Item 4(v) LRB-2023-09
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(v) LRB-2023-09 LRB-2023-09 22/01707/FLL – Erection of 4 dwellinghouses and 3 garages, land 50 metres south east of Craigton Gardens, Cleish INDEX (a) Papers submitted by the Applicant (Pages 617-710) (b) Decision Notice (Pages 713-715) Report of Handling (Pages 717-728) Reference Documents (Pages 641-647, 649-651, 653- 708 and 729-740) (c) Representations (Pages 741-766) 615
Page 2
616
Page 3
4(v)(a) LRB-2023-09 LRB-2023-09 22/01707/FLL – Erection of 4 dwellinghouses and 3 garages, land 50 metres south east of Craigton Gardens, Cleish PAPERS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 617
Page 4
618
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 100420223-008 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 JON FRULLANI ARCHITECT JON FRULLANI Perth Road 140 01382224828 DD1 4JW United Kingdom Dundee jon@jfarchitect.co.uk 619
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 Richard Scott Perth and Kinross Council Black Cleish Mawmill Farm KY13 0LN Land South of Ceardach Smiddy Cottage Scotland 698962 Kinross 309061 jon@jfarchitect.co.uk 620
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 4 dwellinghouses and 3 garages The proposed development has been demonstrated to maintain the amenity and environmental quality of the houses adjacent to the Review Site while also complementing the rural character and appearance of the surrounding area. In this regard the Review Statement demonstrates the proposals compliance with the Development Plan contrary to the Council’s Reasons for Refusal 1 and 2. The information provided in support of this Notice of Review addresses matters raised by consultees in the assessment. 621
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 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 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. Location Plan Rural Location Plan House Type 1 Floor Plans and Elevations House Type 2 Floor Plans and Elevations House Type 3 Floor Plans and Elevations Existing Site Plan Proposed Site Plan Proposed Garages Plans and Elevations Green Runoff Rate Est Phosphorus Mitigation Calculations Septic tank for upgrading address Tree Report Bat Survey Flood Risk Assessment Review Statement 22/01707/FLL 22/11/2022 28/09/2022 622
Page 9
Page 5 of 5 Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mr JON FRULLANI Declaration Date: 21/02/2023 623
Page 10
624
Page 11
625
Page 12
626
Page 13
627
Page 14
628
Page 15
629
Page 16
630
Page 17
631
Page 18
632
Page 19
633
Page 20
634
Page 21
635
Page 22
636
Page 23
637
Page 24
638
Page 25
639
Page 26
640
Page 27
641
Page 28
642
Page 29
643
Page 30
644
Page 31
645
Page 32
646
Page 33
647
Page 34
648
Page 35
649
Page 36
650
Page 37
651
Page 38
652
Page 39
653
Page 40
654
Page 41
655
Page 42
656
Page 43
657
Page 44
658
Page 45
659
Page 46
660
Page 47
661
Page 48
662
Page 49
663
Page 50
664
Page 51
665
Page 52
666
Page 53
667
Page 54
668
Page 55
669
Page 56
670
Page 57
671
Page 58
672
Page 59
673
Page 60
674
Page 61
675
Page 62
676
Page 63
677
Page 64
678
Page 65
679
Page 66
680
Page 67
681
Page 68
682
Page 69
683
Page 70
684
Page 71
685
Page 72
686
Page 73
687
Page 74
688
Page 75
689
Page 76
690
Page 77
691
Page 78
692
Page 79
693
Page 80
694
Page 81
695
Page 82
696
Page 83
697
Page 84
698
Page 85
699
Page 86
700
Page 87
Millard Consulting Page 1 Seabraes Job No 16747 18 Greenmarket Craigton Quarry, Mawmill Dundee 0.022ha to be attenuated Date 23/07/2021 14:27 Designed by File 16747 - 0.022ha - Polystorm... Checked by Innovyze Source Control 2017.1.2 Summary of Results for 200 year Return Period (+35%) ©1982-2017 XP Solutions Half Drain Time : 43 minutes. Storm Event Max Level (m) Max Depth (m) Max Infiltration (l/s) Max Control (l/s) Max Σ Outflow (l/s) Max Volume (m³) Status 15 min Summer 0.240 0.240 0.0 1.4 1.4 4.1 O K 30 min Summer 0.305 0.305 0.0 1.6 1.6 5.2 O K 60 min Summer 0.349 0.349 0.0 1.7 1.7 6.0 O K 120 min Summer 0.331 0.331 0.0 1.7 1.7 5.7 O K 180 min Summer 0.308 0.308 0.0 1.6 1.6 5.3 O K 240 min Summer 0.285 0.285 0.0 1.6 1.6 4.9 O K 360 min Summer 0.247 0.247 0.0 1.4 1.4 4.2 O K 480 min Summer 0.218 0.218 0.0 1.3 1.3 3.7 O K 600 min Summer 0.194 0.194 0.0 1.3 1.3 3.3 O K 720 min Summer 0.175 0.175 0.0 1.2 1.2 3.0 O K 960 min Summer 0.145 0.145 0.0 1.1 1.1 2.5 O K 1440 min Summer 0.108 0.108 0.0 0.9 0.9 1.8 O K 2160 min Summer 0.078 0.078 0.0 0.7 0.7 1.3 O K 2880 min Summer 0.062 0.062 0.0 0.6 0.6 1.1 O K 4320 min Summer 0.049 0.049 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.8 O K 5760 min Summer 0.043 0.043 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.7 O K 7200 min Summer 0.039 0.039 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.7 O K 8640 min Summer 0.036 0.036 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.6 O K 10080 min Summer 0.034 0.034 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.6 O K 15 min Winter 0.271 0.271 0.0 1.5 1.5 4.6 O K 30 min Winter 0.347 0.347 0.0 1.7 1.7 5.9 O K 60 min Winter 0.391 0.391 0.0 1.8 1.8 6.7 O K 120 min Winter 0.359 0.359 0.0 1.8 1.8 6.1 O K Storm Event Rain (mm/hr) Flooded Volume (m³) Discharge Volume (m³) Time-Peak (mins) 15 min Summer 119.164 0.0 4.9 16 30 min Summer 84.243 0.0 6.9 27 60 min Summer 55.866 0.0 9.2 44 120 min Summer 33.235 0.0 11.0 78 180 min Summer 24.668 0.0 12.2 112 240 min Summer 20.020 0.0 13.2 144 360 min Summer 14.976 0.0 14.8 208 480 min Summer 12.229 0.0 16.1 270 600 min Summer 10.466 0.0 17.3 332 720 min Summer 9.226 0.0 18.3 392 960 min Summer 7.574 0.0 20.0 512 1440 min Summer 5.731 0.0 22.7 750 2160 min Summer 4.359 0.0 25.9 1104 2880 min Summer 3.594 0.0 28.5 1468 4320 min Summer 2.731 0.0 32.4 2200 5760 min Summer 2.249 0.0 35.6 2904 7200 min Summer 1.933 0.0 38.3 3624 8640 min Summer 1.710 0.0 40.6 4320 10080 min Summer 1.544 0.0 42.8 5096 15 min Winter 119.164 0.0 5.5 16 30 min Winter 84.243 0.0 7.8 29 60 min Winter 55.866 0.0 10.3 48 120 min Winter 33.235 0.0 12.3 84 701
Page 88
Millard Consulting Page 2 Seabraes Job No 16747 18 Greenmarket Craigton Quarry, Mawmill Dundee 0.022ha to be attenuated Date 23/07/2021 14:27 Designed by File 16747 - 0.022ha - Polystorm... Checked by Innovyze Source Control 2017.1.2 Summary of Results for 200 year Return Period (+35%) ©1982-2017 XP Solutions Storm Event Max Level (m) Max Depth (m) Max Infiltration (l/s) Max Control (l/s) Max Σ Outflow (l/s) Max Volume (m³) Status 180 min Winter 0.321 0.321 0.0 1.7 1.7 5.5 O K 240 min Winter 0.287 0.287 0.0 1.6 1.6 4.9 O K 360 min Winter 0.234 0.234 0.0 1.4 1.4 4.0 O K 480 min Winter 0.194 0.194 0.0 1.3 1.3 3.3 O K 600 min Winter 0.165 0.165 0.0 1.2 1.2 2.8 O K 720 min Winter 0.142 0.142 0.0 1.1 1.1 2.4 O K 960 min Winter 0.111 0.111 0.0 0.9 0.9 1.9 O K 1440 min Winter 0.076 0.076 0.0 0.7 0.7 1.3 O K 2160 min Winter 0.054 0.054 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.9 O K 2880 min Winter 0.047 0.047 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.8 O K 4320 min Winter 0.040 0.040 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.7 O K 5760 min Winter 0.035 0.035 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.6 O K 7200 min Winter 0.032 0.032 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.5 O K 8640 min Winter 0.030 0.030 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.5 O K 10080 min Winter 0.028 0.028 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.5 O K Storm Event Rain (mm/hr) Flooded Volume (m³) Discharge Volume (m³) Time-Peak (mins) 180 min Winter 24.668 0.0 13.7 120 240 min Winter 20.020 0.0 14.8 154 360 min Winter 14.976 0.0 16.6 218 480 min Winter 12.229 0.0 18.1 280 600 min Winter 10.466 0.0 19.3 342 720 min Winter 9.226 0.0 20.5 402 960 min Winter 7.574 0.0 22.4 520 1440 min Winter 5.731 0.0 25.4 754 2160 min Winter 4.359 0.0 29.0 1084 2880 min Winter 3.594 0.0 31.9 1468 4320 min Winter 2.731 0.0 36.3 2156 5760 min Winter 2.249 0.0 39.9 2936 7200 min Winter 1.933 0.0 42.9 3680 8640 min Winter 1.710 0.0 45.5 4400 10080 min Winter 1.544 0.0 47.9 5048 702
Page 89
Millard Consulting Page 3 Seabraes Job No 16747 18 Greenmarket Craigton Quarry, Mawmill Dundee 0.022ha to be attenuated Date 23/07/2021 14:27 Designed by File 16747 - 0.022ha - Polystorm... Checked by Innovyze Source Control 2017.1.2 Rainfall Details ©1982-2017 XP Solutions Rainfall Model FEH Winter Storms Yes Return Period (years) 200 Cv (Summer) 0.750 FEH Rainfall Version 2013 Cv (Winter) 0.840 Site Location GB 309028 698980 NT 09028 98980 Shortest Storm (mins) 15 Data Type Point Longest Storm (mins) 10080 Summer Storms Yes Climate Change % +35 Time Area Diagram Total Area (ha) 0.022 Time From: (mins) To: Area (ha) 0 4 0.022 703
Page 90
Millard Consulting Page 4 Seabraes Job No 16747 18 Greenmarket Craigton Quarry, Mawmill Dundee 0.022ha to be attenuated Date 23/07/2021 14:27 Designed by File 16747 - 0.022ha - Polystorm... Checked by Innovyze Source Control 2017.1.2 Model Details ©1982-2017 XP Solutions Storage is Online Cover Level (m) 1.000 Cellular Storage Structure Invert Level (m) 0.000 Safety Factor 1.0 Infiltration Coefficient Base (m/hr) 0.00000 Porosity 0.95 Infiltration Coefficient Side (m/hr) 0.00000 Depth (m) Area (m²) Inf. Area (m²) Depth (m) Area (m²) Inf. Area (m²) Depth (m) Area (m²) Inf. Area (m²) 0.000 18.0 18.0 0.400 18.0 26.8 0.500 0.0 26.8 Orifice Outflow Control Diameter (m) 0.038 Discharge Coefficient 0.600 Invert Level (m) 0.000 704
Page 91
705
Page 92
706
Page 93
707
Page 94
708
Page 95
709
Page 96
710
Page 97
4(v)(b) LRB-2023-09 LRB-2023-09 22/01707/FLL – Erection of 4 dwellinghouses and 3 garages, land 50 metres south east of Craigton Gardens, Cleish PLANNING DECISION NOTICE (included in applicant’s submission, pages 713-715) REPORT OF HANDLING (included in applicant’s submission, pages 717-728) REFERENCE DOCUMENTS (part included in applicant’s submission, pages 641-647, 649-651 and 653- 708) 711
Page 98
712
Page 99
713
Page 100
714
Page 101
715
Page 102
716
Page 103
REPORT OF HANDLING DELEGATED REPORT Ref No 22/01707/FLL Ward No P8- Kinross-shire Due Determination Date 27th November 2022 Draft Report Date 24th November 2022 Report Issued by JW Date 24 Nov 2022 PROPOSAL: Erection of 4 dwellinghouses and 3 garages LOCATION: Land 50 Metres South East Of Craigton Gardens Cleish SUMMARY: This report recommends refusal of the application 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 application relates to an area of flat open ground on the edge of the small hamlet of Craigton on the B9097, 1km northwest of Cleish. The existing small group of buildings adjacent to the site comprises of five single storey cottages, all of which are roadside plots. The northern area of the proposed site contains a single storage building and an area of hard standing. The frontage of the site onto the B9097 is currently occupied by trees. The southern half of the site is overgrown and open to the surrounding farmland. The site was used for the storage of gravel and machinery associated with the former Craigton Gravel Quarry and whilst it is quite overgrown, it still appears to be in use to some degree for the storage of equipment and materials. Access to the site is presently taken via single junction onto the public road but there is also an additional field access into the site, but it is quite overgrown. Full planning permission is being sought for the erection of 4 detached dwellinghouses. Plots 1 and 2 are four bedroom single storey units which are proposed to front onto the B9097. Each is proposed to be 6.5m in height and be finished in a mixture of timber cladding, natural stone and off white render with a slate roof. Two further detached units are proposed to the rear/south of the site. Plot 3 is proposed to be identical to plot 1, being single storey with plot 4, the southern most unit proposed to be a larger dwelling, extending to 8.5m to ridge, with accommodation over two levels. A new vehicular access is proposed to the east of plot 2 which is proposed to serve all units. Detached garages and driveways for plots 1 and 2 are proposed to the south/rear of the houses. A turning head is proposed at the end of the access with Plots 3 and 4 provided with driveways off the southern side of the new access. This application is a re-submission following a previous refusal for five detached houses (21/00955/FLL). The previous application was refused as being contrary to Policy 19: Housing in the Countryside, Policies 1A and B: Placemaking, Policy 46B: Loch Leven Catchment Area, Policy 52: Flood Risk, Policy 60B Parking Requirements, Policy 41: Bio Diversity and Policy 40: Woodland and Trees. This revised submission seeks to 717
Page 104
address the reasons for refusal by reducing the number of proposed units from 5 to 4 and includes supporting information which seeks to address the previous reasons for refusal. A pre-application discussion regarding the site was undertaken in March/April 2022 (22/00111/PREAPP). This resulted in the submission of an application for two dwellinghouses on the site (22/00988/FLL) in May/June. These fronted onto the B9097 and were proposed to be single storey. This application was subsequently returned to the applicant as invalid. No further discussions took place and then the current application for four units was submitted. SITE HISTORY 91/01505/FUL WINNING & WORKING OF MINERALS AT 29 May 1992 Application Refused 97/00615/FUL Retention of shed building, associated hardstanding and ponds for agricultural purposes at 4 August 1997 Application Approved 21/00955/FLL Erection of 5 dwellinghouses and associated works 28 September 2021 Application Refused 22/00988/FLL Erection of 2 dwellinghouses and garages 14 July 2022 – application returned as invalid. PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION Pre application Reference: 22/00111/PREAPP 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. 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). 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.” 718
Page 105
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 principal policies are: Policy 1A: Placemaking Policy 1B: Placemaking Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions Policy 6: Settlement Boundaries Policy 19: Housing in the Countryside Policy 32: Embedding Low & Zero Carbon Generating Technologies in New Development Policy 40B: Forestry, Woodland and Trees: Trees, Woodland and Development Policy 41: Biodiversity Policy 46A: Loch Leven Catchment Area Policy 46B: Loch Leven Catchment Area Policy 52: New Development and Flooding Policy 53B: Water Environment and Drainage: Foul Drainage Policy 53C: Water Environment and Drainage: Surface Water Drainage Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals OTHER POLICIES Housing in the Countryside Policy 2020 Developer Contributions Guide 2020 CONSULTATION RESPONSES EXTERNAL Cleish And Blairadam Community Council – support application for revised proposal and consider it to be in keeping with character of grouping and supportive of the special needs of the applicant. Consideration should be given to addressing road safety issues on public road. 719
Page 106
Scottish Water – no objection Scotland Gas Networks Plc – no objection Scottish Environment Protection Agency – further clarity on phosphorus calculations required Health and Safety Executive – does not advise against INTERNAL Transport Planning – clarity sought on ability of site to accommodate service vehicles, clarity required on footpath provision on site. Further clarity also required in relation to ability of site to accommodate bus boarders. Development Contributions Officer – no contributions required Biodiversity/Tree Officer – no objection subject to condition Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) – condition recommended for contaminated land assessment Structures And Flooding – Flood Risk Assessment requires to consider culvert on Colonel Burn to the west of the site and the implications which blockage of this culvert may have on flood risk on the site. REPRESENTATIONS 1 representation was received from the Cleish and Blairadam Community Council which supports the application for revised proposal and consider it to be in keeping with character of grouping and supportive of the special needs of the applicant. Consideration should be given to addressing road safety issues on public road. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS Screening Opinion EIA Not Required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not Required Appropriate Assessment Habitats Regulations AA Not Required Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Submitted Report on Impact or Potential Impact eg Flood Risk Assessment Flood Risk Assessment Ecology Survey Tree Survey Supporting Statement 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 720
Page 107
material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for the area comprises the approved TAYplan and the adopted LDP2. The determining issues in this case are whether; the proposal complies with development plan policy; or if there are any other material considerations which justify a departure from policy. Policy Appraisal Following refusal of the previous application discussions were undertaken between the previous Case Officer and the architect regarding what scope there is for development on this site. This was undertaken over the telephone but the Case Officer, who has now left the Council, left a set of notes of the discussions. The extent of these discussions do not appear to reflect the understanding of the applicant's agent as referenced in the submission. This is referenced in more detail below. As the site lies within the landward area in the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 2019 (LDP2), the proposal falls to be principally considered against Policy 19 'Housing in the Countryside' and its associated SPG on Housing in the Countryside 2020 (HiCG), which is the most recent expression of Council policy towards new housing in the open countryside. Policy 1A and 1B which relate to placemaking also state that all development must contribute positively, to the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment. It is considered that the most relevant categories of the HiCG to assess the proposed development are 1) Building Groups and 6) 'Rural Brownfield'. Under the building groups category of the guide, it outlines that consent may be granted for houses which extend an existing the group into definable sites formed by existing topography, roads or well-established existing landscape features. In this instance it is considered that the wider site lies on the edge of the existing building group, visually separated by the existing mature tree belt. This site is also within an area of open land which lacks sufficient established boundary treatment to provide adequate containment to the proposed new development, particularly in relation to the southern and eastern boundaries. As such, it is considered that the proposed site is not a viable extension to the existing building group as it would not expand the site into a readily definable site as per the requirements set out in the HiCG. The previous refusal made it clear that the site did not represent an extension of an existing building group into a definable site, however this revised application, whilst reducing the number of units, still proposes development on the same site footprint seeking to extend the building onto an area of land which is not defined which is contrary to Policy 19. This is the same conclusion which was reached on the previously refused application. The layout which has been submitted was subject to pre application discussions with the previous Case Officer in April this year. This was subject to a telephone conversation between the agent and the Case Officer. The notes on file indicate that the revised scheme did not address the fundamental concerns in respect of the previous refusal, particularly the two plots proposed to the rear/south of the site. The larger two storey dwelling is not in keeping with the existing small scale built development within the wider group of houses. The plots adjacent to the road side were indicated to be more acceptable and potentially have scope to be supported if access was to be taken from 721
Page 108
the public road. However the layout has not been altered to reflect these discussions. Overall, it is concluded that the site has a lack of landscape containment and cannot be considered to be the extension of a building group into a definable site. The applicant's agent was advised that a proposal solely for the two roadside units may have more scope to comply with the Housing in the Countryside Policy. Furthermore, the guide also states that proposals must demonstrate that: o New housing will respect the character, scale and form of the existing group, and will be integrated into the existing layout and building pattern. o New housing will not detract from the visual amenity of the group when viewed from the wider landscape. o A high standard of residential amenity will be provided for both existing and new housing. Similar to the previous refusal, it is considered that the design and layout of the development fails to respect the character, scale and form of the buildings within this small scale, single storey existing building group. It would result in a substantial increase in size of the group, extending it to the south away from the road which does not respect the existing roadside layout of the grouping. As was intimated during pre application discussions, should the proposal be revised to only include the two units fronting the road this would have more scope to be supported as it would better reflect the character, form and building pattern of the group as required by Policy 19 and the associated Housing in the Countryside Supplementary Guidance (SG). It is noted that the supporting statement also suggests that the site is a viable brownfield site, and that the development will remove the dereliction of the site and result a significant environmental improvement. In this first instance it should be highlighted that the HiCG defines 'Rural Brownfield Land' as: "Derelict land which was at one time occupied by buildings or structures but these have now been removed, or land directly linked to former buildings or structures which has been so damaged by a former use that it cannot be left to naturalise or be reused for another purpose without first being improved." It is noted that the existing building still stands on site and appears to still be in operational use or at least has recently been in use. It may be that the applicant is no longer using the buildings for any purpose but that does not render the site derelict and the fact that the building still stands on site means that the site cannot comply with category 6 of the HiCG. Notwithstanding the above, there is no reasonable justification based on the suggested environmental improvement of the site being redeveloped. From a visual perspective, the site is largely screened from view and whilst the site is somewhat overgrown, it does not represent an eyesore in respect to the character of the wider area. In respect to the any argument regarding the decontamination of the site, whilst it is accepted that there is a potential for contamination which would need to be addressed if housing were approved on this specific site, the HiCG states the following: 722
Page 109
"Many sites which were formerly occupied by buildings have little or no environmental impact and can be left to return to a natural state over time. Even sites where some contamination is present may not require to be remediated if there is no significant risk to human health or the wider environment. This category of the policy is not intended to allow the redevelopment of sites like these, nor is it intended to permit the redevelopment of sites for housing where buildings have simply been allowed to fall into disrepair. This category is intended to allow small scale housing proposals on cleared sites which have been significantly degraded by a former use or activity, and where the redevelopment of the site for housing is the only means by which it is viable to remediate the site." Based on the information submitted, it is not considered that the proposed site presents itself as a viable development site for the proposed level of housing, even if the site were derelict. It is considered to be similar to many agricultural sites where there may be some contamination present due to its historic use, but it is presently neither a risk to the environment or human health in its present state. It's present state also does not significantly detract from the character or amenity of the area and, as noted above, the scale and design of the proposals will in itself detract from the character of the existing building group. As such it is considered that, in principle, the proposed development remains contrary to the requirements of Policy 19 of LDP2 and the associated Housing in the Countryside Supplementary Guidance 2020. Scale, Design and Layout The existing building group comprises of 5 existing single storey dwellings, all built along the roadside. This proposed development will represent a significant increase in the scale of the small rural building group. Whilst this proposal reduces the number of proposed units from 5 to 4 this level of development still represents a substantial increase in the size of the building group. As mentioned in the previous refusal all of the buildings within the group are single storey. Three of the four units now proposed are to be single storey but there remains a large scale 8.5m high detached dwelling proposed to the south of the site which fails to respect the design and form of development within the group. The design and layout of the proposed development also do not accord with the existing prevailing design and pattern of development within the existing group. As noted above, all of the existing houses are single storey and have been developed along the roadside, with no tandem or backland development. The proposal has reduced the scale of the three of the units but there remains a large scale 8.5m high dwelling to the rear of the site and a further dwelling to the rear of the site which results in a layout which fails to respect the established layout and building pattern of the group, therefore failing to respect the character of the existing building group as required by policy. This issue was identified as part of the refusal of the previous application and has not been addressed in this revised submission. As such, it is considered that the scale, design and layout of the revised proposed development will have an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the area and is therefore contrary to Placemaking Policies 1A and 1B, as well as the requirements of Policy 19 of LDP2 and its associated HiCG. 723
Page 110
Landscape and Visual Amenity Whilst the development of the site will not necessarily result in any significant adverse impact on the character of the wider landscape, as discussed above, it would introduce development that will impact on the character and visual amenity of the immediate locality. The scale and layout of the proposed development will result in the expansion of a small rural roadside building group into a large open area of ground which would be at odds with the prevailing style and character of development in the locale. Whilst the number of units on site has been reduced in comparison with the previous refusal the issue of failing to respect the character of the grouping remains. The proposals will also result in the loss of a relatively substantial belt of mature trees which sit on the road frontage which is a landscape feature within the existing group. The previous refusal also raised concerns regarding the lack of a detailed landscaping and planting scheme for the site which was identified as being important given the size of the site. The proposal now includes some indicative planting on the west boundary and to the south and east and hedge planting along the access. No details of species or density of planting has been provided but generally the landscaping scheme is considered to address the previous concerns subject to a condition securing details of density and species should the application be approved. Residential Amenity The proposed development itself is acceptable in respect to the sizes of each individual plot and provision of private amenity space. Each plot is quite substantial and features relatively large areas of garden ground. The revised layout is not considered to have any impact on adjacent properties in terms of overlooking and overshadowing and therefore the concerns regarding residential amenity of the previous refusal have been addressed. Roads and Access The proposal will have a singular vehicular accesses onto the B9097 extending centrally into the site with each plot accessed from this access. Transport Planning have indicated that the access junction and parking arrangements are acceptable subject to condition. They have, however queried some elements of the layout, including the ability of the site to accommodate a septic tank/delivery vehicle and have sought a swept path to demonstrate this. They have also sought clarity on the layout and whether footways are proposed to be installed as no key has been provided. The plans also show paths out to the public road network and along the B9097, it is unclear if these will be linking to a footway along the B9097. Without links to a footway, the Roads Maintenance Partnership have concerns about these being provided directly onto the B9097 and clarity on this is required. The Public Transport Unit have requested rural bus boarders at and opposite the development to facilitate school bus boarding/alighting and to install dropped kerbs at a suitable crossing point. In order to consider this clarity is required on the nature of the proposed footways as outlined above. 724
Page 111
The plans also indicate the provision of a path to the south west of the site through the applicant's land which is proposed to connect to Cleish. No information has been provided as to how this path would be delivered and it is not within the application site. Given that the principle of development is not considered acceptable in terms of the Policy 19 'Housing in the Countryside', the above information has not been requested as it would have been unreasonable given that the application would have been refused regardless. However, to ensure that this matter is considered as part of any potential appeal, the lack of information in relation to road layout has been added as a reason for refusal under Policy 60B of LDP2. Drainage - Loch Leven The site is located with Loch Leven Catchment Area where foul drainage from new development is strictly control and the levels of phosphorous from foul waste must demonstrate at least 125% betterment. In this regard the applicant has submitted drainage calculations based on the installation of biodisc package treatment plant serving the entire development along with the upgrading of an existing septic tank at a remote property. SEPA have reviewed the information and disagree with the calculations. The plans show a proposal for 3 x 4 bedroom houses. This would give 3 x 6 PE (population equivalent) properties. One of the houses has a large games room on the same floor as the bedrooms and SEPA consider that this should be considered as a potential bedroom in line with Perth and Kinross Council Guidance. Furthermore, the mitigation calculations show five properties and are a replication of the previous application. The calculations require to be updated with the correct number of houses and correct number of bedrooms for each property. The calculations therefore require to be updated. Given that the principle of development is not considered acceptable in terms of the Policy 19 'Housing in the Countryside', this information has not been requested as it would have been unreasonable given that the application would have been refused regardless. However, to ensure that this matter is considered as part of any potential appeal, the lack of updated phosphorus mitigation calculations has been added as a reason for refusal under Policy 46B of LDP2. Flood Risk Due to the site's close proximity to the Colonel Burn, the Structures and Flooding Team have advised that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is required to ensure that the development is not within a 1 in 200 year floodplain plus climate change. They have also advised that it is important to consider the culvert located to the north west of the development site and flow paths should be considered during the event that the culvert is partially blocked (50%). A Flood Risk Assessment has now been submitted and reviewed by Structures and Flooding. They state that the submission cover's the vast majority of the issues identified under the previous submission. It considers the culvert to the immediate west of the site and states that should any blockages occur the flood water would likely dissipate to the south west and away from the site due to the topography in the area. There is a further culvert of the Colonel Burn to the north west which travels under the B9097 public road which has not been addressed with the FRA. The FRA also requires 725
Page 112
to consider whether this culvert has been blocked or overwhelmed before and consider what impact this could have on the site. Flood risk modelling for this requires to be provided. The Flooding Team indicate that there is a possibility of the application site flooding depending on the volume of water coming down the Colonel Burn towards the culvert. As this has not been suitably addressed within the FRA there are still doubts as to the suitability of the site from a flooding perspective. Given that the principle of development is not considered acceptable in terms of the Policy 19 'Housing in the Countryside', this information has not been requested as it would have been unreasonable given that the application would have been refused regardless. However, to ensure that this matter is considered as part of any potential appeal, the lack of information in relation to the FRA and the culvert has been added as a reason for refusal under Policy 52 of LDP2. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity The northern area of the site adjacent to the public road is quite densely wooded with a mixture of mature trees and vegetation. This belt of trees is very well established and screens much of the site from view when driving along the B9097. As per the requirements of Policy 40, there is a presumption in favour of retain existing tree and where trees are potentially affected a tree survey that accords with BS5837:2012 should be submitted for consideration. A Tree Survey now accompanies the proposals and states that all 28 trees on the site are proposed to be felled to accommodate the development and that none of the trees merit retention. It recommends that compensatory planting is proposed but no detail on this has been submitted as referenced above. This could be secured by condition. Given the conclusions of the tree survey regarding the condition of these trees, the felling of these trees is considered to be acceptable The submission now also includes a protected species survey given the possibility of the existing trees containing habitat. This has been reviewed by the Council's Bio Diversity Officer and considered to be acceptable subject to conditions to ensure the mitigation measure within the report are adhered to and to ensure the provision of bird boxes within the site. The proposal therefore accords with Policy 40 and 41 of the LDP2. Contamination Historical mapping indicates that there were formerly quarrying activities on the proposed development site. The nature and volume of material used to infill this quarry site is unknown and therefore there is the potential for it to be a source of contamination which could impact upon the suitability of the site for the proposed development. If approved, it is recommended by Environmental Health that a standard four-part contamination condition is applied to any consent in order to ensure that any ground contamination is investigated, and mitigation measures undertaken as part of the development. 726
Page 113
Conservation Considerations There are no issues or concerns in relation to conservation related matters. Developer Contributions The Council Developer Contributions Supplementary Guidance requires a financial contribution towards increased primary school capacity in areas where a primary school capacity constraint has been identified. A capacity constraint is defined as where a primary school is operating at over 80% and is likely to be operating following completion of the proposed development, extant planning permissions and Local Development Plan allocations, at or above 100% of total capacity. This proposal is within the catchment of Cleish Primary School. Education & Children's Services have no capacity concerns in this catchment area at this time. Economic Impact The economic impact of the proposal is likely to be minimal and limited to the construction phase of the development. Personal Circumstances The submission makes reference to the personal circumstances and health of the applicant and their family within the supporting statement. Whilst the personal circumstances of the applicant are noted and appreciated and the difficulties experienced are sympathised with these are not considered to outweigh the content of the Development Plan in this instance. 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 adopted 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 adopted Development Plan. Accordingly the proposal is refused on the grounds identified below. Reasons for Refusal The proposal is contrary to Policy 19 'Housing in the Countryside' of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and the Council's Housing in the Countryside 727
Page 114
Supplementary Guidance 2020 as the proposal fails to satisfactorily comply with any of the categories (1) Building Groups, (2) Infill Sites, (3) New Houses in the Open Countryside, (4) Renovation or Replacement of Houses, (5) Conversion or Replacement of Redundant Non Domestic Buildings, or (6) Rural Brownfield Land. The proposal is adjacent to an existing building group but results in a development which extends the building group into an area of land which is not defined as required by policy. Furthermore the layout and location of Plots 3 and 4 at the southern end of the site fail to respect the character and building pattern of the existing roadside layout of the grouping. The scale and height of plot 3 is also significantly out of scale with the established single storey character of the existing group. The proposal is contrary to Policy 1A and 1B, Placemaking, of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019). The proposed development and in particular plots 3 and 4 at the southern side of the site would not contribute positively to the built and natural environment or the character and building pattern of the existing small grouping due to its scale, design, layout and lack of a landscape framework. The proposal is contrary to Policy 46B 'Loch Leven Catchment Area' of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as the phosphorus calculations which have been submitted do not reflect the scale and nature of the development which is proposed. The proposal is contrary to Policy 52 'New Development and Flooding'. The Flood Risk Assessment considers a culvert to the immediate west of the site but fails to consider the impact which the blocking or overwhelming of the existing culvert to the north west of the site at the B9097 on the Colonel Burn may have on flood risk on the application site. Therefore, the submitted Flood Risk Assessment fails to provide complete clarity on the suitability of the development of the site from a flood risk perspective. The proposal is contrary to Policy 60B 'Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals' of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as the plans do not demonstrate that delivery/septic tank service vehicles would be able to turn with the site. Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity on footway provision both within the site and along the boundaries of the site with the public road. 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 01-17 728
Page 115
729
Page 116
730
Page 117
731
Page 118
732
Page 119
733
Page 120
734
Page 121
735
Page 122
736
Page 123
737
Page 124
738
Page 125
739
Page 126
740
Page 127
4(v)(c) LRB-2023-09 LRB-2023-09 22/01707/FLL – Erection of 4 dwellinghouses and 3 garages, land 50 metres south east of Craigton Gardens, Cleish REPRESENTATIONS 741
Page 128
742
Page 129
743
Page 130
744
Page 131
745
Page 132
746
Page 133
747
Page 134
748
Page 135
749
Page 136
750
Page 137
M e m o r To Development Management & Building Standards Service Manager Your ref 22/01707/FLL Date 09/11/2022 Communities a n d u m From Regulatory Services Manager Our ref CHF Pullar House, 35 Kinnoull Street, Perth, PH1 5GD Consultation on an Application for Planning Permission 22/01707/FLL RE: Erection of 4 dwellinghouses and 3 garages Land 50 Metres South East Of Craigton Gardens Cleish for Mr Richard Scott Black I refer to your letter dated 25 October 2022 in connection with the above application and have the following comments to make. Contaminated Land Recommendation I have no objections to the application but recommend the undernoted conditions be included in any given consent. Comments There is a disused quarry on the proposed site. Although disused for a long time, the original size and depth of the quarry is unknown, as is the material used to infill the quarry after work there ceased. There is therefore the potential for localised ground gas production that could possibly impact on any residential properties being built on the site. There is also the possibility of contaminants being present in the fill therefore a full ground risk assessment should be carried out prior to building commencing. I therefore recommend the following condition be applied to the application. Conditions EH41 Development shall not commence on site until an evaluation for the potential of the site to be affected by contamination by a previous use has been undertaken and, as a minimum, a Preliminary Risk Assessment (Phase 1 Desk Study) has been submitted for consideration and accepted by the Council as Planning Authority. If the preliminary risk assessment identifies the need for further assessment, an intrusive investigation shall be undertaken to identify; I. the nature, extent and type(s) of contamination on the site II. measures to treat/remove contamination to ensure the site is fit for the use proposed III. measures to deal with contamination during construction works IV. condition of the site on completion of decontamination measures. 751
Page 138
Prior to the completion or bringing into use of any part of the development the measures to decontaminate the site shall be fully implemented in accordance with the scheme subsequently agreed by the Council as Planning Authority. Verification that the scheme has been fully implemented must also be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority. 752
Page 139
Comments to the Development Quality Manager on a Planning Application Planning Application ref. 22/01707/FLL Comments provided by Lachlan MacLean Project Officer – Transport Planning Service/Section Transport Planning Contact Details TransportPlanning@pkc.gov.uk Description of Proposal Erection of 4 dwellinghouses and 3 garages Address of site Land 50 Metres South East Of Craigton Gardens, Cleish Comments on the proposal The applicant is proposing to erect 4 dwellinghouses and form a vehicle access off the B9097. To form the new vehicle access onto the public road network, a number of trees will be removed from the site. A condition will be recommended for the formation of the vehicle access to current standards. Plot Bedrooms Parking Required Garage Sufficient Plot Parking 1 4 3 Yes Yes 2 4 3 Yes Yes 3 4 3 Yes Yes 4 4 3 Yes Yes The applicant is also providing two visitor parking spaces. It is unclear if vehicle delivery/septic tank lorry would be able to turn when cars are parked in the bays. A swept path should be provided to clarify. The level of car parking provided on site, meets the requirements of the National Roads Development Guide. It is unclear what the white areas on the plans are as shown in Figure 1, it is assumed that this is to be a footway, but with out any key I am unable to ascertain what this is to be. Clarity to be provided. Figure 1: Vehicle access into site 753
Page 140
The plans also show paths out to the public road network, it is unclear if these will be linking to a footway along the B9097, as shown in Figure 2. Without links to a footway, the Roads Maintenance Partnership have concerns about these being provided directly onto the B9097. Clarity to be provided. The Public Transport Unit have requested rural bus boarders at and opposite the development to facilitate school bus boarding/alighting. Install dropped kerbs at a suitable crossing point. So it would be helpful to understand the point above to know if it is proposed that a footway shall be provided along the length of the property boundary. Figure 2: Footpaths out to B9097 The applicant has also shown that there will be a path linking to Cleish through the applicants land. More information on the proposed route and the method of delivery would be welcomed. Transport Planning require further information to be in a position to support this application. Recommended planning condition(s) Recommended informative(s) for applicant Date comments returned 10 November 2022 754
Page 141
Comments to the Development Quality Manager on a Planning Application Planning Application ref. 22/01707/FLL Comments provided by Lucy Sumner Service/Section Strategy & Policy Contact Details Development Contributions Officer: Lucy Sumner Description of Proposal Erection of 4 dwellinghouses and 3 garages Address of site Land 50 Metres South East Of Craigton Gardens Cleish Comments on the proposal NB: Should the planning application be successful and such permission not be implemented within the time scale allowed and the applicant subsequently requests to renew the original permission a reassessment may be carried out in relation to the Council’s policies and mitigation rates pertaining at the time. THE FOLLOWING REPORT, SHOULD THE APPLICATION BE SUCCESSFUL IN GAINING PLANNING APPROVAL, MAY FORM THE BASIS OF A SECTION 75 PLANNING AGREEMENT WHICH MUST BE AGREED AND SIGNED PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL ISSUING A PLANNING CONSENT NOTICE. Primary Education With reference to the above planning application the Council Developer Contributions Supplementary Guidance requires a financial contribution towards increased primary school capacity in areas where a primary school capacity constraint has been identified. A capacity constraint is defined as where a primary school is operating at over 80% and is likely to be operating following completion of the proposed development, extant planning permissions and Local Development Plan allocations, at or above 100% of total capacity. This proposal is within the catchment of Cleish Primary School. Education & Children’s Services have no capacity concerns in this catchment area at this time. Recommended planning condition(s) Summary of Requirements Education: £0 Total: £0 Recommended informative(s) for applicant Date comments returned 11 November 2022 755
Page 142
756
Page 143
757
Page 144
758
Page 145
759
Page 146
760
Page 147
761
Page 148
762
Page 149
1 Audrey Brown From: PKC Biodiversity Sent: 21 November 2022 15:21 To: John Williamson Subject: 22/01707/FLL Consultation Response Hello John, The submitted Bat Survey is in accordance with best practice. Can this condition be added to any consent: NE00 The conclusions and recommended action points within the supporting biodiversity survey submitted and hereby approved (document(s) INSERT relates) shall be fully adhered to, respected and undertaken as part of the construction phase of development, to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. The loss of 28 trees is regretful although the submitted Tree Report explains that 13 need to be felled due to health and safety concerns and the others are all category C. Some compensatory planting is indicated on the Proposed Site Plan but there is no detail on number or species, and this is required in the form of a landscaping Plan. This could be achieved via condition. Native species is preferred with a ratio of 1:3. To achieve biodiversity enhancement, provision of bird boxes on the newly built houses would be welcomed and could be secured using this condition: NE03 Prior to the completion or occupation of the building(s) hereby approved, whichever is the earlier, no less than six bird boxes suitable for sparrows shall be provided on completed buildings. Thereafter, the agreed scheme shall be maintained in a reasonable condition for the life of the development, to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. Best wishes, Joanna Joanna Dick Tree and Biodiversity Officer Perth and Kinross Council PKC supports the Tayside Biodiversity Partnership: www.taysidebiodiversity.co.uk 763
Page 150
764
Page 151
765
Page 152
766