural self-build dream, it shatters our retirement plan. We will need to delay retirement for several years and downscale significantly to cope with the financial loss. We are more than willing to work with planning authority to find a way to permit this development and appreciate your consideration of the options available. 551
Page 22
552
Page 23
Page 1 of 3 Mr Grant Roy c/o OSA Paul O'Shea The Mill House Clunie Blairgowrie PH10 6RJ Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street PERTH PH1 5GD Date of Notice:19th January 2023 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT Application Reference: 22/02034/FLL I am directed by the Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts currently in force, to refuse your application registered on 17th November 2022 for Planning Permission for Erection of dwellinghouse Land 80 Metres North West Of Spoutwells Farm Meikleour David Littlejohn Head of Planning and Development Reasons for Refusal 1. The site is not part of an existing building group which comprises 3 or more existing buildings, does not have a natural and defined site boundaries which are capable of absorbing the development proposed and would not have a close relationship with the existing buildings by virtue of its physically divorced location. The proposal is therefore contrary to the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) Policy 19 (Housing in the Countryside) and the Council's Housing in the Countryside Guide 2020 supplementary guidance, which firstly define a building group as being 3 or more existing properties and secondly seeks to ensure that new development which extends building groups do so into established and natural sites which have a close relationship to the existing grouping. 2. The proposal would result in a new dwelling being located in an open corner of a wider agricultural field, with no existing landscape features or site containment to the north and east. This would result in a visually incongruous development within the rural countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 17 of the approved National Planning Framework 4 (2023) which requires all new rural homes to be appropriately sited. 553
Page 24
2 3. The proposal would result in a new dwelling being located in an open corner of a wider agricultural field, with no existing landscape features or site containment to the north and east. This would result in a visually incongruous development within the rural countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 1A of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) which seeks to ensure that all new developments do not have an adverse impact on the environment in what they are located. Justification The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. The plans and documents relating to this decision are listed below and are displayed on Perth and Kinross Council’s website at www.pkc.gov.uk “Online Planning Applications” page Plan Reference 01 02 03 04 05 554
Page 25
1 REPORT OF HANDLING DELEGATED REPORT Ref No 22/02034/FLL Ward No P5- Strathtay Due Determination Date 16th January 2023 (Neighbour notification expired 15th January 2023) Draft Report Date 18th January 2023 Report Issued by AMB Date 19 January 2023 PROPOSAL: Erection of dwellinghouse LOCATION: Land 80 Metres North West Of Spoutwells Farm, Meikleour SUMMARY: This report recommends refusal of a detailed planning application for a new dwelling on a rural site at Spoutwells Farm, outside Meikleour as the development is 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 looks to secure a detailed planning permission for the erection of a dwelling which will offer living accommodation over two levels. The site is just outside Meikleour at Spoutwells Farm. The site is located to the north of a public road, with an existing farm building and the former farmhouse on the southern side of the road. A former small cottage was located to the north of the road and within the boundaries of the planning site, but that cottage has been demolished and little visual evidence remains. The site is bounded by the public road to the south, and by an area of woodland to the west. The north and eastern boundaries are relevantly open, and softy merge into a wider agricultural field. There is an existing field (unmade) track to the north and east. An existing vehicular access on the B947 is to be used, with the internal field track then used as a private driveway for the dwelling. PROCEDURAL MATTER Presentation of the adjacent site The location and block plans submitted with this planning application show several buildings being present to the south of the road. As will be discussed further in this report, the western range of buildings have been removed and that part of the site cleared. 555
Page 26
2 SITE HISTORY Detailed planning permission was granted on the site in 2007 (07/02624/FUL) for the erection of a dwellinghouse, replacing an existing cottage which was on site. That application was later amended slightly in 2012 (12/00047/FLL) via a further detailed planning application. From the 2012 file, it appears the cottage was removed before that application was determined however there is limited evidence on the 2007 file to indicate that the 2007 permission had formally commenced. There is also little evidence on the 2012 file relating to that permission commencing either. The applicant has not presented an argument in relation to this either. If it was the case that an earlier permission was considered to be extant, the assessment of this planning application (or another proposal for a house on this site) would be slightly altered as any extant permission would be a material consideration. However, in the absence of a CLUD to confirm the lawfulness of either the 2007 or the 2012 permission, they are considered to have fallen, have expired and this assessment is based on that position. PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION None undertaken. NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through The National Planning Framework, the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), Planning Advice Notes (PAN), Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and a series of Circulars. The SPP supports new housing in the open countryside in suitable locations. It should be noted that whilst this document is current at the present time, this document will however be likely be superseded by the NPF4 in mid- February. National Planning Framework 4 The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) was approved by the Scottish Parliament on 11 January 2023. Once adopted by the Scottish Ministers (expected to be 13th February), the NPF4 will have an increased status over previous NPFs and will comprise part of the statutory development plan. At this stage, it is a significant material consideration. In light of this, Policy 17 of the NPF4 which relates to rural housing is relevant to this application. 556
Page 27
3 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Development Plan for the area comprises the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2016-2036 and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019). It should be noted that after adoption, the NFP4 will also form part of the Development Plan. TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2016 – 2036 - Approved October 2017 Whilst there are no specific policies or strategies directly relevant to this proposal the overall vision of the TAYplan should be noted. The vision states “By 2036 the TAYplan area will be sustainable, more attractive, competitive and vibrant without creating an unacceptable burden on our planet. The quality of life will make it a place of first choice where more people choose to live, work, study and visit, and where businesses choose to invest and create jobs.” 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 is located within the landward area of the LDP2 where the following policies are applicable, Policy 1A: Placemaking Policy 1B: Placemaking Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions Policy 19: Housing in the Countryside Policy 41: Biodiversity OTHER COUNCIL POLICIES Placemaking Guide 2020 This is the most recent expression of Council policy towards Placemaking Standards. Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing 2020 This is the most recent expression of Council policies towards Developer Contributions. Housing in the Countryside Guide 2020 This is the most recent expression of Council policies towards housing in the open countryside. EXTERNAL CONSULTATION RESPONSES Scottish Water have no objection to the proposal in terms of water issues. 557
Page 28
4 INTERNAL COUNCIL COMMENTS Transportation And Development have commented on the proposal in terms of access and parking related issues and have no objection subject to conditions and informative notes being attached. Biodiversity Officer was consulted on the proposal but has not made any specific comment. Development Contributions Officer has commented on the proposal and indicated that there Environmental Health have commented on the proposal in terms of odours and contaminated land and subject to conditions, they have no objections. REPRESENTATIONS None received. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS Screening Opinion EIA Not Required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not applicable Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations AA Not Required 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 for the area comprises the approved TAYplan and the adopted LDP2. In terms of other material considerations, consideration of the Council’s SPGs on Placemaking, Developer Contributions, Biodiversity are all material considerations. The NPF4 is also now a significant consideration until its adoption by the Scottish Ministers, upon which it will form part of the Development Plan. Policy Appraisal In terms of land use policies, the key policies are found with the LDP2, and in the approved NFP4. The site is located within the landward area where Policies 1 (Placemaking) and 19 (housing in the countryside) of the LDP2 are applicable. Policy 1 looks to ensure that all 558
Page 29
5 new developments do not have an adverse impact on the areas in which they are located, whilst Policy 19 is the LDP2 version of the housing in the countryside policy (HITCP) and needs to read in conjunction with the SPG of 2020. In terms of the NPF4, Policy 17 refers to rural housing and offers support for new housing in suitable locations and in certain instances. Land Use Acceptability The key consideration for this proposal is whether or not the proposal complies with the Council’s HITCP. From the information available on the old e-files, the previous detailed planning applications were approved on the basis of a replacement of an existing cottage. At the moment, the site has been essentially cleared with little evidence of the former cottage, and certainly nothing up to the wall heads. The site has also appeared to be reasonably cleared and tidied up, with some self-vegetation now covering the remains. It is therefore difficult to make an argument that this proposal should be considered as the replacement of an existing (former) cottage or the redevelopment of a rural brownfield site as the condition of the site does not present itself as having a significant degree of environmental harm, or even present as being a site of dereliction. A more appropriate assessment approach for this application would be to assess it under the building groups section of the policy. This section of the policy offers support for new dwellings which extend an existing building group into a readily definable site providing that the new dwelling would respect the character, scale and form of the existing building group, and would be integrated into the existing layout and building pattern. In addition, the policy goes on to say that the new housing should not detract from the visual amenity of the group when viewed from the wider landscape. In terms of the first point, whether or not there is an existing building group, on the north side of the road there are no existing properties. To the south there is one steading and a former farmhouse – which is not occupied. The applicant’s block plans indicate the existence of a third building to the west of the house and steading, however from Google Streets/Maps it is clear that this building was removed in its entirety sometime in 2021 – leaving only the two eastern buildings. The red arrow on the block plan below shows the direction of view, into the site – whilst the other two images are historical satellite views of the site from 2018 (showing the full range of buildings) and current. The gable of the house (the southern building) clearly visible over the area which has been cleared. 559
Page 30
6 June 2018 560
Page 31
7 August 2021 On the basis of this evidence, there is not an existing building group in situ as only two principal buildings are remaining. The presence of the former buildings to the west, and also to some degree the former cottage to the north are not relevant in making a case for whether or there is an existing building group (or not). Accordingly, the proposal fails the first part of the HITCP requirements as there is not an existing building group in situ. In terms of the remainder of the HITCP requirements, the proposal also has several concerns. The site is open, with little in the way of natural containment to the north or east. The natural boundaries of the site are the commercial forestry plantation to the north, which is some distance away from the proposed site curtilage. If approved, this dwelling will be viewed as a house in the corner of an open field, and in a prominent location adjacent to a public road. Creating a new landscape framework and site containment is not acceptable, and goes against the spirit of the HITCP, and also the Placemaking principles. With the removal of the western buildings, there is also a distinct ‘gap’ and separation between the proposed house and the two existing buildings. This arrangement does not result in a close-knit relationship and would not respect the pattern of development in the area. It would also inevitability create the opportunity for further development by potentially creating ‘infill’ opportunities between the buildings. Notwithstanding the design quality of the building, this alone does not make the proposal acceptable, and the proposal remains contrary to the Council’s HITCPs, and the Council’s Placemaking principles. As stated previously, the NPF4 has been approved by Parliament and if pending adoption by the Scottish Ministers. Before that adoption (i.e. at this stage), is not part of the Development Plan but remains a significant material planning consideration. 561
Page 32
8 Policy 17 of the NPF4 relates to rural homes, and looks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable rural homes in the right location. Under Policy 17 viii), support is offered for proposals which reinstates a former dwelling house or is a one for one replacement of an existing permanent house. Based on this wording, this policy is, on face value, slightly more relaxed that the Council’s approach to replacement of houses which are ruinous – which requires ‘substantial visible evidence of the structure of the original building above ground to enable its size and form to be identified, or indeed the house to be still standing. Policy 17 vii) use of the word ‘reinstates’ does not specifically require anything to be there ‘currently’ which identifies the dwelling’s location, scale, form etc, but that simply there ‘was’ a dwelling there – which is the case here. The proposal would therefore accord with principles of this part of the policy as there is some evidence of the former cottage via a photo on the 2007 application. However, Policy 17 in its preamble states that in addition to complying with the specific criteria listed, all development proposals for new homes in rural areas will (only) be supported where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area. As before, the site’s boundaries are very open and does not have a good existing landscape setting or a naturally contained residential curtilage. In light this, notwithstanding the more relaxed policy criteria, the site is not suitably sited and therefore also fails to accord with this policy also. Visual Amenity, Design and Layout In isolation, the design of the dwelling is of a high standard with the use of quality materials. The positioning and layout ensures that all matters relating to parking, access and amenity are addressed and in general terms it raises no concerns. However, as mentioned above the site’s boundaries to the east and north are very open and also elevated, and a new dwelling in this location would have a marked impact on the visual amenity of the area. In the absence of a good landscape framework would be seen to be located in a corner of an open field, which is not ideal from a visual amenity point of view. Residential Amenity In terms of the impact on existing residential amenity of existing properties, the isolated location of this site will mean that there would be little direct impact. In terms of being able to provide for a suitable level of residential amenity for future occupiers of the dwelling, an acceptable level of private and usable amenity space is being provided which meets with the Council’s Placemaking Standards. 562
Page 33
9 Roads and Access The proposal raises no issues in terms of access or parking related matters. In the event of any approval being forthcoming, standard conditions concerning the vehicular access with the public road should be attached to any permission. Drainage and Flooding The proposal raises no issues in terms of flooding or drainage issues. Foul drainage will be via a private system, which will have to be to the standards of both SEPA and Building Standards, whilst surface water will be disposed of via soakaways. Conservation Considerations The proposal does not affect any listed building, Conservation Area or local archaeology. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity The proposal raises no issues in terms of impacts on existing biodiversity. In the event of any approval being forthcoming, conditions relating to the installation of bat and swift bats/bricks should be considered to provide for some bio-diversity enhancements, Developer Contributions In the event of any approval being forthcoming, a developer contribution in relation to Primary Education would be required. There would be no requirement for either Affordable Housing provision, or Transport related developer contributions. 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 The application has not been varied. PLANNING OBLIGATIONS AND LEGAL AGREEMENTS None required. DIRECTION BY SCOTTISH MINISTERS None applicable to this proposal. 563
Page 34
10 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. Accordingly the proposal is refused on the grounds identified below. 1 The site is not part of an existing building group which comprises 3 or more existing buildings, does not have a natural and defined site boundaries which are capable of absorbing the development proposed and would not have a close relationship with the existing buildings by virtue of its physically divorced location. The proposal is therefore contrary to the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) Policy 19 (Housing in the Countryside) and the Council’s Housing in the Countryside Guide 2020 supplementary guidance, which firstly define a building group as being 3 or more existing properties and secondly seeks to ensure that new development which extends building groups do so into established and natural sites which have a close relationship to the existing grouping. 2 The proposal would result in a new dwelling being located in an open corner of a wider agricultural field, with no existing landscape features or site containment to the north and east. This would result in a visually incongruous development within the rural countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 17 of the approved National Planning Framework 4 (2023) which requires all new rural homes to be appropriately sited. 3 The proposal would result in a new dwelling being located in an open corner of a wider agricultural field, with no existing landscape features or site containment to the north and east. This would result in a visually incongruous development within the rural countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 1A of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) which seeks to ensure that all new developments do not have an adverse impact on the environment in what they are located. 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, refusal recommendation. Procedural Notes Not Applicable. PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION 01 – 05 (inclusive) 564
Page 35
565
Page 36
566
Page 37
567
Page 38
568
Page 39
569
Page 40
570
Page 41
571
Page 42
572
Page 43
E98 :@5; E98 :@5; E98 :@5; E98 :@5; E98 :@5; E98 :@5; E98 :@5; E98 :@5; /0)++ /4)1+ /4)-+ /3)/4 /2)20 /2)+3/2)+2 /1)12 /2)3+ /1)2,/1)2, /2)1. /1).0 /0).3 //)3+ //)02 /0),3 /2)+3 /1),+ GD /1)32 /2).0 /1)0+ /0)11 /0)22 /1)0- /1)2, /2)-+ /1)2/ /2)./ /2)30 /3),- /3)+1 /3).2 /3)/3 /3).- /3)00/3)3/ /3)20 /4)+3 /3)10 0+)+3 GD 0+)++ /4)2+ /4),+ /3)11 /3)/0 /-)22 /-)33 /-)4. /.)+2 /.).3 /.)4. //)0/ /0)2. /1)4/ /3)+4 /3)04 /3)4, ; /3)43 /3)/0 /2)0. /1)3/ A< /2)+. ; ; ; //)14 //)/+ //),1 A< //),- ; /.)1, /.).. /.)+0 /.)++ /-)2- A< /.)+, ; ; /.)1/ /.)2- /.)24 //),- //),3 //)/, //)04 //)3, //)3. /0)-2 /0)-- /4)41 /4)44 /4)/. /3)44 /3)33 /3)24 /3)0, /4)+0 /0)20 64/2 64/ />4;1;35 0A>B5D #3$ ,><C;,<=D>867@ (&((% +99 >867@? >5?5>B54% -835;35 ;A:25> '&&&((*)( 2*,+*-+,+ G=G@9 BHA69E 4440 BC,./, BC,./- ,*-0++ ,/+X DG<.,++/ 7 F_\`Pc FNMWP B5G=CB5@ ;E=8 E9:9E9B79 CE8B5B79 FHEI9L B CQQTNP\d] =8 * 8M^P C: F7CG@5B8 @5B8 E9;=FG9E 7<5BB9@@= B9 98;9 C:G5E EC58 7<5BB9@@=B9 98;9 C:G5E EC58 98 ;9C: G5EEC 58 98; 9C:G5E EC58 98;9C: G5EEC58 9: B79@= B9% EH= BCHF& 98;9 C:GE9975BCDL 9 8;9 C::=9@8 98;9 C: :9= @8 :9B 79@B= 9%EHB= C HF& E98 :@5; E98 :@5; E98 :@5; E98 @:5; E98 :@5; E 98:@5; E 98:@5; E98:@5; 2/, 3++ B ./) ++ / / +) + / 0 )0 + 0/ ) + + / / 0) + / 2) 0 + / 3 )0 + / 3 )+ + / 2 )+ + /1 ) 0 + / 1 ) ++ /2+) + /10) + 1/) ++ /0) 0+ /0)++ //) 0+ /20)+ 3/) 0+ /3+) + /)4++ 0++) + /41) + /4)-+ /3)/4 /)220 /2+)3 /2+) 2 /1)21 /23) + /1) ,2/12) , /21). /1.) 0 /0.) 3 //3) + //) 02 /0) 3, /2+) 3 /1,) + GD /)132 /2) .0 1/) 0+ /01) 1 /02) 2 /10) - /12) , /2-)+ /1) /2 /2.) / /23) 0 /3,) - /3) +1 /3.) 2 /3/) 3 /3.) - /30)0 /)33/ /3) 20 /4) 3+ /31) 0 0++) 3 GD 0)+++ /)42+ /4,)+ /31) 1 /3) 0/ /-1) 1 /-2)2 /)-33 /)-4. /.)+2 /..) 3 ./)4. //0)/ /)02. /14) / /)3+4 /30)4 /34) , ; /34) 3 /3)0/ /20) . /13) / A < /2) .+ ; ; ; //) 14 //) /+ //) ,1 A< //,) - ; /.) 1, ./) .. /.+) 0 /).++ /-) -2 /-/) 3 A < /.),+ ; ; /).1/ /.2) - /.2) 4 //,) - //) ,3 ///) , //0) 4 //3), //3) . /0-)2 0/) -- /44) 1 /44)4 /)4/. 3/) 44 3/)33 /32) 4 3/) 0, /4+) 0 /0)02 64/2 64/2 5, [\ZUPN^ NWTPY^ ^T^WP ]NMWP OM^P O\MaY \P`O\MaTYR YZ BPa8aPWWTYR ( @MYO M^ F[Z_^aPWW]' ?T\V^ZY ZQ @P^SPYOc APTVWPZ_\' DP\^S]ST\P D<- 19; A\ # A\] EZc 9bT]^TYR ]T^P [WMY ,)-++ *-0++ -0*,+*-- DCF ,.)--)+.NSV$O bb $/%)*1'%12/$+ # *-1'/*./ &'0*(- 0'/3*%'0 CF5 GSP ATWW <Z_]P' 7W_YTP' 6WMT\RZa\TP D<,+ 1E> +,-0+ 33/2/4 CF 9b^\MN^ ,)-0++ FT^P [WMY M] PbT]^TYR ,)-++ 573
Page 44
574
Page 45
575
Page 46
BHTU 2NHWDULQP '%'&& 5HDU RVOR BL^_\LW FTMP\TLY @L\NS aPL^SP\ MZL\OTYR %7SL\NZLW& @TYOLM R_^^P\] LYO OZaY [T[P] AL^LNZ_^^L ]WL^P] %;\Pc& BL^_\LW ]^ZYP ::@ (/2)2++ ::@ (0+),++ ::@ (0+)/+0 ::@ (0-)3+0 ::@ (00)+20 AT^]_MT]ST9NZOLY E.- SPL^ [_X[ %]PP L^^LNSPO OL^L]SPP^& >QVUK 2NHWDULQP '%'&& :\LXPWP]] RWL]]MLW_]^\LOP 98+4 AL^LNZ_^^L ]WL^P] %;\Pc& BL^_\LW FTMP\TLY @L\NS aPL^SP\ MZL\OTYR %7SL\NZLW& @TYOLM R_^^P\] LYO OZaY [T[P] BL^_\LW ]^ZYP F^LYOTYR ]PLX \ZZQ %;\Pc& .SHD DNNQFDUHG IQS '&MX >QNDS ::@(/2)2++ ::@(0+),++ ::@(0+)/+0 ::@(0-)3+0 ::@(00)+20 2DTU 2NHWDULQP '%'&& BL^_\LW FTMP\TLY @L\NS aPL^SP\ MZL\OTYR %7SL\NZLW& @TYOLM R_^^P\] LYO OZaY [T[P] AL^LNZ_^^L ]WL^P] %;\Pc& BL^_\LW ]^ZYP ::@ (/2)2++ ::@ (0+),++ ::@ (0+)/+0 ::@ (0-)3+0 ::@ (00)+20 :QSUK 2NHWDULQP '%'&& BL^_\LW FTMP\TLY @L\NS aPL^SP\ MZL\OTYR %7SL\NZLW& @TYOLM R_^^P\] LYO OZaY [T[P] AL^LNZ_^^L ]WL^P] %;\Pc& F^LYOTYR ]PLX \ZZQ %;\Pc& BL^_\LW ]^ZYP ::@(/2)2++ ::@(0+),++ ::@(0+)/+0 ::@(0-)3+0 ::@(00)+20 /HGSQQO ' 3-1J-+/+ =8+4 3-1J-+/+ =8,- 1LPLPJ 8I ][LNP 3-1J-+/+ =8,- 3-1J-+/+ =8,3 2-1 J-+/+ =8,1 5N^T`T^c][LNP 3-1 J -+/+ =8,/ 3-1J-+/+ 3-1J-+/+ =8+0 RNDPU 98+1 1-1J-+/+b- =8-+ Pb^\LN^ @ULNLUY 5DNN 2PTVLUH 8LWLPJSQQO 7LUFKHP >PVJ /DUKSQQO 3-1J-+/+ =8,3 4DSDJH @35 +MX TUQWH +MX TUQWH 5HDU RVOR ::@ (/2)2++ ::@ (/2)2++ ::@ (/2)2++ AT^]_MT]ST 9NZOLYE.- SPL^ [_X[%]PP L^^LNSPO OL^L ]SPP^& 4SQVPG INQQS RNDP '-*O( AQLG UQ EHNQX 3-1J-+/+ =8,- 1-1J-+/+b- =8,. 3-1J-+/+ =8,3 3-1J-+/+ =8,- 5N^T`T^c ][LNP 3-1J-+/+ =8,3 1-1J-+/+b- =8,. 2-1 J-+/+ =8,1 /HGSQQO ) >UVGY 3-1J-+/+ =8,3 5N^T`T^c][LNP 2-1J-+/+=8,1 /HGSQQO ( 3-1J -+/+ =8,3 3-1J-+/+ =8,3 2-1J-+/+=8,1 2-1J-+/+=8,1 9DTUHS EHGSQQO 3++b -+++ F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 ADVNUHG DEQWH UKLT DSHD ::@ (0+)/+0 ::@ (0+)/+0 ::@(0+)/+0 3LSTU 3NQQS RNDP $ '(,O( 5, [\ZUPN^ NWTPY^ ^T^WP ]NLWP OL^P O\LaY \P`O\LaTYRYZ BPa 8aPWWTYR ( @LYO L^ F[Z_^aPWW]' ?T\V^ZY ZQ @P^SPYOc APTVWPZ_\' DP\^S]ST\P D<- 19; A\ #A\] EZc D\Z[Z]PO 9WP`L^TZY] LYO [WLY] ,),++ -0*,+*-- DCF ,.)--)+-NSV$O bb $/%)*1'%12/$+ # *-1'/*./ &'0*(-0'/3*%'0 CF5 GSP ATWW <Z_]P' 7W_YTP' 6WLT\RZa\TP D<,+ 1E> +,-0+ 33/2/4 576
Page 47
PUZ-WM50VHA(-BS) Ecodan R32 Monobloc Air Source Heat Pump ecodan.co.uk Key Benefits: Ultra low running cost Flexible product placement Confident and quick product selection Help to tackle the climate crisis Remote control, monitoring, maintenance and technical support Key Features: A+++ high efficiency system Ultra quiet noise levels Maintains full heating capacity at low temperatures Zero carbon solution MELCloud enabled 037‐0032‐20‐01 577
Page 48
HEAT PUMP SPACE HEATER - 55˚C HEAT PUMP SPACE HEATER - 35˚C HEAT PUMP COMBINATION HEATER - Large Profile*1 HEATING*2 (A-7/W35) OPERATING AMBIENT TEMPERATURE (°C DB) SOUND DATA*3 WATER DATA DIMENSIONS (mm) WEIGHT (kg) ELECTRICAL DATA REFRIGERANT CHARGE (kg) / CO2 EQUIVALENT (t) ErP Rating ƞs SCOP (MCS) ErP Rating ƞs SCOP (MCS) ErP Rating ƞwh Capacity (kW) Power Input (kW) COP Pressure Level at 1m (dBA) Power Level (dBA)*4 Pipework Size (mm) Flow Rate (l/min) Water Pressure Drop (kPa) Width Depth Height Electrical Supply Phase Nominal Running Current [MAX] (A)*5 Fuse Rating - MCB Sizes (A)*6 R32 (GWP 675) OUTDOOR UNIT A++ 129% 3.22 A+++ 183% 4.57 A+ 135% 5.0 1.67 3.00 -20 ~ +35 52 61 22 14 12.0 950 330+30*7 943 71 220-240v, 50Hz Single 4.64 [13] 16 2.0 / 1.35 PUZ-WM50VHA(-BS) PUZ-WM50VHA(-BS) Ecodan R32 Monobloc Air Source Heat Pump UPPER VIEWFRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW PUZ-WM50VHA(-BS) DIMENSIONS 015015 UNITED KINGDOM Mitsubishi Electric Europe Living Environment Systems Division, Travellers Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 8XB, England. Telephone: 01707 282880 Fax: 01707 278881 IRELAND Mitsubishi Electric Europe, Westgate Business Park, Ballymount, Dublin 24, Ireland. Telephone: (01) 419 8800 Fax: (01) 419 8890 International code: (003531) Country of origin: United Kingdom - Japan - Thailand - Malaysia. ©Mitsubishi Electric Europe 2020. Mitsubishi and Mitsubishi Electric are trademarks of Mitsubishi Electric Europe B.V. The company reserves the right to make any variation in technical specification to the equipment described, or to withdraw or replace products without prior notification or public announcement. Mitsubishi Electric is constantly developing and improving its products. All descriptions, illustrations, drawings and specifications in this publication present only general particulars and shall not form part of any contract. All goods are supplied subject to the Company’s General Conditions of Sale, a copy of which is available on request. Third-party product and brand names may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. Note: The fuse rating is for guidance only. Please refer to the relevant databook for detailed specification. It is the responsibility of a qualified electrician/electrical engineer to select the correct cable size and fuse rating based on current regulation and site specific conditions. Mitsubishi Electric’s air conditioning equipment and heat pump systems contain a fluorinated greenhouse gas, R410A (GWP:2088), R32 (GWP:675), R407C (GWP:1774), R134a (GWP:1430), R513A (GWP:631), R454B (GWP:466), R1234ze (GWP:7) or R1234yf (GWP:4). *These GWP values are based on Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 from IPCC 4th edition. In case of Regulation (EU) No.626/2011 from IPCC 3rd edition, these are as follows. R410A (GWP:1975), R32 (GWP:550), R407C (GWP:1650) or R134a (GWP:1300). @meuk_les @green_gateway Mitsubishi Electric Living Environmental Systems UK Mitsubishi Electric Living Environmental Systems UK thehub.mitsubishielectric.co.uk greengateway.mitsubishielectric.co.uk Telephone: 01707 282880 email: heating@meuk.mee.com heating.mitsubishielectric.co.uk Mitsubishi Electric Cooling and Heating UK mitsubishielectricuk_les Effective as of August 2020 Notes: *1 Combination with E*PT20X Cylinder *2 Under normal heating conditions at outdoor temp: -7°CDB / -8°CWB, outlet water temp 35°C, inlet water temp 30°C. *3 Under normal heating conditions at outdoor temp: 7°CDB / 6°CWB, outlet water temp 55°C, inlet water temp 47°C as tested to BS EN14511. *4 Sound power level tested to BS EN12102. *5 Under nominal heating conditions at outdoor temp: 7ºC, outlet water temp: 35ºC. *6 MCB Sizes BS EN60898-2 & BS EN60947-2. *7 Grille. ƞs is the seasonal space heating energy efficiency (SSHEE) ƞwh is the water heating energy efficiency NOMINAL HEATING CAPACITY Water outlet temperature 45ºC Ambient temperature [°C] Capacity [kW ] -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 *1 670 322 950 23 473 943 *2 58 *2 341 REAR AIR INTAKE SIDE AIR INTAKE INSTALLATION FEET AIR DISCHARGE 370 53 28 417 19 175600175 330 30 *2 185 34 119 40 *1∙∙∙ INDICATION OF TERMINAL CONNECTION LOCATION. *2∙∙∙ INDICATION OF PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE DRAIN PORT.All dimensions (mm) 578
Page 49
579
Page 50
580
Page 51
581
Page 52
DELEGATED REPORT Ref No 07/02624/FUL Ward No N5 PROPOSAL: Erection of a dwellinghouse LOCATION: Spoutwells Farm Cottage Meikleour Perth PH2 6EG APPLICANT: Strathdean Developments Ltd RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application SITE INSPECTION: 18 January 2008 OFFICERS REPORT: The application is in full and seeks consent for a replacement house at Spoutwells which is situated between Lethendy and Spittalfield.Outline planning consent was granted under 06/00062/OUT to replace an existing stone built cottage which was demonstrated to be beyond economic repair.The existing cottage sits very close to the public road and the proposed house is to be positioned further back to improve residential amenity and provide better visibility at the access point.The proposed house is of traditional form in basically a 'T' shape with an integral garage to the rear.Traditional finishing materials are used throughout and the proportions of gables fit the rural context.The proposed house although significantly larger than the original has a good landscape context set between established woodland and a range of traditional steading buildings on the opposite side of the road.I am satisfied that in terms of siting and design,the proposal does conform with the Council's own design 582
Page 53
advice on the siting of Houses in the Countryside. The case for a replacement house has already been established previously in line with Policy 49 which allows for a replacement house where the existing house is neither worthy of retention nor capable of rehabilitation economically. DEVELOPMENT PLAN Policy 49 in the Eastern Area Local Plan 1998 applies the Council's area wide policy on housing in the countryside within most of the Landward area. Within the Lunan Valley Catchment Area and the Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes there will be a strong presumption against new houses except on the basis of operational need, but encouragement will be given to the restoration and conversion of buildings to form new houses. OTHER POLICIES The Council's December 2005 policy on Housing in the Countryside does allow for replacement houses where the existing house is beyond economic repair. PROPERTY HISTORY 04/02014/OUT Demolition of existing cottage and erection of a replacement dwellinghouse and formation of a new access (in outline) CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS Education And Children's Services Highlight education constraint at Hill, Primary School. The Environment Service - Development Management Conditional approval. Perth And Kinross Area Archaeologist No archaeological interests. TARGET DATE: 13 February 2008 OBJECTIONS RECEIVED: None. Conditions:- 1 The development shall be begun within a period of five years from the date of this consent. 583
Page 54
2 The proposed development must be carried out in accordance with the approved plans herewith, unless otherwise provided for by conditions imposed on the planning consent. 3 A new beech hedge shall be planted along the northern site boundary prior to the occupation of the new house all to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. 4 The proposed hedge shown along the southern boundary with the B947 public road shall be aligned so that it does not interfere with the visibility splay of the new access all to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. 5 The vehicular access shall be formed in accordance with specification Type B access detail to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. 6 The public road over a length of 5m immediately adjacent to the access shall be widened to a minimum of 5m. 7 The gradient of the access shall not exceed 3% for the first 5 metres measured back from the edge of the carriageway and the access shall be constructed so that no surface water is discharged to the public road. 8 Full visibility splays of 2 m by 60m shall be provided to the right and left of the access measured between points 1m above the adjacent road channel level and any road boundary enclosures fences or hedges shall be set back to the rear of such splays. 9 Turning facilities shall be provided within the site to enable all vehicles to enter and leave in a forward gear. 10 A minimum of 2 No. car parking spaces shall be provided within the site. Reasons:- 1 In accordance with the terms of Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 2 To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the plans approved. 3 In the interests of visual amenity; to ensure a satisfactory standard of local environmental quality. 4-10 In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow. Notes 584
Page 55
1 The site lies outwith the publicly sewered areas and consequently drainage investigations have not been fully undertaken. 2 The applicant is advised that in terms of Sections 56 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 he must obtain from the Council as Roads Authority consent to open an existing road or footway prior to the commencement of works. Advice on the disposal of surface water must be sought at the initial stages of design from Scottish Water and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. 3 The Executive Director of Education and Children's Services can give no guarantee that any school age children arising from this development could be accomodated at the Hill Primary School. ADDED VALUE: yes / no – delegated approval within statutory period DEVLT PLAN DEPARTURE: yes / no REFER TO SE/HS: yes/no DRAINAGE: yes/no © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Perth and Kinross Council. Licence Number 100016971 2007 585
Page 56
586
Page 57
PERTH AND KINROSS COUNCIL Strathdean Homes Limited Hannay McLean FAO John Hannay No 1 Glasdale Cottage Comrie Crieff PH6 2JX Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street PERTH PH1 5GD Date 12 March 2012 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts. Application Number 12/00047/FLL I am directed by the Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts currently in force, to grant your application registered on 17th January 2012 for planning permission for Erection of a dwellinghouse Site Of Spoutswell Farm Cottage Meikleour subject to the undernoted conditions. Development Quality Manager Conditions Referred to Above 1. The proposed development must be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings and documents, unless otherwise provided for by conditions imposed on the planning consent. 2. A new beech hedge shall be planted along the northern site boundary prior to the occupation of the new house all to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. 3. The proposed hedge shown along the southern boundary with the B947 public road shall be aligned so that it does not interfere with the visibility splay of the new access all to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. 4. Prior to the occupation or use of the approved development the vehicular access shall be formed in accordance with specification Type B, Fig 5.6 access detail to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. 587
Page 58
5. Prior to occupation of the approved house the public road over a length of 5m immediately adjacent to the access shall be widened to a minimum of 5m. 6. Visibility splays of 2.00m x 60.00m measured from the centre line of the new access shall be provided in both directions along the nearside channel of the public road prior to the commencement of the development and thereafter maintained free from any obstruction of a height exceeding 1 metre above the adjacent road channel level. 7. Prior to the occupation or use of the approved development turning facilities shall be provided within the site to enable all vehicles to enter and leave in a forward gear. 8. Prior to the occupation or use of the approved development a minimum of 2 No. car parking spaces shall be provided within the site. Reasons for Conditions 1. To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the plans approved. 2. In the interests of visual amenity; to ensure a satisfactory standard of local environmental quality. 3-8. In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow. Justification The proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan Notes 1. Under section 27A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) the person undertaking the development is required to give the planning authority prior written notification of the date on which it is intended to commence the development. A failure to comply with this statutory requirement would constitute a breach of planning control under section 123(1) of that Act, which may result in enforcement action being taken. 2. As soon as practicable after the development is complete, the person who completes the development is obliged by section 27B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to give the planning authority written notice of that position. 3. This planning permission will last only for three years from the date of this decision notice, unless the development has been started within that period. (See section 58(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended). 4. The applicant should be advised that in terms of Section 56 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 he must obtain from the Council as Roads Authority 588
Page 59
consent to open an existing road or footway prior to the commencement of works. Advice on the disposal of surface water must be sought at the initial stages of design from Scottish Water and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. 5. No work shall be commenced until an application for building warrant has been submitted and approved. The plans relating to this decision are listed below and are displayed on Perth and Kinross Council’s website at www.pkc.gov.uk “Online Planning Applications” page Plan Reference 12/00047/1 12/00047/3 12/00047/2 12/00047/4 589
Page 60
590
Page 61
REPORT OF HANDLING DELEGATED REPORT Ref No 12/00047/FLL Ward No N5 PROPOSAL: Erection of a dwellinghouse LOCATION: Site Of Spoutswell Farm Cottage Meikleour APPLICANT: Strathdean Homes Limited RECOMMENDATION: approve the application SITE INSPECTION: 9 February 2012 OFFICERS REPORT: Site Description and Proposals This application relates to an area of land to the north of Spoutswell Farm Cottage, located between Spittalfield and Lethendy. The site is a sloping area of ground bound to the south by the public road, to the west by an area of woodland, and to the north and east lies open farm land. A small cottage previously stood within the site adjacent to the roadside but this has since been demolished. Full planning permission was approved in 2008 (Ref: 07/02624/FUL) for the erection of a large traditionally designed two storey dwellinghouse with a linked double garage. The applicant is now seeking to make a number of alterations to the design and finish of the proposed house. The changes include a slight increase in the depth of the house, the addition of a store room above the garage accessed via an external staircase, minor alterations to the size/design of the dormers and the introduction of timber cladding to the south and west elevations. The layout and proposed means of access will remain as approved by the previous consent. Assessment It is considered that the proposed changes to the size and design of the proposed house are relatively minimal and will not significantly alter the general appearance of the approved house design. It is also considered that the introduction of timber cladding is to the south and west elevation is acceptable. • Education Whilst Education and Children’s Services have advised that the local primary school is operating above capacity, the proposals are exempt from the education contribution policy as this application is simply for changes to the design of a house that already has consent. • Roads The Transport Planning Officer has advised that he has no objection to the proposals subject to a number of conditions, including a requirement for 2m by 70m visibility splays. The previous 591
Page 62
consent that is still extant also has a condition regarding visibility splays but the requirement is set at 2m by 60m. This matter has been discussed with Transport Planning and it is agreed that there would appear to be no specific reason to require an increased visibility splays given that the access details have no changed. It is also important to highlight that the applicant could still develop the site under the previous consent. I have therefore amended the condition to match the requirements of the existing consent in order to be consistent. Conclusion It is therefore recommended that the application is approved subject to the same conditions of the previous consent. DEVELOPMENT PLAN There are no strategic issues of relevance raised by the Perth and Kinross Structure Plan, 2003. The principle Development Plan policies of relevance which are found in the Eastern Area Local Plan are: Policy 49 in the Eastern Area Local Plan 1998 applies the Council's area wide policy on housing in the countryside within most of the Landward area. Within the Lunan Valley Catchment Area and the Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes there will be a strong presumption against new houses except on the basis of operational need, but encouragement will be given to the restoration and conversion of buildings to form new houses. Perth and Kinross Council Local Development Plan - Proposed Plan January 2012 On the 30 January 2012 the Proposed Plan was published. The adopted Local Plan will eventually be replaced by the Proposed Local Development Plan. The Council’s Development Plan Scheme sets out the timescale and stages leading up to adoption. Currently undergoing a period of representation, the Proposed Local Development Plan may be modified and will be subject to examination prior to adoption. This means that it is not expected that the Council will be in a position to adopt the Local Development Plan before December 2014. It is therefore a material consideration in the determination of this application. The principal relevant policies are in summary: - Policy RD3: Housing in the Countryside The Council will support proposals for the erection, or creation through conversion, of single houses and groups of houses in the countryside which fall into at least one of the following categories: (a) Building Groups. (b) Infill sites. (c) New houses in the open countryside on defined categories of sites as set out in section 3 of the Supplementary Guidance. (d) Renovation or replacement of houses. (e) Conversion or replacement of redundant non-domestic buildings. (f) Development on rural brownfield land. This policy does not apply in the Green Belt and its application is limited within the Lunan Valley Catchment Area to economic need, conversions or replacement buildings. 592
Page 63
Policy EP6: Lunan Valley Catchment Area The Council will protect and seek to enhance the nature conservation and landscape interests of the Lunan Valley Catchment Area. Within the area: (a) there will be a presumption against built development except: within settlements; for renovations or alterations to existing buildings; and developments necessary for economic need which the developer can demonstrate will have no adverse impact on the environmental assets of the area nor are likely to result in an unacceptable increase in traffic volumes; (b) Recreational pursuits like power water sports, likely to cause disturbance in and around sites of nature conservation interest, will be discouraged; (c) Tree planting should be predominantly native species, including Scots Pine, except in cases where it can be proved that the landscape diversity will be improved by the use of a more varied range of species. All planting should be designed to complement the landscape. Note: The Policy on housing in the countryside is limited to economic need, conversions or replacement buildings within the Lunan Valley Catchment Area. Other Policies Housing in the Countryside Policy (August 2009) A revised Housing in the Countryside Policy was approved by the Council in August 2009. The policy applies over the whole local authority area of Perth and Kinross except where a more relaxed policy applies at present. In practice this means that the revised policy applies to areas with other Local Plan policies and it should be borne in mind that the specific policies relating to these designations will also require to be complied with. The policy aims to: • Safeguard the character of the countryside; • Support the viability of communities; • Meet development needs in appropriate locations; • Ensure that high standards of siting and design are achieved. Primary Education and New Housing Development Policy 2009 Sets out the Council’s Policy for securing contributions from developers of new homes towards the cost of meeting primary education infrastructure improvements necessary as a consequence of development. SITE HISTORY 04/02014/OUT Demolition of existing cottage and erection of a replacement dwellinghouse and formation of a new access (in outline) 24.11.2004 06/00062/OUT Demolition of the existing cottage and the erection of a replacement dwellinghouse including garage and formation of new access road (in outline) 08.02.2006 07/02624/FUL Erection of a dwellinghouse 25.02.2008 593
Page 64
CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS Transport Planning No objection subject to conditions. Education And Children's Services Advise that the local school is at capacity and that the Education Contributions Policy should apply. Environmental Health No objection Scottish Water No objection TARGET DATE: 17 March 2012 REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: Number Received: 0 Summary of issues raised by objectors: n/a Response to issues raised by objectors: n/a Additional Statements Received: Environment Statement n/a Screening Opinion n/a Environmental Impact Assessment n/a Appropriate Assessment n/a Design Statement or Design and Access Statement No Report on Impact or Potential Impact eg Flood Risk Assessment No Legal Agreement Required: No Direction by Scottish Ministers None Conditions:- 1 The proposed development must be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings and documents, unless otherwise provided for by conditions imposed on the planning consent. 594
Page 65
2 A new beech hedge shall be planted along the northern site boundary prior to the occupation of the new house all to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. 3 The proposed hedge shown along the southern boundary with the B947 public road shall be aligned so that it does not interfere with the visibility splay of the new access all to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. 4 Prior to the occupation or use of the approved development the vehicular access shall be formed in accordance with specification Type B, Fig 5.6 access detail to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. 5 Prior to occupation of the approved house the public road over a length of 5m immediately adjacent to the access shall be widened to a minimum of 5m. 6 Visibility splays of 2.00m x 60.00m measured from the centre line of the new access shall be provided in both directions along the nearside channel of the public road prior to the commencement of the development and thereafter maintained free from any obstruction of a height exceeding 1 metre above the adjacent road channel level. 7 Prior to the occupation or use of the approved development turning facilities shall be provided within the site to enable all vehicles to enter and leave in a forward gear. 8 Prior to the occupation or use of the approved development a minimum of 2 No. car parking spaces shall be provided within the site. Reasons:- 1 To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the plans approved. 2 In the interests of visual amenity; to ensure a satisfactory standard of local environmental quality. 3 In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow. 4 In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow. 5 In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow. 6 In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow. 7 In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow. 8 In the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety and in the interests of free traffic flow. Justification 1 The proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan Notes 1 Under section 27A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) the person undertaking the development is required to give the planning 595
Page 66
authority prior written notification of the date on which it is intended to commence the development. A failure to comply with this statutory requirement would constitute a breach of planning control under section 123(1) of that Act, which may result in enforcement action being taken. 2 As soon as practicable after the development is complete, the person who completes the development is obliged by section 27B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to give the planning authority written notice of that position. 3 This planning permission will last only for three years from the date of this decision notice, unless the development has been started within that period. (See section 58(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended). 4 The applicant should be advised that in terms of Section 56 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 he must obtain from the Council as Roads Authority consent to open an existing road or footway prior to the commencement of works. Advice on the disposal of surface water must be sought at the initial stages of design from Scottish Water and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. 5 No work shall be commenced until an application for building warrant has been submitted and approved. 596
Page 67
4(iv)(b) LRB-2023-08 LRB-2023-08 22/02034/FLL – Erection of dwellinghouse, land 80 metres north west of Spoutwells Farm, Meikleour PLANNING DECISION NOTICE (included in applicant’s submission, pages 553-554) REPORT OF HANDLING (included in applicant’s submission, pages 555-564) REFERENCE DOCUMENTS (included in applicant’s submission, pages 573-578) 597
Page 68
598
Page 69
4(iv)(c) LRB-2023-08 LRB-2023-08 22/02034/FLL – Erection of dwellinghouse, land 80 metres north west of Spoutwells Farm, Meikleour REPRESENTATIONS 599
Page 70
600
Page 71
601
Page 72
602
Page 73
603
Page 74
604
Page 75
605
Page 76
606
Page 77
607
Page 78
608
Page 79
609
Page 80
610
Page 81
611
Page 82
612
Page 83
613
Page 84
614