Item 5(i) LRB-2022-36
Perth and Kinross Council · 5 June 2023
Back to Local Review Body — 5 June 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
5(i) LRB-2022-36 LRB-2022-36 22/00477/FLL – Change of use from agricultural storage building to dwellinghouse, including alterations, extension and installation of flue, land 160 metres north east of Logie Brae Farm, Craigie, Clunie, PH10 6RG INDEX (a) Papers submitted by the Applicant (Pages 493-518) (b) Decision Notice (Pages 521-522) Report of Handling (Pages 523-530) Reference Documents (Pages 513 and 531-538) (c) Representations (Pages 539-554) (d) Further Information (Pages 555-586) 491
Page 2
492
Page 3
5(i)(a) LRB-2022-36 LRB-2022-36 22/00477/FLL – Change of use from agricultural storage building to dwellinghouse, including alterations, extension and installation of flue, land 160 metres north east of Logie Brae Farm, Craigie, Clunie, PH10 6RG PAPERS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 493
Page 4
494
Page 5
g? , 030 " Notice of Review
0300
x i A
3 NOTICE OF REVIEW
U .3 i
$ UNDER SECTION 43A(8) OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED)IN
E RESPECT OF DECISIONS 0N LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS
O i
8 THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCHEMES 0F DELEGATION AND LOCAL REVIEW PROCEDuRE)
E (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013 034W 030
00
i THE Tovm AND COUNTRY PLANNING (APPEALS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2008
iMPORTANT: Please read and follow the guidance notes gravided when commleti this form. '
Failure to sum! all the relev}402information oogld invalidate your notice of review.
Use BLOCK CAPITALS if completing in manuscript
Applican}402si . Agent (ifany)
Name WWMI Name MIME.
Address WEMJ {N HOUSE AddresszyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA8 3; bA030RROGt0244A4?
Mfém}401$112691034 COUPA031RAMUS ROA024D
.. WRdoWRIE KLAIRAOUURtE
Postcode ' (O . p Postcode PH 10 641'
Contact Telephone 1 W Contact Telephone 1
, Contact Telephone 2 _ Contact Telephone 2
Fax No 024Fax No
E024mail* m: E024mail*
' 030 Mark this box to con}401rmall contact should be
through this representative: EI/
Y No
* Do you agree to correspondence regarding your review being sent by email? mes [:I
Planning authority '2031HZIZW
Planning authority's application reference number _m_
Siteaddress MRICULTUR/(LS I 031, C" I VIE , a?" 030l , 030
AA031A',g451140301!f,- .714'
Descri tion of pro osed
devemgmem p wwvazr EXIS}401NaLNSUSED SWE EU [ma
a b NELUM . 4 SE
Date of applitau'en [21m Date of decision 0f any) W
Note. This notice must be served on the pianning authority within three months of the date of the decision
notice or from the date of expiry of the period allowed for determining the application.
Page 1 of 4
495Page 6
g V U Notice of Review 32 Nature of appiication , 4 E . ' 3 1. Application for planning permission (including householder application) IZ/3 . Q 2. Application for planning permission in principle D E 3. Further application Gncluding development that has not yet commenced and where a time limit 8 has been imposed; renewal of planning permission; andlor modi}401cation.variation or removal of D g a planning condition) . M. .. g 4. Application for approval of matters speci}401edin_conditions [:1 "' Reasons for seeking review ' 1. Refusal of application by appointed of}401cer EX 2. Failure by appointed of}401certo determine the application within the period allowed for D determination of the application 3. Conditions imposed on consent by appointed of}401cer D Review procedurezyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA- I ' The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures. such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions andlor inspecting030theland which is the subject of the review case. Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is mostappropriate for the handling of your review. You may tick more than one box it you wish the review to be conducted by a combination of procedures. 1. Further written submissions a 2. One or more hearing sessions [3/ 3. Site inspection '2031 4 Assessment of review documents only, with no further procedure [I If you have marked box 1 or 2. please expiain here which of the matters (as set out in your statement below) you believe ought to be subject of that procedure. and why you consider further submissions or a hearing are necessary: THE A031PPLiC/ANTSEEHEVE TAM Tue UNIQUE LocAmm iwee 01: T+F254momsms A126 gesrr MPRECiAm BY A §i VISIT» Site inspection In the event that the Local Review Body decides to inspect the review site, in your opinion: Y No 1. Can the site be viewed en}401reiyfrom public land? a D 2 Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely. and without barriers to entry? [2 B if there are reesons why you think the Local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here: Page 2 of 4 496
Page 7
g , 3 . Notice of Review 2 Statement , 031 , n . E _ You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all Q matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. Note: you may not Q have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that g you submit with your notice of review. all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish 3 the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. E If the Local Review Body issues a notice requesting further information from any other person or body, 0' you will have a period of 14 days in which to 'comment on any additional matter which has been raised by that person or body. - State here the reasons for your notice of review and all matters you wish to raise. If hgg}401gmtbisnaq g be gentinygd 9r provided030jn}401}402lin a separate document. Yountnay also submit.egslj}401onal.,_documentatignA ;;034'l030}402,191§.!95rn, "" ?I Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed of}401cerat the time the Ye N0 determination on your application was made? 031 El If yes, you should explain in the box below. why you are raising new material, why it was not raised with the appointed of}401cerbefore your application was determined and why you consider it should now be considered in your review. ' A 3 WWW REPJRT BY MRMULTURA031LCONSULTANTS SAC 030 WM 6694M139m?» E030(Mpuaw-r Eur 9%0305Commm 00R ammaL/SMFF SW5 arc) W rrbz NGT Mkwecwm, S'NME DAY A6 RIZQMMENW a? REFCJW. . ms [S Ma03411wm(mo SUPPJRrII/EJF W/mmm)Mb #3 Tmc e :6 (mooem 356-)? Agave Page 3 of 4 497
Page 8
§ .3: Notice of Review a List of documents and evidence 0% Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit withzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA : your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. \ . § .. § "Mtatrt, ams-i' Recommemda/non 4 Rms-M ( t5 Mpuwrs) g .024§£rc R C by @NSULTANTS) \ °030 024-PMTDS0F Emsrmz, 51,55035 ~ Loam'wrx) PLAN 35 SITE PLA-N' 00! 5 «024ELEUM030IONg C P20PoSEb) Ma. 03 A. Note. The pianning authority will make a copy of the notice of review, the review documents and any notice of the procedure of the review available for inspection at an of}401ceof the planning authority untii such time as the review is determined. It may also be available on the planning authority website. M Checklist Please mark the appropriate boxes to confirm you have provided all supporting documents and evidence 030 relevant to your review: Er Full completion of all parts of this form [3/ Statement of your reasons for requiring a review [3/ All documents, materials and evidence which you intend to rely on (e.g. plans and drawings or other documents) which are now the subject of this review. Note. Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or 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 from that earlier consent. 024024024024_024___=_______=__=______ Declaration l the applicantlagent [delete as appropriate] hereby serve notice on the planning authority to review the application as set out on this form and in the supporting documents. Signed Date M Page 4 of 4 498
Page 9
E» E APPEAL against Recommendation of REFUSAL. Ref.22l00477/FLL § Proposed CHANGE 0f USE from AGRICULTURAL STORAGE é BUILDING t0 DWELLING HOUSE for MrW. and Mrs .1. Duncan \' at 030CASTLEVIEW031,CRAlGlE, CLUNIE, BLAlRGOWRlE, PHlO 6RG PREAMBLE : Any 030historic031unapproved works at this location took place before the Applicant took ownership of the land (having rented/worked it for some years previously) and were not in any way at his behest. He now seeks to regularise and greatly improve the situation by transforming the existing 'shed'lbuilding into a home - much better integrated into its rural setting - and continue his modest livestock-breeding enterprise. The strong case for being 'on site030(animal welfare) is made elsewhere (see LAND USE). We propose to address the REPORT OF HANDLING / DELEGATED REPORT031s Recommendation of REFUSAL, dated 26 May 2022. in the order and description/headings presented by the Report, as follows:- SITE VISIT: Given the chequered history of this site (see SITE HISTORY) it is surprising that the Council's officers did not make a site visit (instead relying on remote and electronic means) at which time they could have ascertained that the building is essentially where it received Planning Consent to be. Some confusion may have been created by the multitude of drawings dating from the 2009 Approval, some of which do show the distance from the NW face of the building to the access track incorrectly. While this error (seemingly not picked up by the Council in 2009) has been duplicated in some of the current Application drawings, it is academic; the building is sited where it got Planning Consent to be, ie as close to the bottom of the steep slope to the south east (see photo E1 and Cross Section overleaf) and as far back from the access track - and, incidentally, less visible 024as is practicable. BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: ( see also VISUAL AMENITY, DESIGN & LAYOUT). The proposals consist of extensive alterations to the external appearance to make the building more attractive and appropriate to its rural setting, with the interior re-modelled to form a comfortable 030retirement030 home for the Applicants which. crucially, will allow Mr Duncan to continue his small-scale livestock (mainly cattle) business (see also LAND USE). The issue of drainage is addressed elsewhere. Page 1 of 4 499
Page 10
§ § PROCEDURAL MATIER (DRAINAGE, 030Redline'): The Applicant's Agent only E "opted" not to include the existing drainage 034withinthe site of the existing building" because the ground in question is on the other (north west) side of the access track (which is not in the Applicant031ssole ownership) but is ground 034ownedor controlled" 024IN THIS CASE OWNED - by the Applicant. it is standard procedure to delineate such ground in blue, which we have done. If the Council wish us to submit amended drawings showing it delineated in red we are happy to do so, but we note the Planners "consider it reasonable to process the Planning Application as it stands". We agree that 034inthe event of Approval of this Appiication...the issues over 'off-site' drainage should be 034fullyconsidered..." SITE HISTORY As stated, the site - and 034thesite opposite", ie 'Hawkhiil' , on the other side of the track - do indeed have 034ahistory of refusals". In the sense that a previous ownerlApplicant seems to have chosen 024or tried - to get round Planning Policy by erecting an extensive storage building with the apparent intention of subsequently converting it to a dwelling, we understand the Council's difficulty. However we are faced with a fact :- this unlovely structure exists, is surplus to requirements (it always was) and there is now an opportunity to make it more attractive/suited to its location, add to the rural housing stock and provide continuity of 030agricuitural030activity in this rural location. (The Applicants may be willing to consider 3 Condition that any future sale requires a commitment to such continuity). The proposals contain an area for storage of machinery/equipment adequate for a modest livestock operation. The matter of Private Drainage is addressed below. We note that the issue oi drainage may be "time barred". which does seem to offer an opportunity to address it in a pragmatic manner...a modern treatment plant exists after all. PRE-APPLICATIUN CONSULTATION, NATIONAL POLICY & GUIDANCE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TayPlAN and PKC lOCAl DEVELOPMENT PLAN Noted OTHER COUNCIL POLICIES, EXTERNAL CONSULTATION POLICIES, PKC [08M DEVELOPMENT PLAN Noted REPRESENTATIONS Noted It is surely significant that no 034notifiedneighbour" or other interested party has expressed opposition to these proposals. It is our understanding that the local (7229 e Z 0} 4 500
Page 11
§ E community approve of, and are happy to encourage, Mr Duncan's livestock V g activity. As for the volume of traffic generated, this is unlikely to significantly E increase as the Applicant would be 'on site', not travelling from Blairgowrie E several times a day (see Land Use below), indeed may well decrease. NB The °° concern expressed that a similar development to the west (ie the derelict cottage at 030Hawkhili",on the other side of the access track) might be developed if this Application is approved is extremely unlikely, the remains of the cottage being now integrated into a cattle 030shed'. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS & APPRAISAL Noted Policy Appraisal We note that Policy 1 seeks to ensure that new developments 034donot have an adverse impact on the area035.The Applicants are seeking to greatly reduce the "adverse impact" of the existing structure. by creating an attractive dwelling (see drawings). land use We note LDPZ and SP6 2020 seek to 034supportnew housing in the countryside, in certain circumstances". We propose the circumstances detailed in this Appeal could hardly be more suitable to qualify for support. The HITC 2020 definition of 034traditional"-ie being built before 1919 - clearly does not apply, however within the constraints imposed by the existing structural 'envelope' the Applicant has introduced 030traditional'design elements ( eg dormer window, timber cladding. re-rendering etc.) The building is redundant and is used for general storage 024not 'agricultural031 purposes - only because it is there. (The Applicants031proposals contain a much smaller area for machinery/implement storage, adequate for his needs). The Council's use of terms such as "farm'j.034detailedjustification labour unit report"(?), 035mainfarm buildings" etc does seem to be implying that the Applicant is making over-ambitious claims for his operation. This is not the case. A detailed Report has been prepared by agricultural consultancy SAC but, unfortunately, due to circumstances outwith the Applicants' control, this was delayed in its issue by SAC staff shortages etc due to the recent pandemic, and arrived on the very day that the Planning Department issued its recammendation of Refusal. However the fact this report was 034inthe pipeline" was clearly signalled in our 034Backgroundand Supporting Statement035dated 29 March 2022. Page 3 of 4 501
Page 12
E, . g This Report is attached and strongly supports the Applicants'case for on-site residency -(we g would particularly draw attention to pages 6 and 7) - in particular on animal welfare grounds. g In view of its centrality to the Applicants' case, we enclose a copy of the Report and trust that °° its contents will be fully taken into account. Visual Amenity, Design and layout We note that our proposals 034wouldimprove the appearance of the building" Vi}401th respect, we suggest the word 035considerably"could reasonably be inserted here. Making this frankly ugly building into an attractive 'cottage style031dwelling is the responsible result to aim for. Roads and Access No comment Drainage and Flooding We agree that the previous owner appears to have ignored the 034negatively worded Cont}401tion"regarding foul drainage; nevertheless the system installed is more than capable of dealing with the proposals in terms of capacity, phosphorous discharge etc. The Applicants are happy to provide any technical evidence requested by the Council, SEPA etc. that the treatment plant is up to current standards, and carry out any upgrading if required. We note that the drainageltreatmentfacility maywell now be "immune from enforcement action"; this surely presents the oppmtunityto regularise the situation (see above). from 'Conservation' 024030Directionby Scottish Ministers' No comment CONCLUSION and REASONS FOR DECISION I Justification I Informative: We contend that we have addressed the concerns and strictures detailed in the DELEGATED REPORT and request that the Council decline to support the recommendation to Refuse this Application. We invite them to consider that the Application should be granted not only to mitigate the 'blighting030of an attractive comer of Perthshire, but to encourage the continuation of genuine rural activity by the Applicants. Signed. on behalf of W and .3 Duncan 024 David Roche D.Arch.. RIAS Agent Date 29 June 2022 Page 4 of 4 502
Page 13
E 3 Q E 3 SAC g CONSULTING é Pfannmg Justification Report Castleview In suppon 03030035application 22/00477/FLL Prepared for: W & J Duncan Prepared by: SAC Consulting Contact: Mha030riDdgiech Sandp030merHouse Rmhven}401ddRoad Invetalmond Industrial Estate Perth PH1 3EE Date: May 2022 i SACConsq'ngEadivz030sionafSRUC Leading the wayin Agriculture andzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBARum] Research, Education andConsulting 503
Page 14
23 3 030U .x. n H 2 O3 \ \l \ § § 3; Premred for: E? .0303 w & J Duncan Newbigging House West George Street Blairgown'e PH1O 6132 Prepared by: SAC Consulting Contact: Mhairi Dalgliesh Sandpiper House Ruthven}401eldRoad Inveralmond Industrial Estate Perth PH1 3EE Tel: 01738 636611 Mob: 07765 707671 Email: mhain'.datgliesh@sac.co.uk Fax: 01738 627660 Reviewed by: Annette Marshall K This report has been prepared eieiusively for the m basis of infonna}401onsupplied, and no responsibility can be accepted for actions taken by any third party arising from their interpretation of (he infonna}401oncontained in this document. No other party may rely on the Ieport and if they do, then they rely upon it at their own risk. No Iesponsibi/ity or liability is accepted for any interpretation made 030 by anyparty that may be made of the contents of this report W 504
Page 15
'0 2° 9) 3 030U 17% . H ' MRODUC}402ON E 03 h E This report has been prepared at the request of Mr William Duncan to supplement a E planning application for the change of use from an agricultural storage building to a O E dwettinghouse at Castleview. Craigie. L0 é Information about the business policy and factors that would support the proposed application was gathered by Mhain030Dalgliesh, SAC Consulting (Perth) in discussion with 030Wlth'amBuncan. The need for the justi}401cationfor the change of use is based around the existing agricultural business. This report has been produced in May 2022 from the information provided. 1 mm 505
Page 16
'0 2° m 3 '5? K n H U 3 O3 \ Q3 CONTENTS 8 00 % INTRODUCTION 1 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 2 LABOUR REQUIREMENTS AT CASTLEVIEW 5 THE NEED FOR ON-SITE ACCOMMODATION 6 _AN9MA_L HEALTH mpg}401AngzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA5 SECURITY. 7 HEALTHAND SAFETY 030 .. 7 ALTERNATIVEACCOMMODATION030..,...,..,.....,,.030..N.,..,.........,.......u...030,.,..030...030.m.,.,..030......,,......m7 506
Page 17
§ 3 3'? E 3 BACKGROUND 1NFORMA030T030ION E The business of W & J Duncan farms both sheep and cattle over an area of 5.4 E owned hectares as well as renting additional grazing in the local area. The stock E includes mainly8-breeding cattle and their calves as well as the older calvesfrom the E previous years031calving. 80 currently there is 15 calves on site. Sheep are the smaller w side of the farming business with 4 sheep being lambed annually. \Mlliam Duncan is responsible for all of the work involved with the business. Mr and Mrs'Duncan purchased the site as it currently stands. The building sited at Castleview was built under planning permission for an agricultural storage building. However, in my professional opinion, this building is highly unsuitable to be used for agricultural storage. The doonNay size and roof height is not suitable for access by agricultural vehicles and machinery to unload agricultural supplies such as feed or feitiliser far less store the vehicle itself. Mr and Mrs Duncan have established a very good relationship with the neighbouring residents who are in support of their farming business and running this farming business from the site at Castleview. By Mr Duncan being able to reside on site at Castleview, it would drastically improve the speed of response should there be any urgenthealth or welfare issues031thatarise within the stock. If Mr Duncan was living on site, it would be much easier to routinely check the stock at key times of the year such as calving or lambing, This would ensure that should there be an issue to address, it can be addressed quickly and cut out the signi}401cant024ttavelthat Mr Duncan is cunentty (having to undenake. This is highlighted by a recent example where a cow got into dif}401cultywhile calving and the distance to which Mr Duncan is form the main taming unit meant that by the time he got to the cow and got vet assistance to the animal. the cow unfortunately eouldhotbesavedaridMrDuncaritestone of~hisherd. This is a prime example of why with sheep and cattle, it is imperative that the farmer can live on site to monitor stock easily and ensure the high standards of welfare that Mr Duncan prides himself on are maintained. Additionally, 'it would increase the general efficiency of farming operations and increase the overall security of the unit. 3 W 507
Page 18
'0 2° 9) 3 030U .5; H SUMMARY AND CONCLU310N U i h b The business of W & J Duncan farms cattle and sheep over an area of 5.6ha (owned 0 g land at Castleview) with additional grazing being rented in the local area. 00 é 5 030Fhereis currently no accommodation on site at Castteview however the design ofthe building that currently exists would be very easily adapted to a dwellinghouse. There is a need for this change of use application so that VWliam can live on site at Cas}402eviewto improve the ease of monitoring stock and bringing stock in to shatter to deal with veterinary or medical issues while also increasing the security of the farmland. Based on the current farming activity, the estimated annual tabour requirement for the farming operations is 0.23 labour units. However, there is a much stronger argument in terms of practicality and animal welfare. -030|'~hisreport fully supports the application to change the use le agricuttural storage building at Castleview to a dwellinghouse. '2 W 508
Page 19
'0 2° 9) 3 030U .5; H -'Fhe030buildingis 'in an ideal tocation to monitor stock in the surrounding }401etdsand atso 0 g access the areas of shelter/sheds. S The change of use to this existing building would not negatively impact on other E residents' views. 8 é 5 -The -Iand around the existing building has no environmental signi}401canceor w 030 designated sites associated with it such as Sites of Special Scienti}401cInterest (SSSI). Furthermore, there are no listed buildings or scheduled monuments near the existing building. Therefore, any changes that are proposed to the building would not result in a030lossof any environmental orhistoricfeatures. 4 w024 509
Page 20
'0 2o , m 3 E K : LABOUR REQUIREMENTS A'T CASTLEVtEW U E S Using Standard Labour Data for Agricultural and Horticultural Activities, sourced from E Defra UK Farm Classi}401cationDocument (October 2014). and information on existing 0 E 'land areas and 'livestock numbers theiabour pro}401lefor the farming enterprises was 5 calculated. The calculation shows that the current farming system at Castleview has the justi}401cation-for 0:23 iabour units. The background information given above highlights the essential need for the dwellinghouse at Castleview. This is a modest assessment of the labour needed as it does not account for the ever-increasing administrative tasks required'byTanning -businesses-for reguiaiion or accountancy purposes. The Standard Work Capacity is taken as 1,900 hours/person/year. This is calculated on the assumption that one person would work'39 hours per week and takes iilness' and public holidays etc. into account. Land Area (ha) HoursIAnnum/Ha Total 024024__024__024__ Grassland 024Grazing 5.6 8.1 1-7.03036 Sub total 1 7. 36 Livestock Number HoursIAnnum/Number Total a Beefeows 8 26 208 Other cattle 15 12 180 Ewes and rams (LFA) 4 3.7 14.8 Lambs (non024LFA) 8 3.1 24.8 Sub total 427.6 -TOTA-L 444.96 Standard Labour Unit 1,900. 00 LABOUR REQUIREMENT (LU) 0.23 Table 1: Labour Requirements at Castleview 5 Wm. 510
Page 21
§ :3 E E 'THE NEED FOR GN-SH030EA666MM66A030T10N U 5 S Animal Health and Welfare 0 E E 030WithMrDuncan able tO'live on site, it will make routine supervision ofthe sheep and E wttle far easier and ensure high levels of animal welfare are maintained. A This will be crucial at the times of the year when the stock require frequent monitoring such as lambing and calving. With a permanent presence on site, it would ensure that Mr Duncan could pen up cows or sheep on site that require particular attention or supervision and be assured that he could keep a very close eye on them. Whereas currently with no dwellinghouse on site, he requires to house stock that require close attention in a trailer outside is home which is a far from ideal arrangement. ~ Wth sheep, they require close attention and care at lambing time to check for pregnancy toxaemia, lambing issues or abortion. If a ewe is having di}402icultylambing. then a timely response is critical to be able to save both the ewe and the unborn lamb. The same applies-to calving cows and-this was highlighted'byMr'Duncan031s unfortunate and avoidable loss of a cow during the 2022 calving period. Vinthin the cattle, sudden illness and injury are all issues that can arise and reasons whyMrDuncan requires«to«live on sitetobe abletoregularlymonitorthe stock at all times of the day. \Mthin sheep, issues such as }402ukeand blowfly strike are common with 1.5% of ewes and 3% of lambs in the UK affected each year by blow}402ystrike. However, symptoms are not always obvious hence why sheep need daily checking throughthehigh-ris'krperidds. Ef}401ciency Having somebody on-site on a permanent 'basis is essential to conduct aspects of running the business such as taking delivery of fertiliser, feed and supplies. By having somebody onsite would help manage the checking and unloading of inputs. If Mr Duncan was able to live on024sitethen this would help to ensure the ef}401ciencyof working practices. i 6 m_024 511
Page 22
§ 3 '5; Security E 3 Security is a hugely important consideration for this business. Opportunist theft and S vandalism are ever increasing incidents in the rural area. These incidents result in E much aggravation and add to the daily operations on the business 031butare also a E severe }401nancialburden. g A Currently, with nobody living at Castleview on a permanent basis, the site is at an even greater risk of'being subjectedtothe}401or vandalism. Health and Safety Mith the increasing awareness-by the public of their access rights to the countryside there is potential for safety problems at Castleview resulting from people not fully understanding their responsibilities in the countryside. Therefore, on024site accommodation is essential to allow better control of people entering the farmland at Castleview and ensure that they do not compromise their safety or that of the livestock. The main n030sksat Castleview include: o Stock'being'let out of}401eldsand gaining access to roads. 0 Movement of machinery such as tractors These risks are all manageable when there is appropriate sta}402on-site to help educate people and to direct people away from causing potentiaI-hannfui situations. Alternative Accommodation eurrentiy Mr-Duncan -is 030living030inBiairgown'e and needs to complete frequent trips to be able to property care for his stock. These trips are resulting in excessive fuel use in order to be able to farm effectively. in May 2022, a spend of £120 on fuel was lasting less than 2 weeks due to the number and frequency of trips in the pick-up that were required. .._. , .. ,. No dwelling houses or plots oftand-have been sold -byMr and MrsDuncan 'in the'last 5 years. There are no vacant houses in the immediate vicinity to Castleview that Mr and Mrs Duncan could move into. However, the030building(initially'built as an agricultural storage shed) that sits at Castleview is designed in a way that it could easily transition to a house. The approval of this change of use appiication would mean that this building could be utilised and given a purpose rather than solely being used for occasional items of storage ashappens currently. 7 512
Page 23
i " _ k \zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA. \2 , 40304035}???'23-'"1}401030g'. . {VMKIQT
o 4 -. 25414?5031034031, ,\\\ K, -,3'LGC.H:':1W030TM?~sad} 'f030'
E 'q, m {a - W \K 2 - jff'}401', " 3.5;? i , 5!
9? %?b,,? a V ' ,030mg,,, 1034!034\x , -' - if 15030.$x?030?
.' ' ' I k -. "v I K \ 1 . . _ J:\L,,..«.g;5\ :-.g..,,~-,034030; '. .'
i; ¢%%254:%$V .3 /~ T \\:£,:-/.;s' {w}if;\7 > V ' V/"030HTi'035=''5 . 1"
N l??)024) \.)'I /'-.-'- , 'ff-"f- -.» 030 \ 0349'03 (0; )T/z'f'k030bv ' v4"; }402)?4- - F}401iiw-I' k030}402-EE
* 035éixme}402031/"'"1.034031"//4MMV. %fj030v }401nagm}401,a .-
5? /g., }401/Avyi030l'HN'SBMLVL'355aff,h 035f/// 031f031rryé. . ¢e21%.?» 533i035030_
0% ~ \/ K ' ¢ 030 030, unis weixf ' .~
.w%\ /"/'<( '1/ Tu" 3f)? ,.J 030,uju 1-. _. 1- 1 _030. :1. .~ .1: . ._ 030,3 ..~;_ v 03013. .'
v: / 37-1772: 030.030-:4030034--".;.-'u030.<-_ '1 ' "lm-V' II I 0300 1 030 0317-030 " X030l.
6/723 \' ~_;~ W 3:02,?035 " '_. =034030' ' . x035
V O®//(// Z W, A Q" . '4 :' m/ ' V 0304031030 j 1 031-030> .. I V031 030.IEW024x030 1332«°Y/""031// § 030\ l"/ .. ,, 410/ $6 [I DSW .w- «030 \ 030. . :
;«-":// § 0349.2;035MW-J030-030-l} . / I 5x034gar" "9:3" alziéint031
/ ' >§§kt I )y/Még 1031 ,W;0311% 030 ffffffg030i. hm '.031030
- r: - i/ 5 ' mmmE 035Mv. *
b/ m.- M 1 f034 0342r. . 030awx» ;
. » / 2%Zé , » ,_ bZ/(W'- '-'
Lang owned or Controlled 0301 i 030 _ » ,;MJf*F030"*y*Hilluck
7 'b }401A034Ii"c'éht"m 030030 , ,g . _ I ,0 DRG-FR Scale 1111.: LOCATLONPLAN1 Date Revis. nan035.
, SITE PLAN(Exi.030sti_ng)vpcALE 1:600 " 034 00111:??? S030lTEPLAN,E'XISTING;v 922031B , Mg
PrOPOSEd conversion 030of store to I 030I 030024'024_L""-034031E7;£'i£&;£""" -"-"'V"""""030""'""" '2030""'""-""
Dwelling House, Craigie. Blairgowrie. PH10 SRG 3030ra'é031lggu}401f031ff035I D030R'A'w030035chm034War513Page 24
034}401g?"5:1 _ ,. E ?gfg; :1 :g _ I 3;} 9' 1 2 030 f 030ijs ! ,7 ,, ,L. .. \fit 7 §k 030 a . » 71'" 030 > 3W: ., W§E§\ V "5: 030 3 034mumm030m-v* lzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA030 030 7' 035W. > m E1 \}401ewfrom North East (showing slope) ii 99 f" (Cross section overleaf) rm , E2 North Eastgable. c,=- , _030a ' 030. ,V. E3 \}401ewfrom North \ , r «M,Zifiié0309i'iif031t0307 f034 E4 Frontelevation, from North West 030 ' ' 030 035W- E5 \}401ewfrom South West , 514
Page 25
PERTH & KINROSS COUNC! APPLXCATION No.....®.q(.£b.l}401o. }402/L APPROVED carem-LL \»~':,w-r;-~-:-.»:.~: rs "030=-:u!.030.x: V UNDER YHE Tow AND c:cz-.. r": sins034:(sconmomcs s mu :5; P_RREE, 'r::.- :3; me APPROVAL omss 22 JUN 2009 ATTACHED KE}402ET DEVELOPMENT QUALITY lunar" mrllll . 030 , 031 a 0 25' 10 I 034"1": . us Ac034_ 0'__|__L_L_.____4_______L_A M Reg 515
Page 26
E
3
0300
1x." 3
3 v v , »,3, gs}401§vg 7
\I ./ ,7 //031/ ,/ 'l' / ,3. / , 7 ~\c030m034.,031;030~\0305,}.
E / ////034// Why "A §A031U030é03423;s 4 r031 4 {9&9 03047034.030035WWW:1?
2 // r, / 1W .-7-~\7-031*"030-~Cz/ «#3055359
é ,rf/}40213,,034mEmmi 7d; 030024/4035031034-14'
w , 030 , 4.»- 034x $224.»;zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA: 024 ,. z m»:
//// ,2» $*$;§F , ng}401g2
- wmaw}401g 0302 tr035gm}401ggg}401M}402}402}401m}401/
\ ,_ j__ fm 031x'n030LyJuém"m030J... t _ ,Jjjgw "'034ag}401qéwwggg:m;£~;§: 9034,",
. xr :Gi'}401sW-r'" 034 ,7034~ », 4. . M. --;-..._. 5?, ' ~024
' 030 _ 77,,7 :1; «¢a ' :i0303,; .2. / 'r [m w; ..7! DH 3i p 034Fg031}401}402:1 , L; ! -, I .
' ,' J 0341.12"531',"{. 5V4" , 030. "5 uvwg030igr030?030 z '3 1035.
-a 7, M 030 $33». 4 i334: ' 5
Front (North West) Elevation ' ' 7 _
031n0347031 7 :W' ¥ 030A ' v ... 1031¥ [ r, M ' ' (in A031
, 7030 , 1, [024 ' .5772!" \j030Eh-Suite 5] i/
1 SI 4.7; ., ; 1, ,
' Q E: *1 Bedroomu 2; a; 7mm 1/030 f"; f,» In .221 030 ' " 777 4.? (EII}402EII=
'9 K'tcherilplnlhg Li J 77 7_7_§ 7 ,5 W,E030JI '.2, {73371;}. ,L :T;::;..;!' 5030°*°'.% h }401li-030 -»
.7 3030034) »024-- > _ \ s, l -
035mm035, FF031IO-a- , 030 030 .\ z034 5.!
:55'1 030 - Hg 03403532!4
- :::: v ,7 , 7 , A r024.,030_ o030'- g
, .030 /=<\ 030 , . , > , }401x a 034E5,9950 .
33 ~ / Living 030 030 1 , 030 }402... 3030 .
1030 , 'B i z 030 ' § 0348030 a030 7, L 030edroomzl , _,c:. g; .
' [03 U7 030_¥--.~.,.,.v-0301 034I .8;
2X .. Q 70307}, ,7 3%? 3.....4-4
* 1 T7 § 1 y '; uaiggrgg .l .._. _+
024- --024~- l 034,3,,.»..~ 1 3 i 030i'» O 024 ' 12' . -030
\ 1H '1Y,g 3 0344a..77 ..
3.1.71, 7 . ,I ' {(4.3%)}; . I: 33:}: .. s
_ | 7 _ II
PLAN- Scale 1:100 Wanna:
516Page 27
g .
DJ .
3
.1; {- PROPOSED CONVERSION of
n '-, x .' , .9-, /
S /9999/999 AGRICULTURALSTOREto .
3 L/ /;'/L«*031"1Z)" /, 0314'035/ 034.13 99//;9_//~3 {/9 DWELLING HOUSE 9
f: ,. /,/ 0315» " J 030:.n,030 ,. ' (034.544 ' ' ' ' 'g ///tf:¢}401i*}401030}401}402gh\9 99/9/99at Castlevnew031pralgle,Clunle. .
§ {4 ~%zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA, I ////g: 0/4 .99035 3.35; ., , 2 99.9
I =r-wsr-77' 1' I'M PEI" " " \'/ 034I/E- 12;. IIM030L-w-030I' - . 14» /
b Em}401}401vgig"0302III IN} : I .3 1 I , , 2' 1w ///
...030,'I.,031-:L:{[i034.'1030éwaufl'ii'III030H0302. ' .g&.:;;030r~.~\'/// :9._ _. _ 0340307.0311;. 030-we .1 99/
031 6'3??? .' "(I 030- II I034. / 7
. 1"». ; 1 030'. 'HD'; ." . gig :53! i .- // d
2.1034034.1030~ --,I __"031, V 034I-030ii';030I . '
. gum . : . IIIIIII: 030 i
y ' 034:34w , 0344:3 M" ELAIIIIRIA 4" 030
l . Side (South West) Elevationi
I 5035 0301 ////035031
0314031035AKI /; '1 1/
iEIII 030L.~ 513%, . 035WWE'VI,§II§034\0301030:030_~...1/
, X: 5' III\ ;/ /,.447 0344'I; .2;.IIII;EI.EI~I.v-~»~r :/
.- ,0310301031034HII'u 0309030»CI«i?'i2541' .= . / 030
/ II I IE030IIIIEII . /
/g.;/.. I .. II ImmAII'IgIIIIIIsg. ____-
. 42;034. ~----030-.'I: ' .. . Wz}401
/ . -' Ir' fr _'»- -;030r,., . ~ -' 12."
v 9/ .2 <7 :Ii-I- II?
:__._....J r L11 024-' -'~ III -. 034WW. ; _ .. 03420310-030 WE; ..
9 .. 1'». I -- ~-024"..m, - '. 030' dtuia}402f'. r ~ _ 7035 ~ 024 "Pg. ' I
024» _,_____.__}401._ «030v030:§:;902471£"4_. - - 030 024- 031- 030-gig .._,_____.,.M...
. _
" N h East Elevation 4;. . - 030_
// Sld6( 0ft ) ' I ////% .w'X/z/f/rt? / / '
{/34 ////~/%F"~I~.1.I030T.
u 034030m}401a}$034035035m10301;/V
3&5 0353:0353.3.2» 51%?035Maadwwg}401an}401034h. 1; 1/
I034. 030;.??'1 . Ii-I}402sil030"7034}1 " I'jI ' 23035" iI :.~.'. r, 0319~ ,- » ' I 1030 .0305031034.54I -" f.030 "-
zI: ,9 2;: '; gs; 0343.4:.035 031 ': IIII035.- 5""'-'-l034030-71a
. _' . I-03413.: .- .' ' :- p?! z.:035""' "-' »
031 .}401-' 44 ILLII030. 024"=7 1- '0~-024024024fv-W 024030_030:___'_"_030::___':034030_030___, _._-_-_ __-_-__.
., ~ ~ « 1111|EPROPOSED PLAN 030
Rear (South East) Elevation m035-3°034 D034035mD034
030 O3 1:100 and ELEVATIONS H035A 035Ma
:Avrf}401s/gv D.R.A.w. Architect CouparAngus
517Page 28
518
Page 29
5(i)(b) LRB-2022-36 LRB-2022-36 22/00477/FLL – Change of use from agricultural storage building to dwellinghouse, including alterations, extension and installation of flue, land 160 metres north east of Logie Brae Farm, Craigie, Clunie, PH10 6RG PLANNING DECISION NOTICE REPORT OF HANDLING REFERENCE DOCUMENTS (part included in applicant’s submission, page 513) 519
Page 30
520
Page 31
521
Page 32
522
Page 33
REPORT OF HANDLING DELEGATED REPORT Ref No 22/00477/FLL Ward No P5- Strathtay Due Determination Date 6th June 2022 Draft Report Date 25th May 2022 Report Issued by AMB Date 26 May 2022 PROPOSAL: Change of use from agricultural storage building to dwellinghouse, including alterations, extension and installation of flue LOCATION: Land 160 Metres North East Of Logie Brae Farm Craigie Clunie SUMMARY: This report recommends refusal of a detailed planning application for the change of use of an existing agricultural building to a dwelling on a site outside Clunie, 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. SITE VISIT: In line with established practices, the need to visit the application site has been carefully considered by the case officer. The application site and its context have been viewed by a variety of remote and electronic means, such as aerial imagery and Streetview, in addition to photographs submitted by interested parties. This information has meant that, in this case, it is possible and appropriate to determine this application without a physical visit as it provides an acceptable basis on which to consider the potential impacts of this proposed development. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL This proposal seeks the change of use of an existing modern agricultural building to a dwelling, on a rural site outside Clunie within the Lunan Valley area. To facilitate the change of use, some external alterations are proposed – which include dormers at first floor level as well as other window / door alterations, and a small extension. The main fabric of the building will remain. The site is accessed via private access, and it is proposed to connect to an existing private drainage system which has been installed off site – and outwith the planning red line planning site. PROCEDURAL MATTER 523
Page 34
Drainage / Redline It is noted that the applicant has opted not to include the proposed drainage system within the planning unit. In this case, they have connecting to an existing system, which has not obtained planning permission in its own right and its installation is specifically contrary to the terms of the planning permission which related to the existing agricultural building. Drainage for this site is particularly sensitive, and is part of one of the main planning issues. The exclusion of it from the planning application site is a concern, as any forthcoming planning permission will seek control over the drainage system, which is far more challenging if the system is outwith the redline - albeit within a blue line which represents land within the applicants control. However, in this case as the ultimate recommendation is for a refusal it is considered reasonable to process the planning application as it stands, however if in the event of any approval of this application being forthcoming the issues over off site drainage and controls over it should be fully considered before a decision is issued. SITE HISTORY The area (including the site itself) has a very long history of refusals relating to a combination of new build residential, and the siting of both temporary and permanent caravans – all with new foul drainage. The most recent of which was 18/00489/IPL for a new dwelling on the site opposite. An agricultural shed was approved on this site in 2009 (09/00170/FUL) however from looking at the plans and images form Google, the shed has actually been built approx. 10m further SE from the details shown on 2009 application, and drainage installed. Condition 4 of the 2009 permission explicitly excluded private drainage. Both these elements may now however be time barred – if commenced / installed 10+ years ago, which is possible but not proven. PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION A pre-application response was issued to the agent concerning this development (19/00339/PREAPP), which raised concerns over the proposal’s compatibility with the LDP2 and the SPG on Housing in the Countryside. 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 looks to support new housing in the open countryside 524
Page 35
in sustainable locations, and to protect our environmentally sensitive sites from inappropriate new developments. 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.” 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, and within the Lunan Valley area where the following policies are applicable, Policy 1A: Placemaking Policy 1B: Placemaking Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions Policy 19: Housing in the Countryside Policy 45A: Lunan Lochs Catchment Area 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 policy towards developer contributions. Housing in the Countryside 2020 This is the most recent expression of Council policy towards new housing in the open countryside. EXTERNAL CONSULTATION RESPONSES Scottish Water have commented on the proposal and raised no objections. 525
Page 36
INTERNAL COUNCIL COMMENTS Transport Planning have commented on the proposal and have raised no objections in terms of the proposed vehicular access and parking issues. Development Contributions Officer has commented on the proposal and indicated that a developer contribution in relation to Primary Education is required in the event of any approval being forthcoming. Environmental Health have commented on the proposal in terms of the proposed stove and air quality and have recommended a standard condition to be attached to any permission. Biodiversity/Tree Officer was consulted on the proposal but have opted not to make any specific comment. REPRESENTATIONS One letter of representation has been received, which is a neutral comment. The main points raised within this letter is that there is a concern that if this application is approved, a similar proposal will be supported (eventually) to the west ie consent for a agricultural store proposed, then in the future a further application lodged for a dwelling. A concern has also been raised about the volume of traffic using the private access. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS Screening Opinion EIA Not Required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not applicable Appropriate Assessment AA Not Required (refusal) Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Submitted 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 planning considerations, consideration of the Council’s SPG on Placemaking, Housing in the Countryside and also Developer Contributions are all material considerations. 526
Page 37
Policy Appraisal In terms of land use policies, the key policies are found within the LDP2. Within that plan, Policy 1 (Placemaking), 19 (Housing in the Countryside) and also 45 (Lunan valley) are all relevant. Policy 1 seeks to ensure that all new developments do not have an adverse impact on the area in which they are located, whilst Policy 19 is the LDP2 version of the HITC policy and needs to be read in conjunction with the SPG of 2020. Both these policies offer support for new housing in the open countryside, in certain instances. Policy 45 looks to protect the environmentally sensitive Lunan Valley area, and to control private drainage. Land Use The site is located within the landward area, where the housing in the countryside policies are applicable – as contained within the LDP2, and the SPG of 2020. Both these documents look to offer support for new housing in the open countryside in certain instances. The proposal is not part of a building ground, not an infill site, not a renovation or replacement of an existing house and is not a brownfield site. The HITC polices offer support for the conversion (or replacement) of non-residential buildings, but this only relates to traditional buildings – not modern ones. The fact that this agricultural store has been wet dashed and finished with slates does not make it traditional. The HITCG 2020 defines ‘traditional’ as being a building which was built before 1919, and as such the proposal does not accord with this section of the HITC policies. There is also some doubt about whether or not the building is redundant, or still in use. If the building is not redundant, then as well as not being traditional, it would also not align with the redundant element of the HITC policy. The HITC policies also offer support for economic need housing, and some mention of this has been made within the applicant’s supporting submission. However, the extent of the ‘blue line’, which indicates land within the applicant’s control appears relevantly small for a functional farm unit and there is no indication of what is occurring on the land in terms of a functional farm operation, and a detailed justification labour unit report. There is also no details of where the main farm buildings are, and how the farm functions. Ultimately, there is insufficient information available to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that firstly, there is a genuine farm operation in existence and secondly that there is a need for onsite presence. In all, the proposal does not accord with the HITC as contained within the LDP2 or the SPG of 2020. 527
Page 38
Visual Amenity, Design and Layout In terms of the impact on the visual amenity of the area, the proposed changes would improve the appearance of the dwelling, However, this alone is not a reason for supporting the proposal when the principle of a residential use on the land is not acceptable and there remains a concern over the proposed drainage arrangements. Residential Amenity The proposal does not directly affect any existing residential amenity. A standard condition should however be attached to any permission in relation to the stove, to ensure air quality is protected. In terms of being able to provide a suitable level of residential amenity for future occupiers of the dwelling, a suitable level of usable amenity space is being delivered for the size of dwelling proposed. Roads and Access The proposal raises no issues in terms of road relates matters. Drainage and Flooding In terms of drainage issues, the site is located within an environmentally sensitive area which is locally known as the Lunan Valley. New stand-alone systems are not generally permitted within this area, and a new development must ensure that the total phosphorus discharge must not exceed the current level. In this case, the approved agricultural unit had a negatively worded condition which was explicit insofar as no foul drainage was to be approved. Regardless of whether or this element is immune from enforcement action, it is unregulated and unconsented, and the exact details of the system which has been installed has not been provided. No details of many people have been using the inside toilet have been submitted, what the capacity of the existing system is and how it discharges - so even working on a basis that the system is now immune from enforcement, if it cannot be demonstrated that the existing usage would be comparable to a family home – the proposed residential use would not comply with Policy 45 of the LDP2 as it has not been demonstrated that the phosphorus discharge from this development does not exceed current levels. It is also not clear is a CAR licence is in place for the existing system, and the proposed system is outwith the red line planning site. Conservation Considerations The proposal does not impact on any cultural heritage issues. 528
Page 39
Natural Heritage and Biodiversity The proposed drainage arrangements could have an adverse impact on the integrity of the Lunan Valley area, which is environmentally sensitive. In the event that the existing building, which has been built with slates, has been empty for some time then there could be local or protected habitats using the building and this should be assessed further in the event of any approval being considered. Developer Contributions In the event of any approval being forthcoming, a developer contribution in relation to Primary Education would be required to be secured. 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 planning application has not been varied. PLANNING OBLIGATIONS AND LEGAL AGREEMENTS None required. DIRECTION BY SCOTTISH MINISTERS None applicable to this proposal. CONCLUSION AND REASONS FOR DECISION To conclude, the application must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this respect, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the Development Plan. Account has been taken of the relevant material considerations and none has been found that would justify overriding the Development Plan. Accordingly the proposal is refused on the grounds identified below. 1 The proposal is for a conversion of a non-traditional building in an isolation location, which is not part of a building group or an infill opportunity. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is a justified economic need for a dwelling in this location. To this end, the proposal is contrary to Policy 19 (Housing in the Countryside) of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and the associated Housing in the Countryside Guide 2020 as the development does not accord with any of the 6 listed categories of acceptable development. 529
Page 40
2 It has not been demonstrated that the total phosphorus discharge from the development will not exceed the current level permitted by an existing SEPA CAR discharge consent licence/authorisation, in accordance with the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended). In addition, the proposed (current) private drainage system is outwith the planning application site which reduces the ability for any potential conditional control. To this end, the proposal is contrary to Policy 45 (Lunan Lochs Catchment Areas) of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) which seeks to protect the environmentally sensitive lochs by controlling foul drainage arrangements for new developments. 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 The applicant should be aware that an enforcement investigation in relation to the authorised foul drainage system, and the amended location of the approved agricultural shed - is to commence. Procedural Notes Not Applicable. PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION 01 – 07 (inclusive) 530
Page 41
531
Page 42
532
Page 43
533
Page 44
534
Page 45
535
Page 46
536
Page 47
537
Page 48
538
Page 49
5(i)(c) LRB-2022-36 LRB-2022-36 22/00477/FLL – Change of use from agricultural storage building to dwellinghouse, including alterations, extension and installation of flue, land 160 metres north east of Logie Brae Farm, Craigie, Clunie, PH10 6RG REPRESENTATIONS 539
Page 50
540
Page 51
541
Page 52
542
Page 53
543
Page 54
544
Page 55
545
Page 56
546
Page 57
547
Page 58
548
Page 59
549
Page 60
550
Page 61
551
Page 62
552
Page 63
553
Page 64
554
Page 65
5(i)(d) LRB-2022-36 LRB-2022-36 22/00477/FLL – Change of use from agricultural storage building to dwellinghouse, including alterations, extension and installation of flue, land 160 metres north east of Logie Brae Farm, Craigie, Clunie, PH10 6RG FURTHER INFORMATION 555
Page 66
556
Page 67
E»
E Perth and Kinross Local Review Body
§ Council Building {
E 2 High Street ' n
g PERTH PHl 5PH Date: IZQQZCZZI
Attn. Lisa Simpson
Dear Ms Simpson
APPLICATION REF. 22I00477IFLL - Proposed Change of Use from
agricultural storage building to dwelling house, Craigie, Clunie for
Mr and Mrs DuncanzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
I refer to your letter dated 6 December 2022, and would respond as follows
(i) Noted
(ii) We note that the SAC Consulting Report will be taken into consideration
by the Local Review Body . 030
(iii) We enclose a copy of the Consulting Engineer's detailed drawing (06) of
- the drainage/disposal plant which was installed030atthe time of the construction
of the building. This received a Building Warrant dated 5 October 2010. No 031
doubt the Phosphorous Mitigation statistics were approved at that time, but we
are happy to pursue this aspect further (allowing for the imminent holiday
period) and liaise with the appropriate authority, eg SEPA and your Building
Standards section, to supply any further information required.
(iv) Noted
Y s sinceéwfm
'd Roche Agent
557Page 68
'U024030024024_024_024030__024024"024V7; 030 V
g: - 3.5mx2.5mx1.2mdeep \ \\ \\
3 . surface water soakaway _ \ \ \ 215 die vent}402nspectionpipe
'5 50 -75 mm dry stone packing With 110 mm \ \ \ at end of tap root.
"7; léVPC sglld p|pe land to fa1Is. . Inspec}401lqemanmk \ /
n eotextlle wrap top and Sldes. Marley or eual' \ \ Test Pit
/
H15 dia vent/inspec}401onpipe \ 1 \ }402034,
gt and 0f tap root. !. \ ooq030034\\ \oog. E a}:
. r l *1; .22e .. .3- :03013-7
L". m _ 035990 \ . '9 .1 Y '1. LL-\ 030F030.034-I:.=034 .-= / L \\ Test P11 1 .3. 315:} .
E 2? 33;... / .a \ . @Fi:\ .030.2 / \§\ , " .__ ff"
N - .22 Amha Septic! (3800') _ *030. 2224.: 110mm dia.rigid UPVC
O 593.; by K$arges or equal as Inspection manhole '3 a... drain for foul waste at 12100
N SOAKAWAY TO 32517120 AND DESIGNED AS requir nd installed to Marley or equal. '1 fall including tap root and
N . molca030raés x manufachrel031sinstructions. brand'nes
E / {v Tank to be t on min of
[0243 / 1. ~? // \\ 300 mm con to bed. Foul soakaway
\
N _ / \ mum fans '4
E) 17" \\ fmmhuilding. Inspection manhole
ho ( \ \ Marley or equal.
\ J \
Surface soakaway\ \ 031I \\
\ *9me. U \
/ xsmwnja (fr \ I x\/ 1 \
- .4,» a \
/ x o 5 0 \\?031¢16 \\ Q1229 \ \- . 5' ." Iv/ .~c {:32 2031.3? \ 12% \
\/ Scale Bar. 1 \
L030 3 . \ ,. \
\ Inspec}402onmanhole\ . 110mm dia.rigid UPVC\ Q \
\ Marley or equal. / drain for foul waste Iald 1m Q \
\ /" falls of min of 1:100 X \
/031 \ 030\ / \ \ \
/ \ . \ 2 \ \ \
,2 \ Test P11 x ll // \ «X \ \
\ . C .'/ \
\ 03422°1031 22"\ 3035\ \
\ 110mm dia.rigid UP/i }402\ Q \ \ \ x \
\\ drain for surfaoe}402aterla'yx" \031\, \ \ S \
\ tofallsofmi}611:100/. ; - Q&\ \ 0, \ 0347% \\
\ x // . . 2 . 0349K \ \ db \\ ;C // l035;- . . . \ .\ .J024X\ \ \ % \
\ qr / 2 , ,2, \ x 030 \ \ \
\ // /I , 2 . ; .3 \ \' \ \ _l \
\ //// 1,,2/ , . . \ \3 \
\< v; /034 030. ' > 2 V 034:_\2 \ / \\
'\ \ .1 I z0311 ,3 031\ \ \ \
030 \ 2031 .- 2 . 2 I2, \ ;X \ \ \ 14 o
\\ \ ' . , ' . 031 '2 - . 030».,_3\ 3 030 \ >\ \ \ O \0 "Off0341
\2. 2 j ' 030'I I K N ' #6 L u030 a. d\\ \\ l" .. . Q ' . \ I / \\ 2) \NM031P030IEU00195310; (HE R301034 ea «33.331333333361939... Hyn
\ ,. p . 2 ' I / }401v}401}401m}401ééase203005003030OS2Z0301W030
2 . g , 030I. . '2 - 1 0 1: 1H
\\ 2\ , . . 2 . . / / 0 .sépfcomggaom 0300 CLAIR ASSOCIATES\ \,\ . . . . , .I ¢ / R030BUN:P030kTN3 C 1034\034 1 2 MCMLASTRICIIRA ENGINEERS
X . .zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA \ 3 Q 3 snmpucs,saowmremv
\\ 0302~2 2 // / / fal}401 \ 0345 3 -031 numesmsm
\ "\\ // 9034\ \ 0L), ' 01352731340 Fax 737360
\ \ \, _ mi \) \ao " . 'm"\\ \ \I 030 i . NHER ' w030'- "v 0301
\ . // Test Pit /\ 5331M) _ \ .f 5 _ . 2 2 0301,
\2. . f / .0 2 w 71w - 1.x\ / \ . . .
\\ .c" / 034m2....034"030*"034030 » . .3
. 3 . Allmlmmy um I-heinplam. 03111 I 1 2
SITE PLAN 1.200 (A3) \ \ r/ 2030 / 031mm... .22... a. 2 ' . .. ~ 2: :1
\ i / mam .suq- . v.03403072-0307.:3 j- _ '1'
\ < / lmymmmu mm mm. -030" Tv
\\ / // m}402n}402ru-anym- Date: 230103252 m1!!!
1116M 0 II m ...2 030
\ / / Inmy--usou:r:tlonsm2h-.:yn1mm .31!) :2. 06 R9115!
\ 3p '. ~ / mlnrwiees '9 030 °"
#! . Ll, I030 ~ . 031
558Page 69
20302, 030 g \ g Local Review Body E Perth and Kinross Council 93 2 High Street & Perth PH1 SPH 2 Feb 2023 Attn Lisa Simpson Dear Ms Simpson APPLICATION REF. 22/00477/FLL - Proposed Change of Use from agricultural storage building to dwelling house, Craigie, Clunie for Mr and Mrs Duncan Further to previous correspondence, we would respond as follows:- We have had extensive consultations with Klargester and our civil engineers. Klargester do not furnish phosphate data, but assure us that they will supply a 034beltand braces" piece of additional equipment030which - having been used in the Loch Leven area - will be to the full satisfaction of PKC, It is our understanding that the Building Warrant issued in 2010, when replacing the old system, will have satisfied all relevant criteria, but whatever may be required by PKC and SEPA to achieve current standards will be carried out. We trust this is satisfactory, and look fonNard to hearing further from you regarding the committee meeting date. David Roche , Agent 559
Page 70
3'? i E g KLARGESTER BIODISC BA SEWAGE TREATMENT o , E PLANT FOR I HOUSE, UP TO 4 BEDROOMS E FmDmes}401cdwe}401ngswi}402mdammmmsdmhmge,me}402§mBioDiscprwidsa °° m,emdanmmrmnmnysafesmuammyourmdisposalneeds.Itisidaalfor lmmm isto sub-surfaoe iniga}401on,orto a suilablewalemourse where apprwedby}402neregdatonammea030Iankwi}401notmeetmerequiredstandardfor addedpeeoedn}401m.weo}401amemmedwananlypedodof7yeats*exdu§vdybrme ' BioDiscBAandBBmodels.030(Termsandoond}402ionsapply)_ }402ieBioDiscBmeOMypmgedMTmamnHamM}401diu}401lises}402nRota}401ngBido Curladmtedmdogymrsnandmes}401capp}401m}401ors}402hbpmo}401asmmwstam pafunnmebme}401tsu}401malowwmonbmpdntmrememargmvnyBioDisc dennnshaledane}401demyra}401ngequwalemtoaperfomlanoeoHOmgnBODS,15mgIlSSand 3.8mgllAmmonia. Ofnose}401unei}402lerGrav}402yorlnbgralnpeGSys}401em(lPS)zGravityismstandardop}401on, howevawteremeinletmmewaumusewsoakawayishiglermanmemmeiofm mmmmmyouwm require}402mop}401onallntegralPumpedsystem(lPS)asmiswilpumpthe wastewateruptulamintoyourdisdiargépointnvepumpedsysbm(lPS)alsooomaswi}402m higllaelalarm. Klargecter BA Tank Features . Marketlwdingexmndedwanaxuyperiodo}401yars031metmapply) - Alfordablerunningandmainbnanceoosls . Lwnoiseinopera}401onandOdomFreeMBSEmanSstandard) . Slilableforhomeswimuptospeople . Lowpm}401leoovelsforminimalvisualimpadanddlildpmo}402ocks. o Invenoplionslnmatdlmesihe . CaMpanelistmanWiatealertwhmapmblemoomrs . SingIephasesfandatdpmersupply . Optimalinlaegralpmnpavailable . Certi}401edtoEumpwnSIandamEN12566Palt3 . CEn'alked o PtmIpedu}402ietSO}402}402nMDPEoomprasion}401}401ng BATechnimlDaia m_ m_w024 560
Page 71
E g '0 .5; : m_w- S _IE_ L" E 034024811024 r $ m_l-Z024 024__ mm024m024 Performance and Compliance . Certi}401edtoEmopeanSIandardBSEN 12566 Parl3. o Petfonnanee oel}401}401edmachieve 10 mgll BODS, 15 mgll SS and 3.8 mgll ammonia. . FullymarkedinlinewimmeCPRzma. 561
Page 72
562
Page 73
Comments from Planning Officer on SAC Report General observations about the SAC report: 1. The report is not up to date and is 6 months+ old (May 2022). 2. The farm only comprises 8 adult cows, their calves (15 or so) and 4 lambing sheep (8 lambs yearly?). This is not an excessive farm business. 3. There are no accounts to demonstrate that the farm is financially sound and economically viable. Audited accounts for a period of between 3-5 years are expected to demonstrate this. The main observation is that the report indicates that the overall labour units of the farm is only 0.23 labour units. One labour unit equals one full time equivalent worker. Based on the report, the farm business requires around ¼ of a full time worker to operate as it currently does. For planning applications to be considered for support under the economic need element of the HITCG 2020 / Policy 19 of the LDP2, there needs to be clear evidence of need. The threshold for this is typically one full time labour unit per new residential unit. This has not been demonstrated in this case. Andy Baxter 563
Page 74
564
Page 75
2 E g E b The Clerk to the Local Review Body 15 March 2023 E Perth and Kinross Council i Dear Ms Simpson Application Ref. 22I00477 - Change of Use from Agricultural Storage building to Dwellinghousel Craigie, Clunie :- for Mr W and Mrs J Duncan Thank you for your letter dated 1 March 2023 and the attached written response from Development Management (Planning). We have the following comments to make in response to the latter. and an additional representation from Urban Rural Design will be e-mailed by close of business today (15th.) 1 Mr Baxter states that the SAC Report is 034notup to date...and is 6 months old". We have previously explained that this Report was delayed due to SAC staff shortages / the pandemic etc., which was outwith our control. To imply , that being 0346months old" adversely affects the validity of its recommendations seems unreasonable. ' 2. We do not understand the statement that 034Thisis not an excessive farm business." Also, 034a1/4 of a farm worker" is one worker. Mr Duncan has been that one worker for many years, and only seeks to continue his passion by giving his animals the best care. Sadly this has not proved possible on several occasions because of his difficulty in responding soon enough - living 20 minutes away. Veterinary professionals will attest to his high standards of care, and he is fully qualified, with NFU membership , QMS assured, BRN registered. licensed to transport livestock, appropriately insured etc., etc. This is not a 034hobby"operation. 3. As for accounts. I am not aware that these have been previously requested, but are available of course. In conclusion. we are happy to consider any reasonable amendments to the proposals, for example removing any upper floor shown on our plans. We trust this is helpful meantime. Yours sincerely David Roche Architect/Agent 565
Page 76
566
Page 77
ApplicaƟon Number 22/00477/FLL Change of Use of Agricultural Storage Building to Dwellinghouse, including alterations, extension and installation of flue, land 160 meters north east of Logie Brae, Craiagie, Clunie Please find below our response to the Comments received on the 1st March 2023 to the Development Quality Manager on ApplicaƟon ref. LRB-2022-36 We acknowledge receipt of the wriƩen submission received from Development Management which was requested by members of the local review body. We wish to respond to this by noƟng our wish to have this applicaƟon considered by the local review body in the round as we believe this applicaƟon presents a unique set of circumstances, in that this is not a proposal for a new build dwelling which requires a labour jusƟficaƟon to support. In this instance the applicant is submiƫng a proposal for a change of use, of an arguably atypical, redundant agricultural shed which is surplus to requirements and the proposals tabled for its sympatheƟc change of use to a dwelling for the farmers farming their Agricultural holding. There has also been other policies and legislaƟon which have come in to play. Just before the applicaƟon presented was submiƩed and laterally with the naƟonal planning direcƟve, raƟfied last month by the Scoƫsh Government, which we wish to make reference to within our response as these are of specific interest we feel when considering this applicaƟon. In response the leƩer received: We acknowledge that the Labour jusƟficaƟon statement falls short of the threshold deemed appropriate in terms of man hours, however the agricultural holding is acƟve and one which would definiƟvely benefit from the onsite presence of the farmer for welfare and security reasons . To this end we feel this applicaƟon should be assessed in the round, given that the building proposed is already primarily evident on site, albeit one which is redundant and no longer suitable to meet the needs of the agricultural unit. We would therefore like to take this opportunity to reiterate a few points that we feel are worth considering in this unique circumstance: The Housing in the Countryside Policy – Supplementary Guidance : The Local Development Plan 2 Policy 19: Housing in the Countryside specifically states the aims of the policy are as follows: safeguard the character of the countryside; support the viability of communiƟes; 567
Page 78
meet development needs in appropriate locaƟons; and ensure that high standards of siƟng and design are achieved. Central to achieving this is harnessing the potenƟal of the numerous redundant tradiƟonal rural buildings which contribute to the character and quality of the countryside. We feel the applicaƟon presented in essence meets all these key criteria set out above. SiƟng: As per the supporƟng statement submiƩed as part of the planning applicaƟon package, the applicants have farmed as tenants on the holding since 2011, following which they purchased the agricultural farmland and shed in 2019 from the previous owners. The incumbent agricultural shed relaƟng to this applicaƟon was constructed by the previous owner in 2009 and our clients subsequently bought the shed and land in 2019 in good faith. Therefore the locaƟon of the shed in relaƟon to the previous applicaƟon was not within our clients control or influence. Whilst it is unfortunate that the shed was built 10m away from the original approved locaƟon to some degree this is immaterial to the current applicaƟon as the shed has been in situ for over 10 years and therefore as noted in the report of handling, is duly accepted because of the Ɵme – bar rule. Notwithstanding this the applicaƟon in 2009 was approved by Perth and Kinross Council as an agricultural shed and therefore deemed appropriate in terms of massing, siƟng and general locaƟon. Given the shed has been erected since 2009, 14 years, it is also arguably an integral part of the character of the countryside fabric in this area. The current housing in the countryside policy and guidance specifically notes that ALL sites must firstly meet the siƟng criteria set within the guidance – copy of which is noted below with our site- specific response noted: Have designaƟons or constraints that may affect development in the area been considered? To our knowledge there are no design consideraƟons which effect the proposed development as the building is already in place and the proposed alteraƟons are relaƟvely minimal in nature, given the overall massing and form is in situ. The designaƟon of the Lunan Valley catchment area, and the appropriate means of dealing with the phosphorous ouƞall, will result in a technical soluƟon and therefore an aspect that we feel could be condiƟoned on a successful determinaƟon based on the informaƟon submiƩed as part of the original applicaƟon. The applicaƟon we feel therefore meets this part of the criteria. Does the design respond well to site topography? Is excessive underbuilding avoided? There is no underbuilding and we believe the shed, as it currently sits, is located well with the local topography as it has a rising landform behind and therefore meets the criteria. 568
Page 79
Does the proposal compliment and / or enhance the local vernacular? Are buildings sympatheƟc in terms of scale and proporƟon to other dwellings in the locality? Large, single storey, deep plan houses, for example, can appear out of scale in a countryside seƫng. The Shed displays a tradiƟonal form, akin to that found of buildings of a more residenƟal feel i.e pitched roof and simple plan form in line with that expected given its approved use. It uƟlises tradiƟonal materials such as wetdash render and slate effect Ɵles, not common of a typical agricultural shed set within the landscape currently, i.e. it Is not a steel framed, metal clad, modern agricultural shed. To some degree this is to the credit of the build that the previous owner had made a conscious effort to conform with tradiƟonal materials, so therefore we feel the shed compliments the local vernacular and meets the criteria. Are roof heights and extensions appropriate in scale and do they avoid dominaƟng the dwelling? The minor alteraƟons proposed as part of this applicaƟon are sympatheƟc and are enƟrely within keeping of the original essence of the building. A number of the design tweaks would be considered under householder permiƩed development if these amendments were to be made to an established dwelling. Therefore we feel this aspect of the siƟng criteria is met. Does the design and finish of outbuildings reflect the style of the main dwellings? Not applicable to this applicaƟon as there are no outbuildings proposed. Does the design and siƟng of the house facilitate energy efficiency in terms of solar gain and shelter? The shed is orientated north / south and sheltered from south westerly prevailing winds by the tree belt, therefore the orientaƟon possess no concern in terms of energy efficiency. Are materials sourced responsibly? Are exisƟng materials, parƟcularly stone and slate, reused where possible? This applicaƟon is the very essence of sustainable development, taking a redundant building and giving it a new lease of life, therefore all materials arguably have the upmost sustainability credenƟals. Is the proposal well integrated with the exisƟng landform and does it avoid dominaƟng the landscape? The shed has strong landscape boundaries to the south east and south west through mature tree belts, a landscape boundary to the north east and north west through exisƟng hedging, shrubbery and self seeded trees, the site therefore displays robust boundaries which is favoured as part of siƟng criteria. The shed as it currently sits does not in any way dominate the landscape and is effecƟvely screened from any vantage point. Therefore this part of the guidance is also met. 569
Page 80
Having reviewed the Criteria for siƟng, the applicaƟon in quesƟon meets all the required criteria, as outlined above, in our opinion. In terms of the jusƟficaƟon and which aspect of the policy the proposals are to be assessed under is also key to meeƟng the key aspects of the guidance. Policy 19 therefore supports proposals for the erecƟon, or creaƟon through conversion, of single houses and groups of houses in the countryside which fall into at least one of the following categories: (1) Building Groups (2) Infill sites (3) New houses in the open countryside on defined categories of sites as set out in secƟon 3 of the Supplementary Guidance (4) RenovaƟon or replacement of houses (5) Conversion or replacement of redundant non-domesƟc buildings (6) Development on rural brownfield land The applicaƟon of Policy 19 is limited within the Green Belt to proven economic need, conversions or replacement buildings (Categories 3.3, 4 and 5). Our understanding is in line with that noted by the planning officer in that the HITC polices offer support for the conversion (or replacement) of non-residential buildings, but this relates to traditional buildings. We note the definiƟon of TradiƟonal Buildings in the HITC Policy: For the purposes of this Supplementary Guidance, 'tradiƟonal buildings' are defined as buildings usually constructed before 1919 of materials which would have been available in the local area at that Ɵme, largely stone (with or without harling) and slate. The wording of the policy is open to interpretation as it is not ‘solely or restricted to’ Traditional buildings constructed pre 1919 , it is usually - the definiƟon of usually : Commonly encountered, experienced, or observed or In conformity with regular practice or procedure: We wish to note that in this instance the agricultural building in question is not usual or commonly encountered, in our experience, when considering agricultural sheds erected post 1919. The building is not as quoted within the policy guidance typical of non- traditional - non-domesƟc buildings and structures constructed of modern materials such as steel, corrugated iron or concrete; this shed uses none of these materials. We therefore feel the shed should be considered for what the building displays, it is not a metal clad, steel framed modern agricultural building and more akin to a tradiƟonal form and materials as that stated harling and slate effect Ɵles, albeit erected post 1919. Furthermore the prior noƟficaƟon planning policy and permiƩed development circular, adopted in April 2022, permits farmers to convert agricultural buildings, on an agricultural holding, providing 570
Page 81
they pre-date November 2019, into housing. There is no sƟpulaƟon on the age or requirement for these to be ‘ tradiƟonal’ either. In order to meet the prior noƟficaƟon criteria, the footprint area can be no more than 150sqm per unit, of which this sheds current footprint meets. Therefore without the modest small entrance porch this development would potenƟally meet the criteria of permiƩed development under agricultural prior noƟficaƟon. Furthermore the NaƟonal Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) which has recently been raƟfied by the Scoƫsh government has also made reference to rural planning policies and our understanding is that applicaƟons need to be assessed under the local LDP, however should there be a deviaƟon in relaƟon to the naƟonal policy , the naƟonal policy takes precedence. Therefore as outlined below Development proposals for new homes in rural areas will be supported where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area and the development, in this case reuses a redundant or unused building; The NPF4 makes no reference to the buildings need to be ‘tradiƟonal’ therefore in our opinion the current proposals also meet the current naƟonal planning framework. Extract from NaƟonal Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) Rural homes Policy Principles Policy Intent: Policy 17 a) Development proposals for new homes in rural areas will be supported where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area and the development: i. is on a site allocated for housing within the LDP; ii. reuses brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervenƟon; iii. reuses a redundant or unused building; iv. is an appropriate use of a historic environment asset or is appropriate enabling development to secure the future of historic environment assets; v. is demonstrated to be necessary to support the sustainable management of a viable rural business or croŌ, and there is an essenƟal need for a worker (including those taking majority control of a farm business) to live permanently at or near their place of work; vi. is for a single home for the reƟrement succession of a viable farm holding; vii. is for the subdivision of an exisƟng residenƟal dwelling; the scale of which is in keeping with the character and infrastructure provision in the area; or viii. reinstates a former dwelling house or is a one-for-one replacement of an exisƟng permanent house. In conclusion we fully appreciate that planning applicaƟon proposals require to meet the development policies set out in Perth and Kinross LDP3 and also NPF4. We believe the applicaƟon presented does whole heartedly fall within the polices as outlined above. The proposal meets all the required siƟng criteria and represents the most sustainable form of development through the reuse of a redundant, unsuitable incumbent building. Our clients, as expressed within the applicaƟon, have a requirement to be on site to ensure animal welfare and to reduce the unsustainable transport involved in farming the site remotely. The 571
Page 82
proposal has no detrimental impact on the countryside and therefore we feel this applicaƟon should be approved. 572
Page 83
1 Audrey Brown From: Andy Baxter Sent: 20 April 2023 15:12 To: Audrey Brown Cc: Christine Brien; Paul Williamson Subject: FW: LRB-20220-36 (Request for Comments) Attachments: Lunan_Lochs_2020_Adopted (1).pdf Hello Audrey, Thanks for the email. There is not to much to comment on I’m afraid. In order for the proposal to be potential compliant with Policy 45 of the LDP2, the applicant / agents needs to provide detailed information that can demonstrate how they are delivering a 125% betterment in terms of the phosphorus loading on the environmentally sensitive lochs. This requires more than just a super-efficient new onsite system, and typically requires an existing system either onsite (which is not applicable here) or off site being upgraded - to provide the required mitigation, in combination with the new system (if they are different). An example of the calculations required can be seen on P8 of the attached guidance. In addition to the working out of the numbers, we also require the names of the property(s) being upgraded, their sizes in terms of bedrooms, the location of their systems and details of both the existing old system(s) and what is (has) going (gone) in as the replacement. Part of that has been submitted in terms of what is in. The additional information does not include enough of the required information, so nether I or SEPA can comment further on whether or not acceptable mitigation has been provided, or can be. 573
Page 84
I would also add that as per the ROH the existing foul drainage did not benefit from any planning permission, and the application before the LRB does not seek to regulate it- so the planning advisor should be mindful of that. Lastly, as I’ve mentioned previously, in terms of their labour units, it is really important that the LRB panel of members fully understand that 0.25 labour units equates to a ¼ of a typical full time post, and that the current farm only comprises 8 adult cows, 15 or so calves and 4 lambing sheep (8 lambs yearly?). Whilst we do try to be as reasonable, pragmatic and helpful as possible to our local farmers and rural workers, the bar for a new house that is solely based on economic need is normally set at getting a minimal justification for at least 1 full time equivalent – which is accompanied by appropriate accounts, stock details, business plan etc to demonstrate that the business is established and viable. We don’t have this here. Moving towards an approval based on 0.25 labour units would set a very difficult precedent for other cases. Hope this helps. Andy Baxter Planning Officer 574
Page 85
Lunan Valley Area Dunkeld - Blairgowrie Lochs Special Area of Conservation Planning advice in relation to phosphorus and foul drainage in the catchment area (2020)575
Page 86
Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 The Importance of Dunkeld - Blairgowrie Lochs 1 3 The Nutrient Problem at Dunkeld - Blairgowrie Lochs SPA 2 4 Planning Authorities’ Obligations 2 5 Proposals that may Affect Dunkeld - Blairgowrie Lochs SPA 3 6 Phosphorus Mitigation Checklist 4 7 Submitting a Planning Application 5 8 Phosphorus Mitigation Calculation 6 9 Additional Points for Phosphorus Mitigation 6 10 Why 125%? 7 11 SEPA Authorisation 7 12 Before Development Can Commence 8 13 Further Considerations 8 14 Contact 9 All images in this document are credited to NatureScot. 576
Page 87
1 1 Introduction The guidance provides advice on the types of appropriate information and safeguards to be provided in support of your planning application so that it can be properly and timeously assessed by Perth & Kinross Council, and includes: • An explanation of planning authorities’ obligations when evaluating planning applications; • Advice on the nature of developments that may affect the Lunan Lochs Catchment Area; and Examples of information which you need to submit with your planning application and application for a foul water discharge licence under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) (CAR) – there is a flow chart on page 4 taking you through the key questions and answers/ solutions. This guidance relates specifically to water quality of the Dunkeld- Blairgowrie Lochs SAC and phosphorus entering the loch’s catchment. There may be other qualifying features of the SAC which could be affected by development proposals e.g. disturbance to otters or habitat change. 2 The Importance of the Dunkeld - Blairgowrie Lochs The Dunkeld-Blairgowrie Lochs consists of a chain of five kettle hole lochs that are of international importance for their aquatic habitats and species, including slender naiad. The site has the highest wildlife accolade as it is designated as an SAC and is part of the Natura 2000 network – a series of internationally important wildlife sites throughout the European Union. This guidance aims to assist anyone submitting planning applications which are: • within the Lunan Lochs Catchment Area • which could affect the water quality of Dunkeld– Blairgowrie Lochs Special Area of Conservation (SAC). 577
Page 88
2 3 The Nutrient Problem at the Dunkeld - Blairgowrie Lochs Nutrients such as phosphorus entering the loch catchment from manmade sources have caused problems with water quality for many years. Elevated nutrient levels in warmer months can lead to cyanobacteria or blue-green algae blooms. These bacteria can be toxic to people, pets, livestock and wildlife. An algal bloom can therefore result in a loss of amenity as the public have to avoid the lochs until the bloom has passed and may also result in fish and potentially livestock deaths. As the bloom subsides and the algae breaks down there is an associated depletion in the oxygen level in the loch which will have a further damaging effect on the loch ecosystem. Much work has been undertaken over the last decade to reduce the input of phosphorus into the lochs. Recent monitoring has shown this is leading to an improvement in the ecological quality of the loch. However, this improvement is still vulnerable to setbacks so there is a continuing need to reduce both phosphorus inputs to the lochs. The aim is therefore to ensure that there is no increase of phosphorus in the Dunkeld- Blairgowrie Lochs catchment arising from waste water associated with new developments. If there is an increase in phosphorus discharging to the loch, there could be a detrimental effect on water quality, and a knock-on effect for ecology. 4 Planning Authorities’ Obligations The European legislation under which sites are selected as SACs is the Habitats Directive, which sets out obligations on Member States to take appropriate steps to avoid “the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant.” These obligations relate to “Competent Authorities” such as Planning Authorities. Planning Authorities can only agree to development proposals after having ascertained that they will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. If the proposal would affect the site and there are no alternative solutions, it can only be allowed to proceed if there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Perth and Kinross Council apply Policy 45: Lunan Lochs Catchment Area1 as laid out in Local Development Plan 2 to assist them in their consideration of a development proposal. 1 Dunkeld-Blairgowrie Lochs SAC catchment and the Lunan Valley Catchment Area are coincident. 578
Page 89
3 New developments, conversions or extensions where the potential capacity to house people is being increased may impact on the Dunkeld - Blairgowrie SAC. If the proposed development lies in the catchment as shown by the red line on the map, you may be required to provide phosphorus mitigation for your development, as detailed in the sections below. The map is a guide – if a development is near the border confirmation should be sought as to whether it is within the Lunan Lochs catchment. 5 Proposed Projects that May Affect the Dunkeld- Blairgowrie Lochs SAC 579
Page 90
4 6 Phosphorus Mitigation Checklist Will the drainage be diverted outwith the catchment area? Submit normal planning application No Yes No Yes Phosporus Mitigation Proposals Drainage must be put in place mitigation that is capable of removing 125% of phosphorus likely to be generated by the development from the Lunan Lochs catchment (Policy 45) and apply to SEPA for a licence to discharge under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended). See section 8 for a worked example of phosphorus mitigation. Acceptable forms of phosphorus mitigation Upgrade the septic tank of an existing property within the catchment area to an active system that reduces phosphorus (secondary/tertiary treatment plant) - this may be with a third party. Unacceptable forms of phosphorus mitigation • Change in agricultural practice; • Change in land use; • Using “capacity” from a previous application. Is the proposal for a new development, conversion or extension where the potential capacity for housing people being increased; and does the new development have any phosphorus discharge (e.g. foul water drainage, sewage, septic tank or sink discharges)? 580
Page 91
5 7 Submitting a Planning Application With your full planning application or AMM (approval of matters specified in conditions) you will need to provide details of: a. the proposed development; b. an existing property to be upgraded – which has not already been identified as mitigation for another planning application; c. phosphorus mitigation calculations – include numbers of potential bedrooms of all properties, and methods of drainage (primary/secondary/tertiary treatment plant).1 Treatment plant should conform to BS EN 12566:3 and have demonstrated its phosphorus reduction capabilities. You will need to demonstrate that the total phosphorus loading from the existing property can be reduced by at least 125% of the phosphorus loading likely to be generated by the new development (Policy 44) – see worked example overleaf Any treatment plant should conform to BS EN 12566:3 and have demonstrated its phosphorus reduction capabilities in accordance with this standard. To obtain certification to EN12566,3 plants must undergo rigorous independent testing which results in a documented mean discharge standard. The mean standard in the EN12566:3 certificate is a clear and unambiguous assessment of the performance of the plants, and is used in CAR licences for unsampled licenced sewage discharges (i.e. discharges of less than 200 PE). EN12566:3 is normally used to assess performance against BOD and ammonia, but can also be used to assess performance against total phosphorus. _________________ 1. The latest version of British Water Code of Practice - Flows and Loads has details of loadings from a variety of sources • Discharge from all the properties will require authorisation by SEPA under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) (CAR) who will set discharge limits through licensing. The licensing process has a 4 month determination period from the date of application. Progressing the CAR applications at the same time as the planning application will ensure an applicant is aware of whether a proposed scheme is capable of being consented under CAR. (see section 11 below). • The discharge limits set by SEPA must be complied with at all times. • Foul water treatment plants need to be frequently maintained to work properly and discharge within the licensed limits. Evidence of regular maintenance contracts must be provided as part of the SEPA water use licence. • Sites which will not connect to the Scottish Water Network which have 50>p.e. should contact SEPA at the earliest opportunity as additional investigatory work will be required prior to a discharge licence application being submitted. • In cases of great complexity or uncertainty the Precautionary Principle will be adopted. The assumption being that where there are real threats of damage to the environment, lack of scientific information should not be used as a justification for postponing measures to prevent such damage occurring. 581
Page 92
6 8 Phosphorus Mitigation Calculation: worked example2 Existing properties should not be removed from a larger foul drainage treatment system to provide mitigation for a new development. The applicant should seek to upgrade the larger system in its entirety, regardless of how much in excess of 125% mitigation value this provides. Also, wherever possible, applicants should seek to use a single treatment system for a proposed multi- property development, rather than separate systems for individual properties. Any novel proposals where mitigation is not from a single existing property, should be discussed with SEPA at the earliest stage possible, in order to ensure the proposal is acceptable. For the purposes of mitigation, ascribed values will be used for calculations, where a septic tank is assumed to discharge 10mg/l of phosphorus, and an existing secondary treatment system 5mg/l. New treatment system discharge standards will be based on the system being installed. Alternatives to the ascribed values may be considered where there is adequate historical data which meets approved quality standards. In these cases contact should be made with SEPA at the earliest opportunity. Please note that we do not accept any discharge quality standard below 2mg/l at present. Mitigation of an existing system can only be linked to a development at full planning stage. SEPA will only comment on phosphorus mitigation proposals at full planning application stage. Background Average amount of water per person per day 150 L Primary treatment: septic tank, standard discharge of phosphorus as a mean 10mgP/L Daily discharge of phosphorus per person 1500mgP Secondary treatment: package treatment plan as a mean 5mgP/L Daily discharge of phosphorus per person 750mgP Proposed Development 3 bedroom house in Person Equivalent (PE) Secondary treatment to be installed 5 PE 5mgP/L Daily Discharge of phosphorus (750mgP x5PE) 3750mgP/day Phosphorus Mitigation x125% Mitigation required is 125% of P discharged from new development: 125% x 3750mgP/day 4688mgP/day Proposed mitigation to upgrade septic tank for named 5 bedroom house (7PE) to secondary treatment plant Existing discharge 150L x 10mgP/L x 7PE 10,500mgP/day Discharge after upgrade@5mgP/L: 750mgP x 7PE 5,250mgP/day Mitigation offered: 10,500mgP/day - 5250mgP/day Mitigation in excess of requirement 5250mgP/day ____________________________________ 2. Calculations based on British Water Code of Practice “Flows & Loads - Sizing Criteria, Treatment Capacity for Small Wastewater Treatment Systems 9 Additional Points for Phosphorus Mitigation Proposals 582
Page 93
7 11 SEPA Authorisation SEPA regulates discharges to water and land under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) (CAR). All CAR Registration level private sewage discharges in the Lunan Lochs catchment area will be escalated to simple licence level, to allow adequate assessment of the discharge. Progressing the CAR applications at the same time as the planning application will ensure the applicant is aware of whether a proposed scheme is capable of being consented under CAR. Please note that additional authorisation for development activities adjacent to, and in the vicinity of watercourses may be required under the Controlled Activities Regulations. A higher level of licence protection may also be required for activities that may impact on the loch SPA, such as engineering works in inland waters, water abstraction, impoundment or discharge to land and water. Any such authorisation will also need to first consider the effects on the SPA. For details on these activities including CAR requirements see www.sepa.org.uk/regulations/water/ Activities should also comply with: • SEPA’s Pollution Prevention Guidance including: GPP4 Treatment and disposal of wastewater where there is no connection to the public foul sewer; and • SEPA’s Policy and Supporting Guidance on Provision of Waste Water Drainage in Settlements Bearing in mind the Precautionary Principle and the fact that the measurement of potential phosphorus output is not an exact science, then mitigation measures must seek to exclude from the catchment area in excess of the phosphorus likely to be generated by the proposed development in order to be sure that there is no net increase. 10 Why 125%? 583
Page 94
8 12 Before Development Can Commence Before development can commence you must: • have obtained planning permission; and • have obtained a CAR licence(s) under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities)(Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) for the foul water discharge of the development; including for any remote mitigation property. • submit copies of the CAR licence(s) to the Planning Authority; • have a receipt for the above documentation from the Planning Authority. Where phosphorus mitigation measures are to be delivered at a location separate from the development site then before the development can commence: • the phosphorus mitigation measures must be installed using a treatment system which delivers the discharge quality standards specified in the mitigation calculations – and approved by Building Standards where a building warrant has been required; and • evidence of the installation of the phosphorus mitigation measures must be provided to the Planning Authority such as installation invoices and photos of the treatment plant in place. Before the completion certificate will be accepted and the new development can be occupied: • The new drainage infrastructure installation at the development site must be approved by Building Standards as part of building warrant process. 13 Further Considerations Other Impacts on the Lunan Lochs Designations Although this guidance is specifically for the water quality of Dunkeld - Blairgowrie Lochs SAC, further information may be required of the impact of the development on the qualifying features and conservation objectives of the Loch. See: • NatureScot Guidance on Protection of Natura Sites • NatureScot Sitelink for further details on the Dunkeld - Blairgowrie Lochs SAC designations including conservation objectives. Protected Habitats and Species There may be other natural heritage interests such as protected species such as water voles, bats, otters and beavers affected by development proposals which also need to be considered. See Perth & Kinross Council’s Planning for Nature guidance for more information on surveys that may be required. Building Warrant In addition to any planning consents that may be required, any development which includes an element of drainage will require building warrant approval. This process includes a requirement to submit detailed plans and specifications for the entire drainage system to show compliance with the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004. See www.pkc.gov.uk/Buildingstandards 584
Page 95
9 14 Contact NatureScot, SEPA and Perth and Kinross Council are working closely to protect the interests of Dunkeld-Blairgowrie Lochs SPA a by reducing phosphorus loading on the lochs. Perth & Kinross Council are happy to assist you where required in submitting your application, including pre-application discussion. Perth and Kinross Council For planning enquiries: • DevelopmentManagement@pkc.gov.uk • www.pkc.gov.uk/makingaplanningapplication For building warrant enquiries: • BuildingStandards@pkc.gov.uk • www.pkc.gov.uk/buildingstandards NatureScot • www.nature.scot • tayside_grampian@nature.scot Scottish Environment Protection Agency • 0800 807060 • www.sepa.org.uk • planning.se@sepa.org.uk Scottish Water • 0845 600 8855 www.pkc.gov.uk (PKC Design Team - 2018619) All Council Services can offer a telephone translation If you or someone you know would like a copy of this document in another language or format, (on occasion, only a summary of the document will be provided in translation), this can be arranged by contacting the Customer Service Centre on 01738 475000. You can also send us a text message on 07824 498145. 585
Page 96
586