(c) Representations (Pages 81-90)
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)(c) LRB-2023-29 LRB-2023-29 - 23/00184/FLL – Erection of a fence (in retrospect), 22 King Street, Stanley, Perth, PH1 4ND REPRESENTATIONS
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
No embedded text on this page.
Page 4
1 Development Management From: Chris Rynn Sent: 03 May 2023 18:33 To: Development Management Subject: Ref 23/00184/FLL CAUTION: This email originated from an external organisation. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Re: Erection of a fence at 22 King Street Stanley, Perth PH1 4ND Dear Development Management, Then this monstrosity of a fence was erected (without even any permission, as I now understand). As you can see from the images below, it does not block our view of the house, merely the grass. It serves no other purpose. It does not stop teenagers from entering the churchyard, as it was intended, as they just hop over the low gate instead. In winter, it blocks what little sun there is from the pavement, and so that snow never melted on that side of the street, which was slippy and dangerous throughout most of the winter weather. In summer, as you can see from the image below, it keeps the sun off the pavement for most of the day, which then becomes mossy and slippy in the rain.
Page 5
2 It does not fit with the beautiful quaint aesthetic of the village at all, which devalues this entire side of the street of heritage listed buildings, who have now lost their nice view to what looks like a 6ft tall line of wooden pallets. It is simply awful, and knowing that it was erected without permission is infuriating to say the least. Please remove it, forthwith. Yours sincerely, Dr Christopher Rynn -- Dr Christopher Rynn Forensic Craniofacial Anthropologist
Page 6
Development Management From: Chris Rynn Sent: 05 May 2023 14:08 To: Development Management Subject: Re: Ref 23/00184/FLL Which was great when we moved in, because we had a lovely view of nothing but greenery, until the fence obscured it a couple of months later. As I said, the fence only obscures the view of the grass of the churchyard: not of the Manse which is fully visible from street level on this side of the street, as it sits on higher ground. It was previously hidden by bushes, which have now been cut down. Cheers, Chris
Page 7
1 CDS Planning Local Review Body From: Chris Rynn Sent: 14 September 2023 15:48 To: CDS Planning Local Review Body Subject: Re: LRB-2023-29 Attachments: image001.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from an external organisation. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Re: Application Ref: 23/00184/FLL – Erection of a fence (in retrospect), 22 King Street, Stanley, Perth, PH1 4ND – Mr and Mrs Birse-Stewart Dear Local Review Body, Further to the points made in my prior objection and in mind of the appeal, I asked around the neighbourhood if any other neighbours had an issue with the fence, in an effort to gain a more objective perspective of the situation. The following points were raised by others, but since those concerned are aware that this will be published online, they were given under the condition of anonymity. 1) Ownership. Who legally owns the churchyard and the church? This question was asked the most, but I do not know the answer. 2) If the fence was indeed intended to protect the church from vandalism, or because the building is unsafe (despite the fact that it will likely be gutted and turned into flats at the first opportunity), then it should have been erected around the church itself, rather than around the entire churchyard. A fence already existed around the church, which could have been extended vertically, or reinforced in other ways, but was not. 3) Access. Until the erection of the fence in question, the community enjoyed daily access to the churchyard. I personally observed many neighbours, some of whom have no garden of their own, sitting on the benches in the sun, chatting. I met several neighbours in the churchyard when I first moved here last year. Now their community hub is gone. 4) Several of the trees in the churchyard are memorial trees, analogous to gravestones, which were regularly visited and pruned by the families of the decedents: just as the churchyard was tended, voluntarily, by several members of this close-knit community. These trees were improperly pruned back immediately after the fence was erected and the gate, chained shut. 5) The vandalism to the church. This was filmed over a year ago, published on social media at the time and again very recently, along with the names of several local teenagers which were graffitied on the walls. Although the culprits are unknown, many of the individuals named in that graffiti are no longer even
Page 8
2 resident in the village. The fence did not prevent further access to trespassing teenagers, who simply hopped over the low gate when they thought nobody was looking. Perth Police should have a record of when they were caught doing this, as the police were called to the village to chase trespassing teenagers, multiple times after the fence was erected: proving that, despite its foreboding appearance, the fence serves no practical purpose in preventing trespassing teenagers’ access to the church, nor the churchyard: it only affects the law-abiding adult residents of the village (not that trespass is a law). Members of Stanley’s Men’s Shed would have happily fixed this vandalism, if they had been made aware of it: again, voluntarily, as part of this community, like everything else they do, from the community orchard to the shared workshop. Yours sincerely,
Page 9
CDS Planning Local Review Body From: Alasdair Sutherland <Alasdair.Sutherland@burnesspaull.com> Sent: 03 October 2023 15:11 To: CDS Planning Local Review Body Subject: RE: LRB-2023-29 [BURNESSPAULL-ACTIVE.FID48452191] CAUTION: This email originated from an external organisaon. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open aachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Audrey We have reviewed Mr Rynn’s representation, dated 14 September 2023. Our client’s Notice of Review Statement addresses the matters raised by Mr Rynn. With regards the ownership of the garden ground, I refer to our clients’ Review Statement at paragraph 2.2 and confirm that they own (i) the Manse and immediate surrounding ground and the access road to the Church and Manse (see Review Statement Appendix 2), and (ii) the rectangular area of land to the front of the Manse, which bounds King Street (see Review Statement Appendix 3). The Church of Scotland sold the land to our clients as “Garden Ground†. Our clients would be happy to provide the Board with further information on the ownership and management of their property if that would assist. Kind regards Alasdair Alasdair Sutherland Partner and Solicitor Advocate Burness Paull LLP Direct Dial: +44 (0)131 370 8955 Mobile: +44 (0)7919 327 206 Email: Alasdair.Sutherland@burnesspaull.com Pronouns: He/him/his
Page 10
No embedded text on this page.