(a) Notice of Review and supporting documents (Pages 7-68)
Perth and Kinross Council · 23 October 2023
Back to Local Review Body — 23 October 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
4(i)(a) LRB-2023-29 LRB-2023-29 - 23/00184/FLL – Erection of a fence (in retrospect), 22 King Street, Stanley, Perth, PH1 4ND PAPERS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
Notice of Review Page 1 of 4 NOTICE OF REVIEW UNDER SECTION 43A(8) OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED)IN RESPECT OF DECISIONS ON LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCHEMES OF DELEGATION AND LOCAL REVIEW PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013 THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (APPEALS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2008 IMPORTANT: Please read and follow the guidance notes provided when completing this form. Failure to supply all the relevant information could invalidate your notice of review. Use BLOCK CAPITALS if completing in manuscript Applicant(s) Name Address Postcode Contact Telephone 1 Contact Telephone 2 Fax No E-mail* Agent (if any) Name Address Postcode Contact Telephone 1 Contact Telephone 2 Fax No E-mail* Mark this box to confirm all contact should be through this representative: * Do you agree to correspondence regarding your review being sent by e-mail? Yes No Planning authority Planning authority’s application reference number Site address Description of proposed development Date of application Date of decision (if any) Note. This notice must be served on the planning 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. MR & MRS BILLY BIRSE-STEWART ALASDAIR SUTHERLAND 22 KING STREET STANLEY PH1 4ND 50 LOTHIAN ROAD EDINBURGH EH3 9WJ +44(0)131 370 8955 +44(0)7919 327 206 ALASDAIR.SUTHERLAND@BURNESSPAULL.COM X X PERTH & KINROSS COUNCIL 23/00184/FLL 22 KING STREET, STANLEY, PERTH, PH1 4ND ERECTION OF FENCE (IN RETROSPECT) 22 KING STREET, STANLEY, PERTH, PH1 4ND 10/02/2023 19/05/2023
Page 4
Notice of Review Page 2 of 4 Nature of application 1. Application for planning permission (including householder application) 2. Application for planning permission in principle 3. Further application (including development that has not yet commenced and where a time limit has been imposed; renewal of planning permission; and/or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition) 4. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions Reasons for seeking review 1. Refusal of application by appointed officer 2. Failure by appointed officer to determine the application within the period allowed for determination of the application 3. Conditions imposed on consent by appointed officer Review procedure The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case. Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the handling of your review. You may tick more than one box if you wish the review to be conducted by a combination of procedures. 1. Further written submissions 2. One or more hearing sessions 3. Site inspection 4 Assessment of review documents only, with no further procedure If you have marked box 1 or 2, please explain 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: Site inspection In the event that the Local Review Body decides to inspect the review site, in your opinion: 1. Can the site be viewed entirely from public land? Yes No 2 Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely, and without barriers to entry? If there are reasons why you think the Local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here: X X X X X
Page 5
Notice of Review Page 3 of 4 Statement You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. Note: you may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. If the Local Review Body issues a notice requesting further information from any other person or body, 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 necessary, this can be continued or provided in full in a separate document. You may also submit additional documentation with this form. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the determination on your application was made? Yes No If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising new material, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should now be considered in your review. SEE SUPPORTING NOTICE OF REVIEW STATEMENT. X
Page 6
Notice of Review Page 4 of 4 List of documents and evidence Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. Note. The planning 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 office of the planning authority until such time as the review is determined. It may also be available on the planning authority website. Checklist Please mark the appropriate boxes to confirm you have provided all supporting documents and evidence relevant to your review: Full completion of all parts of this form Statement of your reasons for requiring a review 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. Declaration I the applicant/agent [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 SEE SUPPORTING NOTICE OF REVIEW STATEMENT. x x x 17 August 2023
Page 7
Active: 115889989v5 Notice of Review Statement on behalf of Mr and Mrs William Birse-Stewart in respect of the refusal of planning permission for erection of a fence (in retrospect) at 22 King Street, Stanley, Perth, PH1 4ND
Page 8
Active: 115889989v5 CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 2 BACKGROUND 4 3 DETERMINATION OF NOTICE OF REVIEW 6 4 GROUNDS FOR REVIEW 7 5 TEMPORARY CONSENT 12 6 CONCLUSION 12 7 LIST OF DOCUMENTS 13
Page 9
Active: 115889989v5 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 On 9 March 2023, Robert Crerar (Architect) submitted an application for planning permission (Planning Reference: 23/00184/FLL) (“the Application”) on behalf of Mr and Mrs William Birse- Stewart (“the Appellants”) to Perth and Kinross Council (“the Council”) for the following development proposal (“the Proposal”) at 22 King Street, Stanley, Perth, PH1 4ND (“the Property”): “Erection of a fence (in retrospect) 22 King Street, Stanley, Perth, PH1 4ND”. 1.2 On 19 May 2023, the Council issued its Decision Notice (Appendix 1) refusing the Application for the following reasons: “1. Approval would be contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policy 7 criteria (a) due to the proposal's unsuitable impact on a historical asset, and informed by HES 'Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Boundaries and Setting' guidance; and criteria (c) where the proposal does not preserve the identified listed building's setting and associated character; Policy 14 where the proposal is designed in such a way that does not improve the quality of the area, does not support an attractive natural space, lacks attention to detail and does not support the long-term value of the open space, inconsistent with the 'pleasant', 'distinctive' and 'adaptable' qualities of a successful place. 2. Approval would be contrary to the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 Policy 1A and 1B with particular note to criteria (a) where there is a loss of established identity, criteria (b) where no consideration has been made to the identified listed building and wider character of the area, criteria (c) where the proposal's design in terms of appearance, height, scale, massing and materials is not appropriate, criteria (d) where the proposal does not respect or reinforce the open space criteria (e) where the local open space is divided rather than made accessible and inclusive and criteria (g) where the insensitive proposal has eroded local townscape in respect of the existing natural feature; Policy 17 where the proposal is not compatible with the amenity or character of the area and criteria (c) where the proposal does not improve the character and environment of the area and village; Policy 27A where the proposal's layout, design, materials, scale and siting is not appropriate to the listed building's long-established setting, character and appearance; and Policy 60B criteria (a) where the proposal is not designed with safety and convenience of all potential users in mind, and informed by Placemaking Supplementary Guidance, HES 'Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Boundaries and Setting' guidance, Designing Street policy and the National Roads Development Guide.” 1.3 The Appellants submit that the Proposal complies with National Policy Framework 4 (“NPF4”) and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (“the LDP”) and that material considerations support the Proposal. 1.4 The Appellants submit that the Council has taken an unreasonable approach to the assessment of the Application and has failed to balance properly the limited impact of the Proposal with its
Page 10
Active: 115889989v5 clear benefits in terms of the protection of the historical listed Stanley Church, the concerns of the wider community, and the safety of the Appellants. The impact on the setting of the listed building is de minimus, whereas the protection afforded by the new fence is critical to protecting the historical asset for future generations and preserving the amenity and security of the Property. 1.5 The Appellants are seeking a review of the Council’s decision on the following grounds: 1.5.1 the Council has erred in its assessment of planning policy and its conclusions for refusal, and the Proposal complies with local and national planning policy; and 1.5.2 the Council has failed to take into consideration material considerations which support the Proposal. 1.6 This Notice of Review demonstrates that the Proposal complies with the LDP and NPF4 and that material considerations support the Proposal. The Appellants submit that the Council’s assessment of the Application is flawed, and for the reasons set out in this Notice of Review the Local Review Body (“the LRB”) should reverse the Council’s decision and grant planning permission. 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 22 King Street is a detached dwellinghouse, with historical association as Manse to the adjacent category B listed Stanley Parish Church. Set back from the public road, the Property is accessed by travelling down a short private track, which is also the access road for the Church. 2.2 The Old Manse at King Street was previously the property of the Church of Scotland and sold to the Appellants in August 2022. The Appellants’ title extends not only to the Manse and immediate surrounding ground but includes the access road to the Church and Manse (see area shaded pink on the plan at Appendix 2), as well as the rectangular area of land to the front of the Manse, which bounds King Street (see area shaded pink on the plan at Appendix 3). This rectangular piece of land was described and sold to the Appellants as “Garden Ground” and forms part of the Appellants’ private ground. 2.3 The whole of the area including the Church and the Manse and their respective grounds is and always has been separated from King Street by a boundary fence and gate. Historically, it was separated from King Street by a stone wall and gate (see photograph at Appendix 4). There has never been free and open access from King Street onto any part of the church and Manse grounds, which are private ground. 2.4 There is long-standing community concern regarding the security of the historical grade B listed Church at Stanley, which the Appellants understand has not been in use since 2010. In recent years, the building has been subjected to significant vandalism, most significantly, fire-raising, which has led to irrevocable damage to the internal and external fabric of the building (see photographs at Appendix 5). 2.5 At the time the Appellants took ownership of the Manse, a dilapidated and unsightly metal link chain fence with 5-foot metal posts and 2 strands of wire running above, stood at the bottom of the Manse garden grounds. This fence ran adjacent to the pavement along King Street and along the curtilage of the Property. In a state of disrepair (the strand wires having long since
Page 11
Active: 115889989v5 deteriorated) the fence was unsightly and offered minimal security and protection (see photographs at Appendix 6) and vandals continued to take access over it to the Church and Manse grounds. 2.6 Concerned by these security issues, members of the community Neighbourhood Watch approached the Appellants in the Spring of 2023, following which the Appellants met with community wardens, together with members of the local Police, who were regularly being called out to incidents of anti-social behaviour at the Church, to discuss a solution to the problem. Following this meeting, the Appellants contacted their local councillor, Grant Laing, who advised that he had also been made aware of the security issues and was similarly concerned. 2.7 To resolve ongoing security concerns, the Appellants resolved to replace the original dilapidated fence. In September 2022, a local fencer was hired to reposition the wooden board fence from where it was previously erected immediately around the Manse to the edge of the Manse grounds, using the metal upright posts of the existing wire fence to attach it (see photograph at Appendix 7). The fence and its posts were positioned within the boundary of the Appellants’ title and do not adjoin or touch the pavement along King Street. 2.8 The Appellants were not aware that this improvement and repair to the original fence would require planning permission, and this having been drawn to their attention by letter dated 17 August 2022 from the Council (Appendix 8), they immediately took steps to apply for retrospective planning permission, the Council having agreed to grant an extension of time for doing so. 2.9 On 9 March 2023, Robert Crerar submitted the Application on behalf of the Appellants. The Application sought permission for the Proposal: “Erection of a fence (in retrospect) 22 King Street, Stanley, Perth, PH1 4ND”. 2.10 The Application included a Supporting Statement. The Supporting Statement outlined the background to the Application (i.e., the issues with vandalism, and community support for the new fence) and the various considerations taken by the Appellants to ensure the Proposal was in line with the character of the area and protected the visual amenity of the historical Stanley Church. The Supporting Statement is incorporated for the purposes of this Notice of Review at Appendix 9. The drawings which formed part of the Application can be found at Appendix 10 to Appendix 12. 2.11 The Application received one representation of objection, which relates to loss of view and that the fence was not visually attractive. It is stated in the Report of Handling (Appendix 13) that whilst loss of view cannot be logged as a material consideration, the resulting visual amenity impact and erosion of the aesthetic quality to the open space and the listed building’s setting, due to the Proposal’s scale and design, are considered as material points. 2.12 On 19 May 2023 the Council refused the Application for the following reasons: “1. Approval would be contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policy 7 criteria (a) due to the proposal's unsuitable impact on a historical asset, and informed by HES 'Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Boundaries and Setting' guidance; and criteria (c) where the proposal does not preserve the identified listed building's setting
Page 12
Active: 115889989v5 and associated character; Policy 14 where the proposal is designed in such a way that does not improve the quality of the area, does not support an attractive natural space, lacks attention to detail and does not support the long-term value of the open space, inconsistent with the 'pleasant', 'distinctive' and 'adaptable' qualities of a successful place. 2. Approval would be contrary to the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 Policy 1A and 1B with particular note to criteria (a) where there is a loss of established identity, criteria (b) where no consideration has been made to the identified listed building and wider character of the area, criteria (c) where the proposal's design in terms of appearance, height, scale, massing and materials is not appropriate, criteria (d) where the proposal does not respect or reinforce the open space, criteria (e) where the local open space is divided rather than made accessible and inclusive and criteria (g) where the insensitive proposal has eroded local townscape in respect of the existing natural feature; Policy 17 where the proposal is not compatible with the amenity or character of the area and criteria (c) where the proposal does not improve the character and environment of the area and village; Policy 27A where the proposal's layout, design, materials, scale and siting is not appropriate to the listed building's long-established setting, character and appearance; and Policy 60B criteria (a) where the proposal is not designed with safety and convenience of all potential users in mind, and informed by Placemaking Supplementary Guidance, HES 'Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Boundaries and Setting' guidance, Designing Street policy and the National Roads Development Guide.” 2.13 The Appellants submit that the Application complies with NPF4 and the LDP and is supported by the material considerations. The LRB should therefore reverse the Council’s decision and grant planning permission. 3 DETERMINATION OF NOTICE OF REVIEW 3.1 Section 43A of the Town and Country (Scotland) Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”) provides the Appellants with the right to require the planning authority to review the decisions made by an appointed officer under the scheme of delegation. On such review, the LRB may uphold, reverse or vary a determination reviewed by them. The LRB must approach the review de novo (Sally Carrol v Scottish Borders Council [2015] CSIH 73). 3.2 Determining Issues 3.3 Section 25 of the 1997 Act requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises NPF4 and the LDP. The Proposal is in accordance with NPF4 and the LDP and is supported by material considerations. The LRB should therefore reverse the Council’s decision and grant planning permission. Key issues 3.4 The Appellants submit that key issues in determination of the Application are:
Page 13
Active: 115889989v5 3.4.1 conservation considerations; 3.4.2 design and layout, and residential and visual amenity; 3.4.3 public concern for safety; and 3.4.4 safety and concerns of the Appellants. NPF4 3.5 NPF4 was adopted on 13 February 2023. The following NPF4 policies (produced in full at Appendix 18 – Note of relevant policies in full) are relevant to the Notice of Review and support the approval of the Proposal. 3.5.1 Policy 7 – Historic assets and places. 3.5.2 Policy 14 – Design, quality and place The LDP 3.6 The LDP was adopted on 29 November 2019. The following LDP policies (produced in full at Appendix 18 – Note of relevant policies in full) are relevant to the Notice of Review and support the approval of the Proposal. 3.6.1 Polices 1A and 1B – Placemaking 3.6.2 Policy 17 – Residential Areas. 3.6.3 Policy 27A – Listed Buildings. 3.6.4 Policy 60B – Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals. Material Considerations 3.7 The Proposal is supported by the following material considerations: 3.7.1 Public concern for safety; and 3.7.2 safety and concerns of the Appellants. 3.8 The Appellants submit that the Application complies with NPF4 and the LDP and is supported by the material considerations, all as set out below. 4 GROUNDS FOR REVIEW 4.1 The Appellants are seeking a review of the Council’s decision on the following grounds: 4.1.1 the Council has erred in its assessment of planning policy and its conclusions for refusal, and the Proposal complies with local and national planning policy; and
Page 14
Active: 115889989v5 4.1.2 the Council has failed to take into consideration material considerations which support the Proposal. 4.2 The Appellants submit that the LRB should reverse the Council’s decision and grant planning permission for the reasons that follow. Ground for Review 1: The Council has erred in its assessment of national and local planning policy and the Proposal complies with planning policy; 4.3 The Proposal complies with NPF4 and the LDP and is supported by the following policies: 4.4 Conservation Considerations - Compliance with NPF4 Policy 7 and LDP Policy 27A 4.5 The Council refused the Application as they concluded it was contrary to NPF4 Policy 7 criteria (a) due to the proposal’s unsuitable impact on a historical asset and informed by HES’ ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Boundaries and Setting’ guidance, and criteria (c) where the proposal does not preserve the identified listed building’s setting and associated character; and LDP Policy 27A where the proposal’s layout, design, materials, scale and siting is not appropriate to the listed building’s long-established setting, character and appearance. 4.6 The Appellants disagree with the Council’s assessment and reason for refusal. It is submitted that the proposal will have a positive impact on the listed building, going to the core of Policy 7’s very purpose, which is to “protect and enhance” historic environment assets. 4.7 For years, the grade B listed Stanley Church has regularly been vandalised by members of the public who take access to the grounds from King Street. The building has and continues to incur significant damage to its internal and external fabric: in November 2022 it was set alight (see photograph of fuel cans at Appendix 5), and incidents of vandalism occurred again in September 2022 and 2023. Up until now, vandals have been able to access to the Church with relative ease, because of the wire fence and gate from King Street, which had fallen into disrepair. 4.8 However, since building the new fence there has been a significant reduction in vandalism and damage to the Church. The increased height of the new fence means that taking access is now more difficult, whilst any opportunity to access through the fence is prevented by the wood panels. The neighbours on both sides of the Property asked the Appellants to take the new fence right along, so as to abut their walls and fences, thus minimising the opportunities for vandals to take access via adjacent properties. 4.9 As such, the Proposal serves to protect the historical Church, and members of the community have expressed their appreciation for what they see as the work the Appellants have done in good faith to tackle security issues which have been a concern for several years. Stanley Church is precisely the type of historical asset which Policy 7 is designed to protect. 4.10 As for the setting of the historical building, it is incorrect to infer that the proposed development will have an unsuitable impact. In the Report on Handling, the permeability of the new fence, and its height, were raised as being problematic. However, historically, there was a wall along the boundary with King Street (see photograph produced at Appendix 4) which was stone built (much less permeable than the new slatted wood fence), and much higher than the existing wire fence.
Page 15
Active: 115889989v5 Indeed, the view of the Church in the historical photo, taken looking down Charlotte Street, mirrors closely the view a pedestrian looking down Charlotte Street would have today (see photo at Appendix 14). The Appellants have also been sensitive to the use of materials for the new fence, and design and this is explored further Design and layout; Residential and visual amenity – Compliance with NPF4 Policy 14 and LDP Policies, 17(c), 1A and 1Bbelow. In summary, the scale and siting are appropriate to the listed building’s long-established setting, character, and appearance, in that they closely resemble the original setting of the Church. 4.11 In any case, even if the Council do take issue with the design of the new fence (which, it is submitted by the Appellants, is unreasonable), the Proposal should nonetheless fall to be considered as ‘enabling development’ under Policy 7, i.e., development that would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms but is essential, to secure the future of an historic environment asset or place which is at risk of serious deterioration or loss. Without this new fence, or some other means of protection (although what the Council would deem to be acceptable is not clear), the Church will continue to be vandalised. This is contrary to Policy 7 and LDP Policy 27A, which seek to protect and enhance historical assets. 4.12 It is submitted by the Appellants that the proposed development fully complies with Policy 7 and LDP Policy 27A, and that it is unreasonable to refuse the Proposal on the basis of protecting its setting, when the historic asset itself is currently being destroyed. The Proposal protects the historical asset, and it does not introduce a change to the boundary but, rather, reinstates a boundary which has existed historically. Any harm to the listed building’s setting is de minimus and is outweighed by the positive impacts on the listed building. The historical church should be protected, which this Proposal seeks to do. 4.13 The Proposal complies with NPF4 Policy 7 and LDP Policy 27A. 4.14 Design and layout; Residential and visual amenity – Compliance with NPF4 Policy 14 and LDP Policies, 17(c), 1A and 1B 4.15 The Council also refused the Application because it was contrary to NPF4 Policy 14, where the Proposal is designed in such a way that does not improve the quality of the area, does not support an attractive natural space, lacks attention to detail and does not support the long-term value of the open space, inconsistent with the ‘pleasant’, ‘distinctive’ and ‘adaptable’ qualities of a successful space, and LDP Policies 1A and 1B and 17(c). 4.16 The Appellants disagree with the Council’s assessment and reason for refusal. It is submitted by the Appellants that the Proposal will not have a negative impact on the visual amenity of the site, but rather, will improve the visual quality of the area. 4.17 At present, the Church is vandalised and in a state of disrepair (see photographs at Appendix 4), and the previous perimeter fence was similarly destitute. By contrast, this new fence is tidy and well-kept. According to Placemaking Supplementary Guidance, “spaces should create safe, accessible, inclusive spaces for people”; such is the effect of this new fence, which preserves the church for those users looking to access the site for legitimate use, rather than those who are entering to vandalise. The stand and strand wires had long since deteriorated and the old fence
Page 16
Active: 115889989v5 was felt both to be in a dangerous state but also, and more importantly, no longer provided any security for the listed Church. 4.18 In erecting the new fence, the Appellants considered that it was in keeping with the 6-foot fence at the other end of the curtilage (see photograph at Appendix 15). Indeed, neighbours on both sides asked the Appellants to take the new fence right along at either end, so as to abut their walls and fences. The new fence is also similar to others in the surrounding area (see photographs at Appendix 16). 4.19 Views to the Church are unaffected and, in the last year, the Appellants have enhanced visibility of the Church, through the removal of scrub trees and bushes (see photograph at Appendix 17). Beyond the new fence itself, wire fencing within the site means that clear lines of vision are kept open towards the Church, which is still very much visible from the street and surrounding viewpoints. As discussed above, the new fence matches the height of the original historical perimeter wall to the Church and Manse grounds (as do the views down Charlotte Street). The new fence itself is not impermeable – you can still see through the wooden slats – and the original 5 bar (i.e. not solid board) metal church gate has been retained, meaning that views down the access path to the Church are preserved. 4.20 As for materials of the new fence, the Appellants have simply moved the existing fence around the Manse and reused it, securing it to the existing wire fence. This was an intentional design decision by the Appellants, in a bid to respect and preserve the existing visual amenity and erect a fence in keeping with the wider site. The new fence will also be painted to enhance its appearance in the coming months, but on the advice of the fencer, has been left for the wood to settle. The Council’s conclusion that there has not been attention to detail in the Proposal is simply incorrect. The Appellants would be very happy to discuss and agree with officers an appropriate finishing for the new fence. 4.21 It is submitted that the Proposal complies with NPF4 Policy 14 and LDP Policies 1A and 1B and 27A. 4.22 Roads and access – Compliance with LDP Policy 60B 4.23 Finally, the Council refused the Application based on the view that it was contrary to LDP Policy 60B criteria (a) where the proposal is not designed with safety and convenience of all potential users in mind, and informed by Placemaking Supplementary Guidance, HES ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Boundaries and Setting’ guidance, Designing Street policy and the National Roads Development Guide. 4.24 One issue raised in the Report of Handling is that the height of the new fence at the vehicle access is in excess of 1.05 metres and does not afford the appropriate visibility splay onto the public road network. As noted, the Appellants have considered this by lowering the new fence either side of the access gate. The Appellants would be happy to further lower the new fence at this point, to meet national requirements. 4.25 It is submitted that this deviation alone does not justify refusal of the Application.
Page 17
Active: 115889989v5 Ground for Review 2: The Council has failed to take into consideration material considerations which support the Proposal. 4.26 It is submitted by the Appellants, that in coming to its decision for refusal, the Council has failed to take into consideration material considerations which are relevant to the Proposal. 4.27 Firstly, public concern for safety can be a material consideration with respect to planning decisions (Newport BC v Secretary of State for Wales [1998] Env. L.R. 174). The erection of the new fence is primarily a safety measure to help stop vandalism of the Church and grounds, which is clearly a very real threat (evidenced by the many incidents of vandalism in the past few years), as well as a concern of the wider community. There is support for the new fence, in particular, from surrounding neighbours, who have actively written in support of the Proposal (see letter from the owner of adjacent properties 18, 20a and 20b, King Street, at Appendix 19) The Proposal is also supported by the wider community, including the local Neighbourhood Watch, Community Wardens and Police, who have been involved with several incidents of youths gathering at the Church and vandalising, and actively engaged in meetings with the Appellants in the months leading up to the erection of the new fence. Recently, police officer 1609 visited the Appellants and said to quote his number in respect to vandalism issues at the Church. Only one representation of objection to the Application was received. 4.28 The erection of the new fence has helped quell long-standing concerns for the security of the Church, and indeed, members of the community have expressed their appreciation for what they see as the work the Appellants have done in good faith to tackle these issues. The sentiments of the wider community should not be overlooked in considering this Application. 4.29 Secondly, whilst the Appellants accept that as a general principle, planning is concerned with land use from the point of view of public interest, it is also well established that the public interest may require that the interests of individual occupiers should be considered (Stringer v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1971] 1 All E.R. 65). 4.30 Whilst the new fence encloses the historical Stanley Church, it also encloses the Appellants’ home, and land which is in their private ownership. The Manse itself is in close proximity to the Church and it follows that the presence of vandals not only poses a threat to the historical Church but threatens the Appellants’ safety and that of their property, as well as their rights to enjoyment of their home. The Appellants are now in their late 60’s and 70’s and fearful for their own safety, as well as the security of their pedigree working dogs, whom they fear may be targeted by those unlawfully accessing the Church and adjacent grounds. 4.31 It is submitted that the new fence is a justified development in the circumstances. Those who are accessing the Church for the wrong reasons are deterred from entering, whilst those accessing for legitimate purposes are still free to take access and enjoy the Church and surrounding grounds. The Appellants’ primary concerns remain the protection of the Church – a concern shared by the wider community – and the right to feel safe in their own home. 4.32 It is submitted that the Council have failed to take into consideration the above material considerations which support the Proposal.
Page 18
Active: 115889989v5 5 TEMPORARY CONSENT 5.1 Whilst the Appellants submit that the LRB should reverse the Council’s decision and grant planning permission for the reasons outlined in this Notice of Review, they also acknowledge that the proposed development may not always be required. 5.2 In its present state, the Church is unused and in a state of disrepair, attracting vandals to the Property. Such is the requirement for this new, reinforced fence, primarily as a security measure to help prevent vandalism. Nonetheless, the Appellants acknowledge that there may be plans to renovate the Church in the future, in which case, the fence may no longer be required in its current form. 5.3 Considering this, should the LRB be minded to refuse the application, the Appellants would be open to a condition being attached to the planning permission limiting its duration to a period of 5 years. That would protect the Church and the Manse, and the requirement for the new fence to remain in place could be revisited at the end of that period. That would, for example, provide time for the Church to be redeveloped and secured to a reasonable standard. 5.4 The Appellants respectfully submit that the LRB consider this proposal when assessing the Application as outlined below. 6 CONCLUSION 6.1 The Application is supported by NPF4 and the LDP and material considerations as set out in this Notice of Review. It is submitted that the LRB should therefore reverse the Council’s decision and grant planning permission. BURNESS PAULL LLP Solicitors, Edinburgh AGENT FOR THE APPELLANTS August 2023
Page 19
Active: 115889989v5 7 LIST OF DOCUMENTS 7.1 Appendix 1 – Decision Notice dated 19 May 2023 7.2 Appendix 2 – Title Plan 1 7.3 Appendix 3 – Title Plan 2 7.4 Appendix 4 – Historical Photograph taken from Charlotte Street 7.5 Appendix 5 – Photographs of vandalism of Church 7.6 Appendix 6 – Photographs of old fence 7.7 Appendix 7 – Photograph of new fence fixed to old fence 7.8 Appendix 8 – Copy letter dated 17/08/2022 from the Council 7.9 Appendix 9 – Supporting Statement (submitted with Application) 7.10 Appendix 10 – Site Plan as Built (submitted with Application) 7.11 Appendix 11 – Existing Site Plan (submitted with Application) 7.12 Appendix 12 – Plans and Elevations (submitted with (Application) 7.13 Appendix 13 – Report of Handing 7.14 Appendix 14 – Photograph taken from Charlotte Street 2023 7.15 Appendix 15 – Photograph showing fence at other end of curtilage 7.16 Appendix 16 – Photographs showing other fences in the area 7.17 Appendix 17 – Photograph showing cleared scrub 7.18 Appendix 18 – Note of relevant policies in full 7.19 Appendix 19 – Letter of support from neighbour, Michelle Gillies
Page 20
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 1 Decision Notice dated 19 May 2023
Page 21
Active: 115889989v5
Page 22
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 2 Title Plan 1
Page 23
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 3 Title Plan 2
Page 24
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 4 Historical photograph taken from Charlotte Street
Page 25
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 5 Photographs of Vandalism
Page 26
Active: 115889989v5
Page 27
Active: 115889989v5
Page 28
Active: 115889989v5
Page 29
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 6 Photographs showing old fence
Page 30
Active: 115889989v5
Page 31
Active: 115889989v5
Page 32
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 7 Photograph of new fence fixed to old fence
Page 33
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 8 Copy letter dated 17/08/2022 from the Council
Page 34
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 9 Supporting Statement (submitted with Application)
Page 35
Active: 115889989v5
Page 36
Active: 115889989v5
Page 37
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 10 Site Plan as Built (submitted with Application)
Page 38
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 11 Existing Site Plan (submitted with Application)
Page 39
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 12 Plans and Elevations (submitted with (Application)
Page 40
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 13 Report of Handing
Page 41
Active: 115889989v5
Page 42
Active: 115889989v5
Page 43
Active: 115889989v5
Page 44
Active: 115889989v5
Page 45
Active: 115889989v5
Page 46
Active: 115889989v5
Page 47
Active: 115889989v5
Page 48
Active: 115889989v5
Page 49
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 14 Photograph taken from Charlotte Street 2023
Page 50
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 15 Photograph showing fence at other end of curtilage
Page 51
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 16 Photographs of other fences in area
Page 52
Active: 115889989v5
Page 53
Active: 115889989v5
Page 54
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 17 Photograph showing cleared scrub
Page 55
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 18
Page 56
Active: 115889989v5
Page 57
Active: 115889989v5
Page 58
Active: 115889989v5
Page 59
Active: 115889989v5
Page 60
Active: 115889989v5
Page 61
Active: 115889989v5 APPENDIX 19 Letter of support from neighbour, Michelle Gillies From: Ron Date: 9 August 2023 at 21:16:18 BST To: " Subject: Fencing along front of former churchyard Dear Billy and Lorna, I write to advise that I fully support the erection of the wooden fence along the whole front of the former churchyard ground along roadside of king street. This fence provides much needed security not only to your premises and the church but more importantly to those of your neighbours including my family’s 3 properties at 18, 20a & 20b King Street. We neighbours are all too aware that vandals have been entering the churchyard and adjoining areas including the old Manse grounds and our adjacent properties on a regular basis with the sole intention of causing damage to property. This is most distressing and concerning for all of us living in the close vicinity of the former churchyard. I am also aware that my father Cameron Gillies, who lived in no.18 King Street until his death in January 2023, was also in full support of the heightened fence and that he voiced his support verbally to you both on numerous occasions. He informed me that it made him feel safer in his home and garden as it provided an additional screen and security to his own garden which adjoins the now privately owned old Manse ground and churchyard beyond. I am very disappointed in Perth & Kinross Council’s decision to disallow the fence rather than consider the significant merits of the security concerns that it has addressed for our community and protected us and our properties from intruders and vandalism which we had to endure prior to its installation . I also consider the concerns raised by but only two local residents, one of whom has only recently moved into the street to be spurious. Kind regards Michelle Gillies Sent from Mail for Windows
Page 62
No embedded text on this page.