(c) Representations (Pages 181-242)
Perth and Kinross Council · 18 December 2023
Back to Local Review Body — 18 December 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(ii)(c) LRB-2023-39 LRB-2023-39 23/00532/FLL - Erection of a dwellinghouse and associated works, land north of 31 Main Street, Keltybridge REPRESENTATIONS
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
No embedded text on this page.
Page 4
No embedded text on this page.
Page 5
No embedded text on this page.
Page 6
No embedded text on this page.
Page 7
No embedded text on this page.
Page 8
No embedded text on this page.
Page 9
No embedded text on this page.
Page 10
No embedded text on this page.
Page 11
No embedded text on this page.
Page 12
No embedded text on this page.
Page 13
No embedded text on this page.
Page 14
No embedded text on this page.
Page 15
No embedded text on this page.
Page 16
No embedded text on this page.
Page 17
No embedded text on this page.
Page 18
No embedded text on this page.
Page 19
No embedded text on this page.
Page 20
No embedded text on this page.
Page 21
No embedded text on this page.
Page 22
No embedded text on this page.
Page 23
No embedded text on this page.
Page 24
No embedded text on this page.
Page 25
No embedded text on this page.
Page 26
No embedded text on this page.
Page 27
No embedded text on this page.
Page 28
No embedded text on this page.
Page 29
No embedded text on this page.
Page 30
No embedded text on this page.
Page 31
No embedded text on this page.
Page 32
No embedded text on this page.
Page 33
No embedded text on this page.
Page 34
No embedded text on this page.
Page 35
No embedded text on this page.
Page 36
No embedded text on this page.
Page 37
No embedded text on this page.
Page 38
No embedded text on this page.
Page 39
No embedded text on this page.
Page 40
No embedded text on this page.
Page 41
No embedded text on this page.
Page 42
No embedded text on this page.
Page 43
No embedded text on this page.
Page 44
No embedded text on this page.
Page 45
No embedded text on this page.
Page 46
No embedded text on this page.
Page 47
No embedded text on this page.
Page 48
No embedded text on this page.
Page 49
No embedded text on this page.
Page 50
No embedded text on this page.
Page 51
No embedded text on this page.
Page 52
Mr Cameron Hunter (Objects) Comment submitted date: Thu 18 May 2023 I firmly object to this proposal based on the following areas of concern: - This directly contravenes the original basis upon which the planning for the two adjacent properties was granted. The revised application for the two dwellings, dated 11th February 2020 stated that the area of ground related to the application "should be allowed to re-wild and vegetate naturally". I do not see a reasonable means by which PKC can grant this application, as this would involve directly revoking their own stipulations made previously. - Approval of this application would see the removal of the only remaining green space within Keltybridge, which is itself a conservation area and is steeped in history, and should be subjected to controls due its historical value. At a time where the harmful environmental effects of the UK's diminishing biodiversity are being regularly highlighted nationally, this application, if approved, unnecessarily exacerbates a known and serious problem caused by over development. - There is an existing commitment from the applicant to make the land good, returning it to its natural state following the previously approved works relating to the three recently built properties. A commitment which has yet to be fulfilled, as the land has been used a storage site for building waste and machinery thus far. Little to no effort has been made to meet this commitment throughout what has been a disruptive 2 years of works, which often restricted road access, causing residents significant day-to-day disruption. - The area itself, is by far too small in its scale to host a dwelling house. This would lead to over intensive development of the area, with a disproportionate density of buildings eroding its character.
Page 53
No embedded text on this page.
Page 54
No embedded text on this page.
Page 55
No embedded text on this page.
Page 56
No embedded text on this page.
Page 57
No embedded text on this page.
Page 58
No embedded text on this page.
Page 59
Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town & Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation & Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Application Ref: 23/00532/FLL - Erection of a dwellinghouse and associated works, land north of 31 Main Street, Keltybridge Written Submission from Mr. G. and Mrs J. Simpson, . Thank you for notifying us of the above APPEAL. We have confidence the members of the Local Review Body (LRB) will study all of the relevant documents leading to the Planning Officer’s Delegated Report of Handling and including our original terms of objection. Therefore, we do not find it necessary to go over such terms again but rather seek to highlight the following material considerations in planning: The appellant’s focus: the appellant has listed no less than 13-formal planning submissions for this land; 25- policies; 5-Supplementary Guidance; 3-national Guidance. It is not necessary to focus on such an exhaustive listing. We demonstrate why below. The Planning Unit: the planning unit in this case relates to the site of planning applications 13/02177/FLL and 20/00201/FLL. The former granted planning permission with 9 conditions for the erection of two houses on the land and Condition 7 related to landscaping of the plot of land. Condition 7 The approved landscaping and planting scheme shall be fully implemented within six months of the completion of the development and thereafter maintained by the applicants or their successors to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of visual amenity and environmental quality. The 2020 submission only sought to update some of the architectural details of the houses by way of amendment. The Planning Officer’s report did however state as below: Landscape Landscaping plans have previously been included as part of the site design but have not been submitted with this application. The area to the north contains an existing septic tank associated with housing on the other side of the road. This was originally going to be removed and the area landscaped. Following correspondence with the agent it is noted that the septic tank is not to be removed and that it is proposed that this area is largely to be left to re- vegetate naturally. As limited information has been provided as to how this affects the previously approved landscape plan it is proposed to request landscaping detail by condition. (COPY EXTRACT FROM OFFICER’S DELEGATED REPORT 20/00201/FLL) Condition 3 was imposed: 3 Prior to 31st July 2020 full details of the landscaping and planting scheme for the site shall be submitted for the further written agreement of the Council as Planning Authority. The scheme shall include full details of all hard and soft landscaping including materials and installation methods and, species, height, size and density of trees and shrubs to be planted. The scheme as subsequently approved shall be carried out and completed within the first available planting season (October to March) after the completion or bringing into use of the development, whichever is the earlier, and the date of Practical Completion of the landscaping scheme shall be supplied in writing to the Council
Page 60
as Planning Authority within 7 days of that date. The approved scheme shall thereafter be maintained, with any planting which fails to become established within five years being replaced in the following planting season with others of a size and species as previously approved. Reason - To ensure a satisfactory standard of development and environmental quality and to reserve the rights of the Planning Authority. The above clearly shows the subject of this APPEAL is part of the ‘planning unit’ approved with conditions for two houses and which are now built. NB A landscape and planting plan was submitted in May 2017, but it is not clear if this was approved or not. The Current proposal: It is most disconcerting so much of this is set aside by the appellant and to the extent that planning matters and contexts are often conflated and subject to rhetoric and mere rebuttal of the Council’s determination. More importantly we place our full confidence in the terms of the Report of Handling which after detailed consideration, recommended refusal with clear and comprehensive reasons given. Please note the plot ratio if this appeal were upheld means that the resultant plot ratio for the existing two houses is “over-development”. Landscaping and the planning unit: NMV LANDSCAPE AND SITE PLAN was submitted in May 2017 under 13/02177/7, however it is not clear if this was approved or not. When purchasing our property, we were advised by the Developer of the plan to place a locked gate at the entrance to the adjacent land, together with the clear intention to plant wildflowers and allow rewilding of this area. It seemed clear then when the build of the two approved houses was near completion, that landscaping of the land north of 31 Main Street was to begin. This has never happened, the land was piled high of building materials and waste for over a year, with a ‘Portaloo’ toilet sited immediately outside our living room window. The appellant is looking to build a third property when it was made clear under planning reference 13/002177 as amended that two houses could be built, on the condition the remaining land was rewilded, landscaped and set aside as green space. We call on the Local Review Body to uphold the decision made by Planning professionals, set out in what is a carefully considered Report of Handling, to secure that the landscape quality of the site is enhanced and delivered in the way already approved and for the compelling reasons asserted. The full extent of land subject of this APPEAL is part of our planning unit. Since it is not clear whether the appellant is willing to carry out the landscaping required, we humbly suggest or request that the LRB determines that the Council, as planning authority, asserts an emergency TPO on the land and to thereafter register same in accord with the processes under Planning Circular 1/2011 - Tree Preservation Orders. REASON: To safeguard the long-term visual amenity and nature value of the land that is in the public realm. We thank the Local Review Body for taking time to read and consider our submission.
Page 61
CDS Planning Local Review Body From: Sent: 08 November 2023 07:53 To: CDS Planning Local Review Body Subject: Re: LRB-2023-39 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. Thank you for your email concerning the appeal against your decision with regard to planning application Application Ref: 23/00532/FLL - Erection of a dwellinghouse and associated works, land north of 31 Main Street, Keltybridge I have no further objections but would like to take this opportunity to fully support the robust refusal the application has already received and to say that I see nothing in the appeal that justifies an overturn of the original decision. Kind regards Yours faithfully Sarah Joice
Page 62
No embedded text on this page.