Item 4(ii) LRB-2023-16

Perth and Kinross Council · 3 July 2023
Back to Local Review Body — 3 July 2023 and its agenda

Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.

Original council PDF · Download plain text

Page 1

4(ii) 
LRB-2023-16 
LRB-2023-16 – 22/01279/FLL – Change of use and
alterations to agricultural building and workshop to form 3
holiday accommodation units, Easdale, Weem, Aberfeldy,
PH15 2LD 
INDEX 
(a) Papers submitted by the Applicant (Pages 125-172) 
(b) Decision Notice (Pages 171-172) 
Report of Handling (Pages 175-182) 
Reference Documents (Pages 183-214) 
(c) Representations (Pages 215-226) 
123

Page 2

Page 3

4(ii)(a) 
LRB-2023-16 
LRB-2023-16 – 22/01279/FLL – Change of use and
alterations to agricultural building and workshop to form 3
holiday accommodation units, Easdale, Weem, Aberfeldy,
PH15 2LD 
PAPERS SUBMITTED
BY THE
APPLICANT  
125

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

1 
Glen Blackler, Glenalmond, Perthshire PH1 3SF
Tel: (H) 01738 880 373 (M) 07922 442 107
Email: gdimeckplanning@gmail.com
www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk 
Local Review Body
Perth & Kinross Council
Committee Services
Council Building
2 High Street
Perth
PH1 5PH 
April 06 2023
Dear Sirs,
Submission of Request for Local Review
Planning Application: 22/01279/FLL
Proposal: Change of use and alterations to agricultural building and workshop to form 3 holiday
accommodation units
Site: ‘Easdale’, Weem, Aberfeldy, PH15 2LD
On behalf of the applicant, Mr R Tainsh I am pleased to submit this request for a review of decision of
Planning Application 22/01279/FLL.  This request is submitted within 3 months of the Refusal decision
and I attach here:
• Applicants Review Forms;
• Applicants Review Statement with Appendices (A-D)
• Appendix A – Photographs of Site and Setting 
• Appendix B – Case Summary
• Appendix C – List of Development Plan Policies satisfied by proposals
• Appendix D – Plan showing additional land in ownership of applicant which can be used to deliver new planting as
a natural flood management measure.
• Application Refusal Notice;
Please Note Appendix D did not form part of the original submission. However, the planting is
suggested as a means of delivering an improvement to the water environment as a public amenity
gain.  The land is in the ownership of the applicant.
Yours faithfully
GDimeck BTP MRTPI 
131

Page 10

Page 11

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    1 | P a g e
S43A(8) REVIEW OF PLANNING DECISION 
CHANGE OF USE AND ALTERATIONS TO AGRICULTURAL BUILDING AND WORKSHOP TO
FORM 3 HOLIDAY UNITS 0N LAND AT ‘EASDALE’, WEEM, ABERFELDY, PH15 2LD 
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF MR R TAINSH (APPLICANT) IN RESPECT OF 
PLANNING REFUSAL 22/01279/FLL 
APRIL 2023 
133

Page 12

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    2 | P a g e
DOCUMENT ISSUE RECORD 
Client  Mr R Tainsh 
Contact Details c/o GD Planning Ltd 
Glen Blackler
Glenalmond
Perth 
PH1 3SF 
Name Title 
Prepared By:  G Dimeck BTP MRTPI  Principal Planner GD Planning Ltd 
Approved By:  G Dimeck BTP MRTPI  Director GD Planning Ltd 
Date of Issue:  06 April 2023 
Issue Date Version
1 18 March 2023 Draft Internal Review
2 06 April 2023 Client Draft
3 06 April 2023 Finalised Statement 
www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk 
134

Page 13

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    3 | P a g e
DISCLAIMER 
This Statement has been prepared for the use of Mr Tainsh to support a submission to Perth &
Kinross Council’s Local Review Body and should not be reproduced in whole or part, nor relied upon
by any third party, for any use whatsoever, without the express written authorisation of GD Planning
Ltd. If any third party comes into possession of this report, they rely on it at their own risk. GD
Planning Ltd accepts no duty or responsibility (including in negligence) to any such third party. 
135

Page 14

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    4 | P a g e
CONTENTS 
1.0 Introduction ……………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5
2.0 Location………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7
3.0 Proposal………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
4.0 Reasons for Review…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
5.0 Process of Review……….……………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………….……10
6.0 Submitted Documents …………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………...10
7.0 The Development Plan……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..10
8.0 Response to Refusal Reason……………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………….11
9.0 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..23 
Appendix A Photographs of site and setting
Appendix B Key point summary of Case
Appendix C Development Plan Policies satisfied by proposals
Appendix D Other land in applicant ownership 
136

Page 15

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    5 | P a g e
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The building the subject of this review is a redundant agricultural barn within the former Weem
Farm steading group. The group comprises farmhouse together with a range of traditional stone and
slate farm buildings. 
Fig 1 Steading group at heart of village visible from B846
1.2 Part of the range has been converted to residential use, with planning permission. That dwelling is
the applicants home and is linked to the application site. Part of the remainder benefits from an
unimplemented planning permission for a second dwelling.   
Fig 2 Converted barn (applicants home) with unimplemented planning permission for conversion to residential use circled
1.3 The review building is attached to, and is an integral part of the range, and is located to the rear.
137

Page 16

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    6 | P a g e
. 
Fig 3 Review building is located to the rear of the Weem Farm steading range 
Figs 4 Review building, attached to, and located to the rear of, the Weem Farm steading range
1.4 This is a historic building group (early 19th Century), which largely remains intact, although the
adjacent smithy buildings (see historic map below), has since been demolished.      
Figs 4 & 5 1862 Six-inch Survey & aerial view today
138

Page 17

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    7 | P a g e
2.0 LOCATION
2.1 The steading group is prominently sited adjacent to the road (B846), at the heart of Weem.
2.2 LDP2 identifies Weem as a historic village, and defines a settlement boundary to allow for small-
scale infill development to help sustain the community. 
2.3 The application site lies within that village settlement boundary. 
Fig 6: Weem settlement boundary (black line) and application site 
2.4 The whole of the village is behind a permanent Flood Protection Scheme (FPS) which was
constructed in 2006 and is maintained by PKC. This comprises a 4m high earth bund at the southern
edge of the village, and provides a physical obstruction beyond the boundary of the application site.
2.5   In addition, on land immediately adjacent, is a pump house which forms an essential element of
the village FPS, and which can return standing surface water to flood plain.
2.6 The extent and route of the Flood Barrier is identified on the plan below (Fig 7). 
139

Page 18

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    8 | P a g e
Fig 7 Flood Defence bund shown by solid red line and location of application site identified 
Fig 8 Weem Flood Defence bund – approximately 4m above flood plain adjacent to application site
2.7 The whole of the village of Weem lies within the Strath Tay Local Landscape Area (LLA).
3.0 PROPOSALS
3.1 The proposals will create 3 x 1bed, self-contained holiday letting units, available for let year-
round. The units would be managed by the applicant who lives in the converted barn adjoining. 
3.2 The target market is the active, short-stay, traveller (walker, cyclist, tourer, climber), and the site is well-
placed to access the recreational, environmental and historic assets of Highland Perthshire, including
the new Weem Rock Mountain Biking course, and local Rafting and Quad bike facilities. single night 
4m
140

Page 19

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    9 | P a g e
3.3 The applicants own research has identified a shortage in the area of self-contained
accommodation available for bookings (ie suitable for the walker and/or touring cyclist), with most letting
establishments requiring a minimum two-night stay. With planning permission, the applicant would
apply to PKC for a short-term letting license.
3.4 Private courtyards will be created on the eastern side of the building providing amenity space and
bin storage for each of the units. 
3.5 Vehicular access would be from the B846 by way of an existing tarmaced driveway along the east
side of the building with parking and turning provided at the southern end of the building. 
3.6 Accommodation would be arranged across two floors, with first floor bedrooms lit by rooflights
and new dormers.
3.7 The Planning Officer has not raised concern with the proposed use; the manner of conversion; or
the relationship with adjacent properties. 
4.0 REASON FOR REVIEW
4.1 The submitted application was refused for one reason only:
1. The site is located within an area identified by SEPA as being at medium risk of flooding (1:200 or
0.5% AEP flood event). Notwithstanding the level of protection that is offered by the Weem Flood
Protection Scheme, the proposed holiday accommodation would increase the vulnerable classification
on the site from a 'least vulnerable use' (agriculture) to a 'highly vulnerable use' ('solid' walled holiday
accommodation), as per SEPA Flood Risk and Land Use Vulnerability Guidance. The proposal is therefore
contrary to the principles and aims of Policy 52 of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development
Plan 2 (2019), SEPA Planning Information Note 4 (PIN4), the Scottish Planning Policy 2014 and Policy 24
of the emerging National Planning Framework 4 (2023) which all look to protect new land uses from
unacceptable flood risk.
Justification: The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material
reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan.
4.2 It is a concern to the applicant that in concluding that the proposal fails to accord with the
Development Plan, little weight in the balance of the decision, has been given to important policy
gains: 
• Economic and community benefits of the proposal (LDP2 Policy 8);
• Preservation of an important heritage asset (LDP2 Policy 31); 
• The positive contribution the building provides to the Strath Tay Local Landscape Area; (LDP2 Policy 39) 
141

Page 20

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    10 | P a g e
• The potential to deliver positive biodiversity improvements at the site (LDP2 Policy 41).
• The extent to which the site is already protected from flooding (LDP2 Policy 52); &
• The potential to positively improve the water environment (LDP2 Policy 53); 
4.3 Furthermore, neither the Community Council, nor third-parties raise objection to the proposals,
and no concerns have been raised by SEPA.  
5.0 PROCESS OF REVIEW
5.1 The applicant considers that a written process of Review together with Site Inspection would be
an appropriate mechanism for appraisal of the issues raised in this case. This would enable the LRB
Members to view the proposal in its local context and understand the qualities of the building group.
6.0 SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS
6.1 Together with the application documentation, the following are presented to support this Review
Statement and assist Members understanding of the proposal: 
• Existing photographs of building and wider setting (Appendix A to this Review Statement);
• A short, key-point summary of the applicants case (Appendix B to this Review Statement).
• Development Plan Policies satisfied by the proposals (Appendix C to this Review Statement)
• Plan identifying other land in applicant ownership (Appendix D to this Review Statement)
7.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Role of the Development Plan 
7.1 The Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, requires a Planning Authority, to determine
planning applications in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise (Sections 25 & 37(2)).
7.2 When interpreting the Development Plan, relevant case law has determined that it should be read
as a whole, with a focus on relevant objectives and policies which give effect to sustainable
development objectives which underpin the Plan (Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13). 
7.3 In taking a decision on any application the Planning Authority is required to consider more than
just conflict with any single policy before determining conflict with the Development Plan as a whole
(Cummins v L B Camden [2001] EWHC Admin 1116).7.4 Put simply, it is rare that any proposal will meet all the
policies of a Development Plan. Refusal can be expected where adverse impacts significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against Plan policies taken as a whole.
142

Page 21

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    11 | P a g e
The Development Plan
7.4 The Development Plan is made up of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), and the Perth &
Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2). Appendix C to this Review Statement sets out the many
Development Plan Policies which would be satisfied by the proposals.  
8.0 RESPONSE TO REFUSAL REASON
8.1 It is the applicants firm view that the following matters should be weighed in the balance of any
planning decision:
Flood Risk
8.2 There would appear to be confusion about the extent to which the site is exposed to fluvial
flooding. Given the specific reason for Refusal, it is important to clarify that risk, and to examine
relevant SEPA guidance pertaining to that risk.
8.3 In raising objection the PKC Flood Officer asserts that the application site is a location subject to a
medium to high risk of fluvial flooding. 
8.4 The Refusal reason itself refers to the application site as a location subject to a medium risk of
flooding.  
8.5 SEPA Flood Map shows the application site to be at medium to low risk of fluvial flooding, with the
building clearly lying outside of the high risk flood zone, which is shown to correspond with the
existing village flood defence barrier, (see Figs 9 & 10 below). 
Fig 9 SEPA Flood Map: Application site in relation to high risk fluvial flood areas
143

Page 22

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    12 | P a g e
Fig 10 SEPA Flood Map: Application site in relation to medium & low risk fluvial flood areas
SEPA Guidance
8.6 The refusal reason simply states that as a highly vulnerable use (as determined by SEPA’s Flood Risk &
Land Use Vulnerability Guidance) the proposal is contrary to the principles and aims of SEPA’s Flood
Guidance, in particular, Flood Risk and Land Use Vulnerability Guidance & Planning Information Note 4
(PIN4). 
SEPA Flood Risk and Land Use Vulnerability Guidance (July 2018)
8.7 This guidance uses a matrix (Table 1) to categorise the vulnerability of differing developments to
flooding, and although not categorised as the most vulnerable of uses, a residential use is considered
to be a highly vulnerable use (Table 1). 
8.8 The matrix then identifies where, in terms of flood risk, such uses can be supported (Table 2). 
8.9 As the Flood Map extract shows (Fig 10 above) the application building is within a low to medium
flood risk area.
8.10 An extract from Table 2 is produced below (Fig 12) and the corresponding locational advice for
highly vulnerable uses makes clear that they will generally be suitable for location within all low to me-
dium risk flood areas (Table 2 extract – see below).
144

Page 23

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    13 | P a g e
Fig 12 Extract from SEPA Flood Risk and Land Use Vulnerability Guidance (July 2018) – Low to medium flood risk areas 
8.11 Within medium to high risk flood areas, the same Table 2 (see Fig 13 below) makes clear that in
‘built-up areas’, highly vulnerable uses although generally not be suitable for development, can find
support in certain circumstances. This will be where a settlement boundary has been defined by an
up-to-date and adopted Development Plan; and SEPA Flood Guidance has not changed in the interim.   
Fig 13 Extract from SEPA Flood Risk and Land Use Vulnerability Guidance (July 2018) – Medium to high risk flood risk areas
145

Page 24

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk 14 | P a g e
8.12 A ‘built-up area’ is defined in the Guide as a location within the settlement boundary of a village,
where such a boundary has been defined by the Development Plan, and where the adjoining land
uses are predominantly developed in nature.
8.13 The application building at Weem is within such a ‘built-up’ area.
Settlement Boundary
8.14 LDP2 is a Development Plan which is up-to-date (2019), and its adoption post-dates both SEPA’s
Flood Risk and Land Use Vulnerability Guidance and its Planning Information Note 4. In relation to
Flood Risk and the water environment, SEPA were a key consultee in the production of that docu-
ment.
8.15 The Plan promotes a sustainable, spatial development strategy which can provide for growth and
community needs within environmental limits. To that end, each town and village has been reviewed
and, where appropriate, settlement boundaries defined within which new development, including
housing, can be supported in principle (LDP2 Policy 6).
8.16 The Plan defines a settlement boundary at Weem & Boltachan. There are no specific site alloca-
tions for housing, and the settlement summary notes indicate that a boundary has been drawn to al-
low for some small-scale infill development, to help sustain the two communities (see Fig 13 below).
That settlement boundary has been set outside of the high risk flood area shown on SEPA’s Flood
Map, and behind the village Flood Barrier. It incorporates land within the low to medium flood risk ar-
eas.
8.17 Delivering small-scale infill development in Weem, through the residential conversion of redun-
dant historic buildings within the settlement, would accord with the development strategy of the
adopted plan, and would meet a number of Policies which seek to deliver sustainable development
(Policies 1; 6; 17 & 31), and NPF4 (Policies 9, 14 &29).
8.18 In this case, the principle of development is clearly supported by the settlement strategy of an
up-to-date, adopted Development Plan; and SEPA ‘s guidance has not been updated since Plan adop-
tion.
146

Page 25

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    15 | P a g e
Fig 13 LDP 2 extract – settlement summary with application site clearly shown within settlement boundary at Weem 
SEPA Planning Information Note - 4 July 2018 
8.19 The SEPA Planning Information Note 4 (PIN4) also referred to in the Refusal Reason is distilled
from SEPA’s more comprehensive Planning Background Paper – Flood Risk (July 2018).
8.20 It outlines an approach of general avoidance of any proposed development within areas pro-
tected by flood barriers, but accepts that proposals which do not increase overall flood risk, and
which are locations where the principle of development is supported by an up-to-date Development
Plan, may find support (ie built-up areas within settlement boundaries).  . 
SEPA Planning Background Paper – Flood Risk (July 2018)
8.21 This comprehensive document accompanies the Flood Risk and Land Use Vulnerability Guidance
and sets out, more fully, SEPA’s position generally, in relation to Flood Risk and Flood Management.
8.22 In terms of its consultation role with Planning Authorities at Development Plan production stage,
it states:
147

Page 26

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    16 | P a g e
……..We work jointly with planning authorities to ensure that flood risk has been afforded due weight throughout
the plan preparation. This includes all potential development allocations (including those that have been included in
previous plans), the policy framework and supplementary guidance. ……… & 
To help achieve this, we have clarified the requirements and recommendations relating to flood risk that we con-
sider should be addressed through strategic and local development plans (DP.1 & DP.2). 
8.23 SEPA were key consultees in the preparation of LDP2 and the settlement boundary at Weem, an
integral part of the Development Plan, encompasses the application building. The settlement bound-
ary has been drawn within the low to medium risk Flood areas.
8.24 In relation to development within ‘built-up areas’ behind Flood Protection Schemes (FPS), the Pa-
per sets out SEPA’s development management expectations (DM.34). Whilst highly vulnerable uses
should incorporate design standards to achieve 0.5% (200 year) plus climate change protection; devel-
opment may be appropriate behind any FPS, if it meets any one of the criteria (a-d) as set out in DM
Requirement 1 (DM36).
8.25 Criterion (d) of DM Requirement 1 provides for development in locations where the principle of
the proposed development has been established by an up-to-date, adopted Development Plan, but
any development should be built to a water resilient design and have adequate evacuation proce-
dures in place (DM16).
8.26 Elsewhere the Flood Risk Background Paper identifies that 
• within any fluvial flood risk area, it may be possible to manage flood risk to enable development (DM.24);
• redevelopment of a building can provide a valuable opportunity to reduce the vulnerability of a site to flooding,
reducing overall flood risk (DM27); &
• Whilst Planning Authorities are encouraged by SEPA to consider changes to less vulnerable uses (DM. 28); redevel-
opment could be considered acceptable if suitable mitigation measures are introduced to avoid a net increase in
flood risk on or off site (DM.29).
8.27 The paper states that mitigation measures for the management of flood risk on a site can include
flood resilient design; reducing off-site flooding (DM30), provision of adequate access and egress
(DM.84); evacuation plan (DM.87); and increased freeboard (DM.97). These mitigation measures can be
delivered by way of condition on any planning approval.
LDP2 Flood Policy
8.28 In addition to defining a settlement boundary for Weem, LDP2 also includes a specific policy
relating to Flooding (Policy 52). The Refusal reason contends that the proposals are contrary to that
policy.
148

Page 27

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    17 | P a g e
8.29 In relation to low to medium risk flood areas (ie the application site), the Policy 52: (Category (2)
states that such areas are suitable for most forms of development, but should incorporate a
freeboard allowance, and use flood resilient materials and construction methods. It is the applicants
intention to do so, and these measures can be conditioned as part of any planning approval.
Drainage Summary
8.30 In summary, the application site is within an area, shown on the SEPA Flood Map, to be at low to
medium risk of flooding on the SEPA Flood Map. 
8.31 The Flood Protection scheme at Weem has been in place since 2006 and is maintained by PKC. It
provides less than a 200year standard of protection, but does protect existing historic buildings on the
application site. 
8.32 The PKC Flood Risk Management Plan – Tay Local Plan District (December 2021), commits the
Council to maintaining the existing PKC Weem Flood Protection Scheme in good order; and SEPA
maintaining its Floodline flood warning service.
8.33 The proposals do not increase the footprint of the building through extension; and flood resilient
materials and construction methods can be delivered through the conversion works. 
8.34 Although a highly vulnerable use would be introduced through conversion of a historic building,
the principle of development is supported by an adopted, up-to-date Development Plan.
Other Matters
Refusal Reason wording:
8.35 In relation to the wording of the Refusal Notice it should be noted that Scottish Planning Policy
has now been superseded by NPF4; and the relevant policy of NPF4 relating to Flooding is now Policy
22, not 24.
Landscape Impacts
8.36 A key objective for the Strath Tay LLA, as set out in the Landscape Supplementary Guidance
2020, is to: 
• Maintain distinctive character of settlements and built development, particularly the Victorian farm buildings often
prominent by the roadside. 
149

Page 28

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    18 | P a g e
8.37 The application building is an integral part of the range of Victorian farm buildings at the heart of
Weem. The buildings are visually prominent and, together with the farmhouse, make a positive
contribution to the character of the place, and the quality of the landscape.
8.38 The application building is in poor condition and requires physical upgrade at significant cost
(current water ingress; damp, timber rot, masonry failing, re-pointing; rooflight replacement,rhones, flooring, etc).
Without a viable new use which can provide an economic return, investment in building upgrade is
unlikely. 
8.39 The proposals can safeguard the buildings future for the long-term and preserve its positive
contribution to local amenity and the character of the area.   
150

Page 29

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    19 | P a g e
Figs 14 & 17 – Building condition and defects
151

Page 30

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    20 | P a g e
Manner of Conversion
8.40 The manner of conversion is sympathetic to the character of the building. The Report of
Handling identifies that some minor changes to the appearance of the proposed dormers would be
desirable but could be achieved by way of condition of any planning approval.
Natural Flood Management
8.41 The SEPA Flood Map shows that areas away from the building, but within the ownership/control
of the applicant, experience surface water flooding. 
Figs 18– Surface water flooding
8.42 Much of this surface water will come from the public road and the higher ground to the north. At
times of flooding the existing pump station, maintained by PKC as an integral part of the Weem Flood
Protection scheme, pumps excess standing water over the flood barrier to the flood plain.
8.43 Within the application site there are extensive areas of hard-surfacing, some of which is
impermeable. 
8.44 Removal and replacement with porous tarmac can ensure that surface run-off rate into the site
from the B817 is reduced; and that water storage capacity within the site is enhanced. These
improvements could be delivered by condition on any planning approval.
152

Page 31

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    21 | P a g e
8.45 Also, planting of other land within the applicants ownership with suitable trees (willow, alder, birch),
could also improve storage capacity within the area protected by the PKC Flood embankment; reduce
surface-water run-off, absorb and lock-up carbon, and enhance biodiversity. These positive measures
could be delivered by way of a suitably worded condition on any planning permission, and attached as
Appendix D is an OS plan identifying that land immediately adjacent to the application site. 
Figs 19–21 Removal of areas of impervious hard-surfacing within the site will improve SUDs drainage and the planting of
land adjacent can check run-off rate and enhance surface water storage capacity
153

Page 32

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    22 | P a g e
Building Flood Resilience Measures:
8.46 As can be seen from Fig 17 above, installation of a new floor would be necessary as part of any
conversion, ensuring the buildings freeboard is raised. Other flood resilience measures could
incorporate practical measures such as:
• flood boards (Floodshield or similar) fixings provided to external doors; 
• adoption of water-resistant construction techniques (ie hard-water resistant floors and surfaces incorporated at
ground floor); 
• installation of elevated electrics; 
• rendered/block work construction at ground floor with timber frame structure above;
• provision of toilet protection (eg Floodkit Toilet Stopper or similar www.floodkit.co.uk):
8.47 The applicant as ‘Manager’ would register with SEPA Floodline service. In addition, a Flood
warning Evacuation Plan  can be put in place providing awareness of the issue for occupiers of the
building; mitigation measures to be employed to manage risks; detailing actions required by tenants
in the event of flood; and identifying  access and egress routes in the event of flood to be providing
routes for escape to a low Flood risk area. 
8.48 All these practical steps, consistent with the SEPA Guidance, could be delivered by way of
planning condition. 
Economic Benefits
8.49 The Perthshire Tourism Action Plan (2019 – 2025) commits to maintaining and growing Perthshire’s
share of the domestic visitor market through ‘responsible tourism’, focussing on day trippers,
staycations, workcations; and to growing the length of stay. It expressly commits to maximising extra
capacity across the area, promoting day visitors, and converting those visits into overnight stays, by
encouraging visitors to base themselves in Perthshire (the Industry recognises that overnight stays will generate
significantly larger visitor spend).
8.50 The proposals for short-stay, overnight accommodation for the adventure market, falls
comfortably within the Council’s aspirations for growing the visitor economy; and the applicant has
already forged links with a number of existing commercial operators who are locally based and
provide services to the outdoor tourist sector. 
154

Page 33

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    23 | P a g e
Use of Planning Conditions
8.49 Conditions imposed on a grant of planning permission can enable many development proposals
to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission (SG Planning
Circular 4/98 – para 2).
8.50 The use of planning conditions in this case, delivering flood resilience measures, improvements
to the appearance of the building and to the water environment, would be reasonable and would
meet the statutory tests.
9.0 CONCLUSION
Everyone is responsible for protecting themselves and their property from flooding. Property and
business owners can take simple steps to reduce damage and disruption to their homes and
businesses should flooding happen. This includes preparing a flood plan and flood kit, installing
property flood resilience measures, signing up to Floodline, engaging with their local flood group, and
ensuring that properties and businesses are insured against flood damage – LDP8 River Tay Flood Risk
Management Plan (SEPA 2021)
9.1 Whilst it is acknowledged that there is some flood risk at the application site, it is also clear that
within villages with a settlement boundary, where the principle of development is supported by an
up-to-date Development Plan, SEPA’s guidance can support the introduction of a highly vulnerable
use.
9.2 The principle of infill housing within Weem is a key part of the development strategy set out in
LDP2, and Policy 52 of that Plan makes clear that low to medium flood risk areas ill be suitable for
most forms of development.
9.3 The proposals deliver relation to low to medium risk flood areas (ie the application site), the Policy 52:
(Category (2) states that such areas are suitable for most forms of development, but should
incorporate a freeboard allowance, and use flood resilient materials and construction methods.
9.4 Flood resilient materials and construction methods can be incorporated through building
conversion; and improvements to the water storage capacity of the site, and the water environment
generally, can be delivered.  
9.5 The building is in poor condition. The proposals deliver economic, environmental and landscape
gains through the introduction of a viable new use. Without that viable new use the building will
155

Page 34

www.garrydimeckplanning.co.uk                                                    24 | P a g e
continue to deteriorate, and the quality of the protected landscape, and the placemaking character
and interest of Weem, will be diminished.
9.6 The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable
development and the applicants have provided sufficient information to demonstrate that sustainable
development can be delivered in this case.
9.7 That Plan is required to be interpreted broadly and read as a whole. Consideration is required to
be given to the sustainable development objectives which underpin the plan. Any decision taker is
required to consider more than just conflict with a single policy (or part of a policy or Guideline) before
determining conflict with the Plan as a whole.
9.8 The applicant has shown that there are no adverse impacts which significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits which can be delivered in this case. Accordingly, it is respectfully suggested that
the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Principal Act, should be applied
in this case, and that planning permission should be granted. 
156

Page 35

Appendix A 
Photographs of Site and Setting: 
Fig 1 The Application building 
Fig 2 Application Building and Applicants house 
Fig 3 Application Building
157

Page 36

Fig 4 Application building is part of traditional farm group at the centre of Weem 
Fig 5 Former barns part converted to residential use. Extant permission for additional dwelling yet to be implemented 
Fig 6 Application building attached to, and integral part of prominent barn group 
158

Page 37

Fig7 Prominent barn group at village centre 
Fig 8 Impermeable surfacing within application site 
Fig9 Part of area prone to surface water flooding and available for new planting delivering natural flood management (pump houses to
rear)
159

Page 38

Page 39

Appendix B 
Key point summary of case: 
Fig 1 The Appeal building 
Fig 2 Appeal Building and Applicants house
A Review Statement has been prepared to directly respond to the single reason for refusal, and to
identify other planning policy objectives which are satisfied by the application. It includes a number of
photographs (Appendix A) which will help the Local Review Body to understand more fully, the
application site; the property’s setting; and the degree of flood protection already afforded to the
site.
To assist Members a brief summary is presented here. 
161

Page 40

The Application Site
The building is: 
• an important heritage asset;
• acknowledged to be a valued feature within a protected landscape;
• in need of repair, and on-going maintenance; 
• next to the applicant’s house;
• part of a range, a section of which is in use as a dwelling (applicants house), and another part of
which benefits from an extant planning permission for conversion to a house (PKC Ref:
06/01058/MOD)
• within a Settlement Boundary for Weem & Boltachan, defined through an up-to-date
Development Plan (LDP2); and
• the principle of conversion of is supported by policies of that Development Plan.
Setting
The site is:
• within a protected landscape where traditional farm buildings are considered to make a
positive visual contribution to the areas character (PKC Landscape Supplementary Planning Guide);
•  within a fluvial flood area of Low to Medium risk, as defined by SEPA Flood Map;
• adjacent to a surface water flood area of Low risk, as defined by SEPA Flood Map;
• protected by an existing flood protection scheme (FPS), constructed and maintained by PKC;
• extensively hardsurfaced,
• immediately adjacent to the Flood pump-house which is designed to move surface waters to
the flood plain;
SEPA Guidance
Relevant guidance identifies that:
• within low to medium fluvial flood risk areas, highly vulnerable uses can be supported;
• within medium to high fluvial flood risk areas, highly vulnerable uses can be supported on sites
within settlement boundaries where the principle of development is supported by an up-to-
date Development Plan;
• highly vulnerable uses can be supported on sites behind any FPS where the principle of
development is supported by an up-to-date Development Plan;
162

Page 41

• flood resilient construction methods should be adopted with flood risk areas.
The Development Plan 
• SEPA were key consultees involved in the production of LDP2, and its settlement strategy.
• LDP Policy 52 (Category 2) provides support for development within low to medium flood risk
areas provided a suitable freeboard allowance and flood resilient materials are delivered.
• The proposals can satisfy a range of planning policy objectives which seek to deliver sustainable
development. Those Policies are identified in the Review Statement (Appendix C).
Mitigation and Planning Conditions
Appropriately worded planning conditions can ensure:
• building conversion works are flood resilient; 
• areas of impervious hard-surfacing are replaced with permeable surfacing;
• natural flood management is delivered through the introduction of extensive new planting;
• the risks of site flooding are made known to users of the property;
• the applicant, as immediate neighbour and site operator, registers with SEPA Flood line for
flood alerts;
Circular Guidance makes clear that conditions imposed on a grant of planning permission can enable
many development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse
planning permission. Appropriately worded planning conditions in this case can meet the statutory
‘tests’ and can deliver positive public amenity and economic benefits.
Benefits
The proposals will: 
• introduce a viable new use which can preserve an important heritage asset for the long-term;
• deliver visual enhancement to place, and a protected landscape;
• provide a type of tourist accommodation known to be lacking in the area;
• deliver benefits to the local economy through employment and increased visitor spend;
• deliver improvements to the local water environment;
• reduce flood risk to the wider community (extend flood storage capacity; check flow);
• enhance biodiversity at the site.
163

Page 42

Those net gains will meet Development Plan policy objectives through the delivery of sustainable
development - the key purpose of planning.
Interpreting the Development Plan 
The Development Plan is required to be interpreted holistically, and Planning Case Law has determined
that it does not automatically follow that conflict or tension with a single planning policy, will mean that
a development proposal will fail to accord with the Development Plan as a whole. 
164

Page 43

Appendix C 
Development Plan Policies satisfied by the proposals: 
It is rare that any development proposal will satisfy all relevant policies of an adopted Development
Plan. 
A balanced approach to assessment is required when reaching a planning application decision,
entailing a holistic appraisal of the broad sustainable development objectives which underpin the
Development Plan. Put simply, refusal can be expected where adverse impacts significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against Development Plan policies taken as a
whole.
In this case, the following Development Plan policies are met:
NPF4 (February 2023)
Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crises: Nature recovery and restoration can be delivered as an integral
part of the proposal.
Policy 2 Climate mitigation and adaptation: Reuse of an existing redundant building can minimise the loss of
greenfield sites and the use of new-build materials.
Policy 3 Biodiversity: Removal of hard-surfacing and the delivery of new landscaping can reverse biodiversity loss.
Policy 4 Natural Places: Off-site planting in the control of the applicant can restore natural assets and reinforce
nature networks. 
165

Page 44

Policy 6 Forestry woodland and trees: Increased woodland cover can be delivered on land in the control of the
applicant.
Policy 7 Historic assets and places: A redundant neglected building, which is a non-designated historic
environment asset, will be brought back into use.
Policy 9 Restoration and re-use of a vacant building will reduce the need for greenfield development and deliver a
positive transformation of place.
Policy 12 Zero Waste: The reuse of an existing building will minimise waste and reduce pressure on virgin
resources.
Policy 14 Design, quality and place: Bringing back into use a redundant building of architectural and historic
interest would improve the quality of the area.
Policy 22 Flood Risk and water management: The site is protected by an existing formal flood protection scheme;
there is no reduction in flood plain capacity as a consequence of the works; and flood resilient materials and
construction methods can be used. Development proposals which create, expand or enhance opportunities for
natural flood risk management, including blue and green infrastructure, will be supported
Policy 29 Rural Development: Conversion of a redundant building will reinforce the viability, sustainability and
diversity of the rural economy and support local employment.
Policy 30 Tourism: The proposal will facilitate sustainable tourism without giving rise to unacceptable impacts on
local amenity or character.
LDP2(2020)
6.4 In explaining How to use the Plan, the document confirms the position determined by the Courts,
namely that:
…… the Plan should be read in its entirety and that individual policies and land allocations do not set out the whole
picture for the various types of development. The Vision, Objectives and Spatial Strategy are intended to be as
much part of the decision-making process on development proposals as the detailed policies and Supplementary
Guidance.
6.5 The Refusal reason asserts that the proposals fail to meet only the requirements of Policy 52 of
the LDP2. As a consequence, it concludes the application fails to accord with the Development Plan,
despite all other relevant Development Plan policies being satisfied.
6.6 In relation to those other Development Plan Policies, LRB Members are asked to note:
Policy 1A: requires positive change to the quality of the built and natural environment, in particular character and
amenity – the proposals achieve this objective.
166

Page 45

Policy 1B: sets out a range of placemaking criteria (listed a-j) which must be met. His includes ensuring that
existing buildings that contribute to the local townscape are retained and sensitively integrated into new
development proposals - the proposals achieve this objective.
Policy 6: where settlement boundaries are identified new development should be contained within those defined
boundaries- the proposals achieve this objective.
Policy 8: Commits to favourable consideration of the establishment of new businesses in rural areas encourages
location within existing settlements - the proposals achieve this objective.
To find support, any new tourism-related developments should demonstrate they improve the quality of new or
existing visitor facilities, allow a new market to be exploited, or extend the tourism season - the proposals achieve
this objective.
Such a use should be compatible with its location, be satisfactorily accommodated within the landscape and
environmental capacity of the site; and not adversely affect the amenities of residential properties nearby - the
proposals achieve these objectives.
Policy 17: within settlement boundaries, existing new development will be required to safeguard and protect
residential amenity; and improve the character and environment of the village – the proposals achieve these
objectives.
Policy 31: New development should protect and preserve non-designated heritage assets of historic interest as an
important part of Scotlands heritage - the proposals achieve this objective.
Policy 39: Development should only be permitted within Local Landscape Areas where it will not have a significant
adverse impact on their special character or qualities. The individual statements of significance for each LLA should
be used to consider their special qualities and potential impacts – the proposals achieve these objectives.
Policy 41: Protection and enhancement of both protected and non-protected wildlife, from the impacts of
development will be sought – the proposals achieve these objectives.
Policy 53: Development proposals should protect and improve the water environment. Within sewered areas foul
disposal should be to the public sewerage system; and surface water should be managed by means of sustainable
urban drainage - the proposals achieve these objectives.
Policy 60: Development proposals should satisfy Transport standards in terms of access; visibility & off-street
parking provision - the proposals achieve these objectives.
6.7 It is clear that any perceived tension with LDP Policy 52, is significantly and demonstrably
outweighed by the many positive Development Plan policy objectives which are met in this case.
167

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

Page 1 of 3
Mr Ruaraidh Tainsh
c/o George Rollo
Bruadir
Craiglunie Gardens
Moulin
Pitlochry
PH16 5QG
Pullar House
35 Kinnoull Street
PERTH  
PH1  5GD
Date of Notice:17th January 2023
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 
Application Reference: 22/01279/FLL
I am directed by the Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland)
Acts currently in force, to refuse your application registered on 28th July 2022 for Planning
Permission for Change of use and alterations to agricultural building and workshop to
form 3 holiday accommodation units Easdale Weem Aberfeldy PH15 2LD 
David Littlejohn
Head of Planning and Development
Reasons for Refusal
1.  The site is located within an area identified by SEPA as being at medium risk of flooding
(1:200 or 0.5% AEP flood event). Notwithstanding the level of protection that is offered by
the Weem Flood Protection Scheme, the proposed holiday accommodation would increase
the vulnerable classification on the site from a 'least vulnerable use' (agriculture) to a 'highly
vulnerable use' ('solid' walled holiday accommodation), as per SEPA Flood Risk and Land
Use Vulnerability Guidance. The proposal is therefore contrary to the principles and aims of
Policy 52 of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019), SEPA
Planning Information Note 4 (PIN4), the Scottish Planning Policy 2014 and Policy 24 of the
emerging National Planning Framework 4 (2023) which all look to protect new land uses
from unacceptable flood risk. 
Justification
The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no
material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan.
Notes
171

Page 50

2
The plans and documents relating to this decision are listed below and are
displayed on Perth and Kinross Council’s website at www.pkc.gov.uk “Online
Planning Applications” page
Plan Reference
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
172

Page 51

4(ii)(b) 
LRB-2023-16 
LRB-2023-16 – 22/01279/FLL – Change of use and
alterations to agricultural building and workshop to form 3
holiday accommodation units, Easdale, Weem, Aberfeldy,
PH15 2LD 
PLANNING DECISION NOTICE (included in
applicant’s submission, pages 171-172) 
REPORT OF HANDLING 
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 
173

Page 52

Page 53

REPORT OF HANDLING
DELEGATED REPORT
Ref No 22/01279/FLL
Ward No P4- Highland
Due Determination Date 27th September 2022
Draft Report Date 16th January 2023
Report Issued by AMB Date 17 January 2023
PROPOSAL: Change of use and alterations to agricultural building
and workshop to form 3 holiday accommodation units
LOCATION: Easdale, Weem, Aberfeldy, PH15 2LD
SUMMARY:
This report recommends refusal of a detailed planning application for the change of
use of an existing building at Weem to holiday accommodation as the development
is considered to be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and
there are no material considerations apparent which justify setting aside the
Development Plan.
BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
This planning application seeks to obtain detailed planning permission for the
change of use and alterations of an existing, traditional agricultural building into three
holiday units. The building is located within the settlement of Weem, at the southern
part of the village.
Another part of the steading (to the north) has planning consent for the conversion
into two dwellings, and one of those dwelling has been formed.
The other part (eastern) of the consent remains vacant.
In terms of this proposal, the majority of the physical works are internal, but some
external works – such as new dormers and replacement / new opening are
proposed.
SITE HISTORY
Detailed planning permission was granted in 2003 (03/01563/FUL) for the change of
use and alterations to the principal ‘U’ shaped steading at the roadside to form two
housing units, and removal of existing portal frame cattle court to south of existing
stone building. That permission was modified slightly via 06/01058/MOD.
These permissions relate (insofar as one of the units) to the area of the steading
which is subject to the pending planning application, and is to the north of this
application.
175

Page 54

Since these approvals where issued, Unit 1 (the western unit) has been implemented
but the eastern one remains untouched. In light of this commencement, the
permissions remain ‘live’ and Unit 2 could still be implemented (for one dwelling) and
is no longer time barred.
A detailed planning application (21/01736/FLL) for the change of use and alterations
to the agricultural steading to the north of the site to form 2 dwellinghouses was
withdrawn prior to determination, due to concerns over the lack of ecological work.
That application was essentially for the area covered by the extant planning
permission, in relation to the undeveloped approved unit.
PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION
None undertaken.
NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE
The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through The National
Planning Framework, the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), Planning Advice Notes
(PAN), Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and
a series of Circulars.
The SPP supports new tourist related development, and also seeks to ensure that
new development is not adversely affected by flood risk. It should be noted that
whilst this document is current at the present time, this document will however be
likely be superseded by the NPF4 in mid- February.
National Planning Framework 4
The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) was approved by the Scottish
Parliament on 11 January 2023. Once adopted by the Scottish Ministers (expected
to be 13th February), the NPF4 will have an increased status over previous NPFs
and will comprise part of the statutory development plan.
At this stage, it is therefore a significant material consideration.
In light of this, Policies 22 which relates to flood risk, and Policy 30 which relates to
tourism of the NPF4 are relevant to this application.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Development Plan for the area comprises the TAYplan Strategic Development
Plan 2016-2036 and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019). It
should be noted that adoption, the NFP4 will also form part of the Development Plan.
TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2016 – 2036 - Approved October 2017
Whilst there are no specific policies or strategies directly relevant to this proposal the
overall vision of the TAYplan should be noted. The vision states “By 2036 the
TAYplan area will be sustainable, more attractive, competitive and vibrant without
176

Page 55

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 settlement of Weem, where the following polices are
applicable,
Policy 1 – Placemaking
Policy 17 – Settlements
Policy 31- Other Historic Environmental Assets
Policy 41 – Biodiversity
Policy 52 – Flood Risk
OTHER COUNCIL POLICIES
Placemaking Guide 2020
This is the most recent expression of Council policy towards Placemaking
Standards.
Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing 2020
This is the most recent expression of Council policies towards Developer
Contributions.
Planning and Nature 2022
This is the most recent guidance in relation to planning and bio-diversity matters.
EXTERNAL CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Scottish Water have commented on the proposal and raised no objections.
INTERNAL COUNCIL COMMENTS
Transportation And Development have commented on the proposal and raises no
objection in terms of parking or access related matters.
Structures And Flooding have objected to the proposal on the ground of flood risk.
Biodiversity Officer has commented on the proposal in terms of the bats survey,
and has no objections subject to conditions.
177

Page 56

Perth And Kinross Heritage Trust have commented on the proposal and
suggested that in the event of any approval being forthcoming, a standard condition
is attached.
REPRESENTATIONS
None received.
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
Screening Opinion EIA Not Required
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA):
Environmental Report
Not applicable
Appropriate Assessment under Habitats
Regulations
AA Not Required
Design Statement or Design and Access
Statement
Not Required
Report on Impact or Potential Impact Not Required
APPRAISAL
Sections 25 and 37 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997
require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the development plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.  The Development Plan for the
area comprises the approved TAYplan and the adopted LDP2.
In terms of other material considerations, consideration of the Council’s SPGs on
Placemaking, Developer Contributions, Flooding and Bio-diversity are material
considerations. The NPF4 is also now a significant consideration.
Policy Appraisal
In terms of land use policies, the key policies are found within the LDP2, and the
NPF4. Within the LDP2, the site is located within the settlement boundary of Weem
where Policies 1 (Placemaking), 17 (settlements) and 52 (flooding) of the LDP2 are
all applicable.
Policy 1 seeks to ensure that new developments do not have an adverse impact on
the areas in which they are located, whilst Policy 17 looks to protect the character
and amenity of existing residential areas. Policy 52 looks to ensure that new sites
are acceptable from a flood risk point of view, and do not create flooding elsewhere.
In terms of the NPF4, Policy 22 (flooding) and 30 (tourism) are applicable.
Policy 22 of the NPF4 looks to protect areas and new uses from flooding, whilst
Policy 30 generally looks to support new tourism but does look to limit the reuse of
existing buildings for STL when there would be an unacceptable impact on the local
amenity of character of an area.
178

Page 57

Land Use Acceptably
The principle of reusing this building for holiday use is, in isolation from other issues
(i.e flooding) perfectly acceptable and aligns with the general feel of the LDP2 and
also the emerging NPF4 through Policy 30.  Both these documents look to promote
tourism developments, when there is no adverse impact on existing areas – which is
the case here.
In the event of any support being forthcoming for this proposal, standard conditions
in relation to holiday use only and associated informative notes concerning STL
licencing requirements should be attached to any decision notice.
However, the main issue for this proposal in terms of the acceptability of the use
proposed (holiday use) is the flooding implications. The same applies to the adjacent
application for a proposed residential development.
Flooding
The key consideration for this proposal is the flooding implications for this proposal.
Policy 52 of the LDP2 states that there will be a general presumption against new
development which is at risk from flooding.
The site lies within the area identified by SEPA’s flood maps as being at medium
flood risk (200 year or 0.5% AEP flood event). This proposal looks to change the use
of existing agricultural buildings to 3 holiday units, with the other pending application
looking to create two residential units. This proposed change of use constitutes an
increased vulnerability to flood risk, in terms of with SEPA’s flood risk land
vulnerability guidance. The existing agricultural use would be considered to be a
‘least vulnerable use’, whilst a holiday accommodation would be considered as a
‘highly vulnerable’ use.
The site does however sit inside the Weem flood protection scheme.
The Council constructed the scheme in 2006, which protects the village from the risk
of flooding from the River Tay.  The scheme was designed to provide a level of
protection up to a 100 year (or 1% AEP) flood event.  The Council recently carried
out a flood protection study for Aberfeldy (completed in June 2019), and the
modelling exercise also covered the Weem area.  After the assessment, the scheme
was considered to still provide a 100-year standard of protection - although any
additional ‘freeboard’ has been reduced due to the impacts of climate change.  The
modelling also highlighted the level of risk behind the defence during a 200 year (or
0.5% AEP) flood event (which is used to define the functional floodplain for planning
purposes).
New development behind flood defences is something that is generally not
supported, with few exceptions and further information on this is provided in SEPA
PIN4 guidance - planning-information-note-4-sepa-position-on-development-
protected-by-a-flood-protection-scheme.pdf.
179

Page 58

Based on this guidance, new development cannot (should not) be supported unless
it is behind a scheme providing the necessary level of protection, or the
redevelopment of an existing site does not increase the vulnerability to flood risk.
Neither of these are the case here, and additional mitigation measures are not
supported by either SEPA guidance, the SPP, the LDP2 of the NPF4.
The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 52 of the LDP2, the SPP and also SEPA
guidance.
In addition to this, Policy 22 of the NPF4 also states that development proposals at
risk of flooding or in a flood risk area will only be supported if they are for (amongst
other things) the redevelopment of an existing building or site for a new use which is
equal or less vulnerable use than the existing use. As this is not the case here, the
proposal is contrary to the principles of Policy 22 of the NPF4.
The SEPA PIN guidance is explicitly clear in relation to development behind areas
protected by flood prevention schemes and offers no mitigation options. In light of
this position, the ultimate recommendation and also the fact that this application was
submitted before a distinct change in the triage consultation process between
Development Management, it was not considered necessary to consulted SEPA as
part of this planning application. In the event of a minded to approve
recommendation being advanced at any stage, SEPA should be consulted to ensure
that their settled view on this development is known before any approval decision is
made
Drainage
The site is located within a sewered area, so the foul drainage will be connected to
the public system. Disposal of surface water will be via soakaways within the
curtilage of the building. Both arrangements are considered to be acceptable in this
location.
Visual Amenity, Design and Layout
The main changes to the existing building are new openings and dormer windows.
The principle of these is generally acceptable, however in the event of any approval
being forthcoming the design of the dormers should be amended via conditions as
the ones presented look slightly awkward.
Subject to this minor change, and some additional clarification on the proposed
roofing repairs, the general appearance of the building upon completion would be
acceptable in terms of the impact on the visual amenity of the area. 
Residential Amenity
In terms of the impact on existing residential amenity, the proposal would have
limited impact and it is noted that no letters of representation have been received.
180

Page 59

In terms of being able to provide some level of amenity for future users of the holiday
accommodation units, a degree of amenity space is being offered which is
considered to be acceptable.
Roads and Access
The proposal raises no issues in terms of road relates matters. Transport Planning
have recommended a series of conditions which should be attached to any decision
in the event of an approval being forthcoming.
Conservation Considerations
Whilst not listed or covered by a designation, the existing building is of some
architectural note and of interest. The proposed re-use of the building for a long-term
use is therefore welcome and in algins with the principles of Policy 31 of the LDP2.
In the event of any approval being forthcoming, a standard condition in relation to a
standing building survey should be attached to any permission.
Natural Heritage and Biodiversity
A bat survey has been undertaken, and its recommendations should be adhered to
in full.
Contaminated Land
It is likely that there could be some land contamination with the site, and within the
building. In the event of any approval being forthcoming, this should be fully
explored.
Developer Contributions
The proposal is for a holiday development only, which means that the proposal does
not attract any requirements for Primary Education contributions or Affordable
Housing provision.
In terms of Transport related contributions, the site is located outwith the catchment
area for these, so these are not required.
Economic Impact
Approval of the application could have a positive impact on the local economy, albeit
a localised one.
VARIATION OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 32A
The application has not been varied.
181

Page 60

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 for the reason identified below.
1 The site is located within an area identified by SEPA as being at medium risk
of flooding (1:200 or 0.5% AEP flood event). Notwithstanding the level of
protection that is offered by the Weem Flood Protection Scheme, the
proposed holiday accommodation would increase the vulnerable classification
on the site from a ‘least vulnerable use’ (agriculture) to a ‘highly vulnerable
use’ (‘solid’ walled holiday accommodation), as per SEPA Flood Risk and
Land Use Vulnerability Guidance. The proposal is therefore contrary to the
principles and aims of Policy 52 of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local
Development Plan 2 (2019), SEPA Planning Information Note 4 (PIN4), the
Scottish Planning Policy 2014 and Policy 24 of the emerging National
Planning Framework 4 (2023) which all look to protect new land uses from
unacceptable flood risk.
Justification
The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no
material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan.
Informatives
None, refusal.
Procedural Notes
Not Applicable.
PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION
01 – 07 (inclusive)
182

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Page 64

Page 65

Page 66

Page 67

Page 68

Page 69

Page 70

Page 71

Page 72

Page 73

Page 74

Page 75

Page 76

Page 77

Page 78

Page 79

Page 80

Page 81

Page 82

Page 83

Page 84

Page 85

Page 86

Page 87

Page 88

Page 89

Page 90

Page 91

Page 92

Page 93

4(ii)(c) 
LRB-2023-16 
LRB-2023-16 – 22/01279/FLL – Change of use and
alterations to agricultural building and workshop to form 3
holiday accommodation units, Easdale, Weem, Aberfeldy,
PH15 2LD 
REPRESENTATIONS 
215