(c) Representations (Pages 311-348)
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(iii)(c) LRB-2023-40 LRB-2023-40 23/00923/IPL - Erection of a dwellinghouse (in principle), land 75 metres north west of Mullmach, Saucher, Kinross 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
E g0307; E g 3 E g E 16031035June 2023. H Perth & Kinross Council, Planning & Development, Pullar House, 35 Kinnoull Street, Perth PH1 SGD. Dear Sir, / write in response to the Planning Application by MrJ Sinclair at East Saucher Farm, Kinrossie, Perth, Ref 23/00923IPL. I wish to raise objection to the proposed planning application as I was not made aware that a substantial part of eldwould be taken for access to the plot which will impact on There is also the question ofsewage disposal as I think the village is at capacity. There is an odour at the burn from previous developments. I do hope you will take my views into account. Yours sincerely, Andrew Penny.
Page 6
Friday, 16 June 2023 Local Planner Planning and Development Perth and Kinross Council Perth PH1 5GD Development Operations The Bridge Buchanan Gate Business Park Cumbernauld Road Stepps Glasgow G33 6FB Development Operations Freephone Number - 0800 3890379 E-Mail - DevelopmentOperations@scottishwater.co.uk www.scottishwater.co.uk Dear Customer, 75 Metres NW Of Mullmac Saucher, Kinrossie, Perth, PH2 6HY Planning Ref: 23/00923/IPL Our Ref: DSCAS-0088758-SSR Proposal: Erection of a dwellinghouse (in principle) Please quote our reference in all future correspondence Audit of Proposal Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application; however, the applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced. Please read the following carefully as there may be further action required. Scottish Water would advise the following: Water Capacity Assessment Scottish Water has carried out a Capacity review and we can confirm the following: 4 This proposed development will be fed from Lintrathen Water Treatment Works. Unfortunately, Scottish Water is unable to confirm capacity currently so to allow us to fully appraise the proposals we suggest that the applicant completes a Pre- Development Enquiry (PDE) Form and submits it directly to Scottish Water via our Customer Portal or contact Development Operations. Waste Water Capacity Assessment 4 This proposed development will be serviced by Saucher Waste Water Treatment Works. Unfortunately, Scottish Water is unable to confirm capacity currently so to allow us to fully appraise the proposals we suggest that the applicant completes a Pre-Development Enquiry (PDE) Form and submits it directly to Scottish Water via our Customer Portal or contact Development Operations. SW Publicc General
Page 7
Please Note 4 The applicant should be aware that we are unable to reserve capacity at our water and/or waste water treatment works for their proposed development. Once a formal connection application is submitted to Scottish Water after full planning permission has been granted, we will review the availability of capacity at that time and advise the applicant accordingly. Asset Impact Assessment Scottish Water records indicate that there is live infrastructure in the proximity of your development area that may impact on existing Scottish Water assets. 4 Combined sewer within the site boundary 4 Treated effluent within the site boundary The applicant must identify any potential conflicts with Scottish Water assets and contact our Asset Impact Team via our Customer Portal for an appraisal of the proposals. The applicant should be aware that any conflict with assets identified will be subject to restrictions on proximity of construction. Please note the disclaimer at the end of this response. Written permission must be obtained before any works are started within the area of our apparatus Surface Water For reasons of sustainability and to protect our customers from potential future sewer flooding, Scottish Water will not accept any surface water connections into our combined sewer system. There may be limited exceptional circumstances where we would allow such a connection for brownfield sites only, however this will require significant justification from the customer taking account of various factors including legal, physical, and technical challenges. In order to avoid costs and delays where a surface water discharge to our combined sewer system is anticipated, the developer should contact Scottish Water at the earliest opportunity with strong evidence to support the intended drainage plan prior to making a connection request. We will assess this evidence in a robust manner and provide a decision that reflects the best option from environmental and customer perspectives. General notes: 4 Scottish Water asset plans can be obtained from our appointed asset plan providers: SW Publicc General
Page 8
4 Site Investigation Services (UK) Ltd 4 Tel: 0333 123 1223 4 Email: sw@sisplan.co.uk 4 www.sisplan.co.uk 4 Scottish Water’s current minimum level of service for water pressure is 1.0 bar or 10m head at the customer’s boundary internal outlet. Any property which cannot be adequately serviced from the available pressure may require private pumping arrangements to be installed, subject to compliance with Water Byelaws. If the developer wishes to enquire about Scottish Water’s procedure for checking the water pressure in the area, then they should write to the Customer Connections department at the above address. 4 If the connection to the public sewer and/or water main requires to be laid through land out-with public ownership, the developer must provide evidence of formal approval from the affected landowner(s) by way of a deed of servitude. 4 Scottish Water may only vest new water or waste water infrastructure which is to be laid through land out with public ownership where a Deed of Servitude has been obtained in our favour by the developer. 4 The developer should also be aware that Scottish Water requires land title to the area of land where a pumping station and/or SUDS proposed to vest in Scottish Water is constructed. 4 Please find information on how to submit application to Scottish Water at our Customer Portal. Next Steps: 4 All Proposed Developments All proposed developments require to submit a Pre-Development Enquiry (PDE) Form to be submitted directly to Scottish Water via our Customer Portal prior to any formal Technical Application being submitted. This will allow us to fully appraise the proposals. Where it is confirmed through the PDE process that mitigation works are necessary to support a development, the cost of these works is to be met by the developer, which Scottish Water can contribute towards through Reasonable Cost Contribution regulations. 4 Non Domestic/Commercial Property: Since the introduction of the Water Services (Scotland) Act 2005 in April 2008 the water industry in Scotland has opened to market competition for non-domestic customers. All Non-domestic Household customers now require a Licensed Provider to act on their behalf for new water and waste water connections. Further details can be obtained at www.scotlandontap.gov.uk 4 Trade Effluent Discharge from Non-Domestic Property: SW Publicc General
Page 9
4 Certain discharges from non-domestic premises may constitute a trade effluent in terms of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968. Trade effluent arises from activities including; manufacturing, production and engineering; vehicle, plant and equipment washing, waste and leachate management. It covers both large and small premises, including activities such as car washing and launderettes. Activities not covered include hotels, caravan sites or restaurants. 4 If you are in any doubt as to whether the discharge from your premises is likely to be trade effluent, please contact us on 0800 778 0778 or email TEQ@scottishwater.co.uk using the subject “Is this Trade Effluent?". Discharges that are deemed to be trade effluent need to apply separately for permission to discharge to the sewerage system. The forms and application guidance notes can be found here. 4 Trade effluent must never be discharged into surface water drainage systems as these are solely for draining rainfall run off. 4 For food services establishments, Scottish Water recommends a suitably sized grease trap is fitted within the food preparation areas, so the development complies with Standard 3.7 a) of the Building Standards Technical Handbook and for best management and housekeeping practices to be followed which prevent food waste, fat oil and grease from being disposed into sinks and drains. 4 The Waste (Scotland) Regulations which require all non-rural food businesses, producing more than 5kg of food waste per week, to segregate that waste for separate collection. The regulations also ban the use of food waste disposal units that dispose of food waste to the public sewer. Further information can be found at www.resourceefficientscotland.com I trust the above is acceptable however if you require any further information regarding this matter please contact me on 0800 389 0379 or via the e-mail address below or at planningconsultations@scottishwater.co.uk. Yours sincerely, Angela Allison Development Services Analyst PlanningConsultations@scottishwater.co.uk Scottish Water Disclaimer: “It is important to note that the information on any such plan provided on Scottish Water’s infrastructure, is for indicative purposes only and its accuracy cannot be relied upon. When the exact location and the nature of the infrastructure on the plan is a material requirement then you should undertake an appropriate site investigation to confirm its actual position in the ground and to determine if it is suitable for its intended purpose. By using the plan you agree that Scottish Water will not be liable for any loss, damage or costs caused by relying upon it or from carrying out any such site investigation." SW Public General SW Publicc General
Page 10
Mr Ross Taylor (Objects) Comment submitted date: Thu 22 Jun 2023 I would like to strongly object to this proposal as the applicant has repeatedly endeavoured to stop any kind of building work/planning permission in the past, as visible on previous planning applications for the village, stating that another dwelling would be a "huge burden on the existing village and residents and that nowadays the new residents would have at least 2 or 3 vehicles which would have a huge detrimental impact on the already poorly maintained road, and would lead to overspill parking on the village green." However, it would now appear that because it would mean the applicant himself benefitting in a very obvious way that, that no longer applies, and with no consideration for the residents themselves. The site claims to finish and square off the village, however, it will need a completely new road entrance as per their pictures and plans due to the fact that their would be no access from the village itself as their isn't the room for the house or the access in the first place to get to the proposed dwelling! The road in which the applicant claims to own but yet has never maintained as this is done by the residents themselves, would be hugely impacted by lorries and diggers etc as their are already huge potholes in the entrance to the village and their is a 'dog leg' from the entrance to the proposed access, thus causing alot more harm than has already occurred and meaning even more detriment to the road and surrounding areas due to the vehicles not being able to reach the site in 1 movement. ¿Please note that saucher is a very peaceful hamlet and would be hugely impacted by the noise that would come from this building work ¿their is no capacity left in the existing septic tank for the village and so another house would not be possible to be serviced via the septic tank also. ¿This would also have a huge impact on the trees and wildlife around the proposed area.
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
Mr Scott Geddes (Objects) Comment submitted date: Mon 26 Jun 2023 Dear Sir/Madam PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE: 23/00923/IPL PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE (IN PRINCIPLE) AT LAND 75M NW OF MULLMAC, SAUCHER OBJECTION I refer to the recent neighbourhood notification received in relation to the above proposal. Please accept this as a formal neighbour objection to the proposal on the following grounds: - Development at this site would be regarded as development in the countryside and is outwith the settlement boundaries for Saucher. - The proposed development is out of keeping with the current properties within Saucher which all have direct access to the village green. - The proposed development is on land elevated above my property within the village and will result in a reduction in privacy and loss of light for my current household as they will become overlooked. - The overall plot appears to be much larger than other dwellings within the village - again not in keeping with the 'village feel'. - I note that the developer indicates that the plot is the 'missing' north-east corner of the village however the plot does not have access directly into the centre of the village and therefore would be separate from the village itself so would not form part of the 'group' of current properties. - The access to the proposed plot is at an already narrow, busy junction on a poorly maintained, privately owned road network. There is the increased risk of accidents especially given that the local children actively use the roadway for active play (cycling etc). - I note that the proposal is to sell the plot once planning permission is obtained therefore find it difficult to understand how the promises made in the current 'in principle' application will be complied with once the applicant has no control over what is built on site. -Due to the septic tank already being at full capacity in Saucher there would need to be a private septic tank and the run off into the burn has already got a very bad smell due to another development and has a very poor flow of water.(sometimes none) -<REDACTED> and the impact on my daily rest will make a significant impact to my safety at my work which is a massive concern. -The applicant has repeatedly opposed to any other developments within the village however now it would appear that this no longer applies as the applicant will be benefiting from the development. Regards Scott Geddes
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
Miss Rebecca Gillan (Objects) Comment submitted date: Thu 29 Jun 2023 Please find my objection to the proposed planning application. The private road which the applicant own is not maintained by himself, The current state of the road is full of potholes and has damaged cars. The road will not be able to stand up to construction vehicles and then extra cars using this road. To get to the proposed plots, there will be extremely poor access and will not be able to be done in 1 swoop. The planned houses will not add to the village as is it will be out with the village green.The applicant has already objected to planning on the grounds that he does not want the village to become over crowded. <REDACTED>
Page 25
Mr Andrew Geddes (Objects) Comment submitted date: Fri 30 Jun 2023 I would like to strongly object to this proposed development due to the following reasons -the dwelling would not square off the village as it will need a different road in order to be accessed, and so would not be part of the existing village -Road safety concerns due to the children in the village regularly using the proposed areas for playing -the applicant has always said that he didnt want any development in the village as this would then cause overcrowding and excessive car overspill, parking in and around the village -the road in which the applicant owns has never been maintained by himself as this is done by the residents and this would be a huge burden on the existing infrastructure -the proposed dwelling would overlook the house next door to the site due to the ground being a lot higher than the existing houses and would then restrict light as per Mr geddes's pictures from standing on the proposed site -At least ( REDACTED ) and so this would cause huge disruption for them
Page 26
Mrs Ashleigh Smith (Objects) Comment submitted date: Fri 30 Jun 2023 Please find my objection to the proposed planning. Firstly I would like to note that the applicant has objected to many previous building/alternation applications within Saucher but has no objections when he will financially benefit from a new property to 'square off Saucher'. Our main concerns as neighbours is the entrance road. This road is owned by the applicant, they do not maintain it for the residents of Saucher and it is maintained by the residents. The road is already in a very poor condition which I worry will only worsen with construction traffic and another 2-3 vehicles using it daily. Please see photographs of the poor state of Saucher Village road entrance. Congestion of Saucher and Kinrossie was also mentioned by the applicant in an objection to planning in 2020. Also heavy plant machinery and large lorries will have difficulty accessing the plot due to the tight corner to the planned access road. In regards to 'squaring and finishing off the village', this property will have no direct access to the village green so does in no way 'finish' the village off. It will have its own separate entrance therefore it is a completely separate property adding nothing to the community. This property also adds to the 2nd line of houses that the applicant previously objected to in 2017 stating it was 'inappropriate to start a precedent of a 2nd line of houses along a linear settlement'. Thus contradicting himself that this new property finishes off Saucher. As previously objected by ourselves and other neighbours in 2020 there is already poor drainage in Saucher therefore, there will be a risk of flooding to the neighbouring houses due to the squeeze on the land and the elevated position of the proposed house. This land is actively used by a neighbouring farmer to grow and store silage, therefore the farmer will lose this land that the uses to provide his cattle with feed.
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
Mr Alastair Taylor (Objects) Comment submitted date: Fri 30 Jun 2023 I would like to strongly object to this proposed development as a <REDACTED>as the proposed development would be just a few doors down from <REDACTED>. Please note that the applicant has always been against any kind of building/developing of saucher village in the past<REDACTED>. This proposed dwelling would cause a huge burden on the house next door <REDACTED> due to overlooking, loss of light and becoming a flood risk due to the fields behind the proposed development regularly flooding as per the pictures added by <REDACTED>. The applicant claims to be " squaring and finishing off" the village, however, this dwelling would not be accessible via the village itself and so would not even be part of the village. The road which is very poorly maintained is regularly used by children on their bicycles and just playing in general and so would be a huge potential road safety concern with lorries and diggers using the roads. This development is clearly going to be for four houses rather than just the 1 house as per the applicants own documents, thus proving that it would be more like a new housing estate rather than part of Saucher Village.
Page 31
Ms Doreen Ross (Objects) Comment submitted date: Mon 03 Jul 2023 I object the proposed development for the following reasons. 1. The proposal is for a development on a greenfield site. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that a new road will be required to reach the property and that the property will not have direct access to the village green like all existing properties within the village have. The field proposed for the development clearly forms part of the greenfield sites that surround the village of Saucher and the broader area. This clearly demonstrates that the argument that the proposed development will complete the village is flawed and that this development is proposed for a greenfield site. 2. The field where the property is proposed to be built is actively farmed to provide silage to feed the farmers livestock during winter. This silage is stored on the track that is proposed to access the new road to the property. Loss of this storage area will have a big impact on the farmers ability to feed his livestock and possibly the broader community of Saucher if a new silage storage area is required in the village. 3. The main septic tank in the village is already at capacity and therefore the proposed development would require its own septic tank. There is already a strong sewage smell from the small burn that takes the run off from the septic tanks and further run off will increase this. 4. Access to the proposed development is via a small track that is not clearly visible from the any of the roads used to enter or leave the village. The track is on a tight corner which will be difficult to access from the entrance road. This poses safety concerns for residents and other users of the roads in the village including young children playing on bikes, residents walking dogs, farm vehicles, postal delivery, bin collection etc. The road is used by the school pick up bus that collects the young children from the village and by older children walking to the bus stop. Adding construction traffic will pose an even bigger risk during a construction period.
Page 32
Miss Kirsty Livingstone (Objects) Comment submitted date: Tue 04 Jul 2023 OBJECTION - Due to the development being a considerable high diffrance (redacted ). Parts of the garden already have a 6ft fence and it is still looked down upon from the site. This will also cause loss of light and overshadowing. - The area around the proposed development is prone to flooding in heavy rain which would be a concern. The applicant has also previously objected in the past on these same concerns. - The current septic tank in Saucher is at capacity and would require a private soak away which there is already a bad smell in the area from a previous development which has a private soak away, so I do not think this is fit for purpose in the area. - The infrastructure is poor and more traffic will have a serious detrimental effect on this. - The safety of the new proposed road access is a serious concern of mine as this is bad enough at the moment with a few close calls of accidents and now adding another access into this junction is a accident waiting to happen as it is blind from many ways. Further more to this the kids use these roads for playing on there bikes and this will add a significant risk to accidents and injuries. - The dog leg access is not possible in one turn and would take several attempts and movements to access. This is going to impact the already poorly maintained road with screwing round the cars. - The applicant has previously opposed to any and every development in the village stating it would be a " huge burden on the excising village" . This would still be the case as nothing has changed in the village since his comments. - The loss of prime agricultural land here and in the general area is a concern as there seems to be less and less land available and we will never get this back due to developments. The current farmer uses this land to actively feed his cattle and has grazed sheep in this land previously. I am concerned where the new silage storage area will be around Saucher as this is currently where they get stored also. - Applicant says he wants to square off the village which I consider not true as we can see he wanted 4 houses originally. - The development will not be part of the "group " at Saucher as it has no direct access to the village green which Saucher is focused around and I deem this is not with the in keeping of the village. - The size of the development seems to be a considerable size larger than anything in saucher which again is not with the in keeping of Saucher.
Page 33
No embedded text on this page.
Page 34
No embedded text on this page.
Page 35
CDS Planning Local Review Body From: Sent: 06 November 2023 12:07 To: CDS Planning Local Review Body Subject: RE: LRB-2023-40 Objection to planning permission Saucher Village ref 23/00923/ipl 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. This message has been scanned and removed active content which may contain possible security risks to the council and yourself. Should you require the original message, phone the IT Technical Helpline on 76677 option 1. (Objection) To whom it may concern; I find the fact that this application is even being reviewed again as quite comical and a waste of the councillor's time in terms of every ground that it was refused on from the first application being 100% exactly the same! And so I am once again writing to object to the above planning application as everything that applied the first time around in terms of the council refusing the application still applies! The Transport department refused the application on the grounds of it being unsafe as children play around that area and are collected and dropped off from school at this exact location by the taxis and the fact that it will make another junction that would be very dangerous as it is a blind corner for vehicles entering and exiting the village. The second reason for refusal was the fact that kanrosmar and mullmac would be sandwiched between 2 access roads which is still the case as the road obviously hasnt moved, and they are just two of the MANY reasons for refusal! The applicant has made another application after the refusal in which he knows Fulwell that it wasn't ever possible in the first place for the access as he doesn't own the ground where he wanted the access to the plot and the fact that the villages septic tank is in that exact location, and so unfortunately it would appear that the council has been hoodwinked by the applicant who has obviously applied the second time around despite the fact it was never possible in the first place on the second application (whether that be a civil matter or not) just to get the planning granted and then try and reverse the first decision in order to manipulate the process. It also remains a greenfield site in which the residents don't want to lose to a serial developer who has no regard for the residents and just wants to line his pockets! I hope that the council and review body will see through this charade as it is quickly becoming farcical! Kind regards Ross Taylor
Page 36
E § E § é § 4030034November 2023. Lisa Simpson, Council Building, 2 High Street, Perth PH1 5PH. Dear Ms Simpson, Thankyou for your letter of 1034November 2023, Ref LRB-202302440,with regard to Planning Application Ref. 23/00923/IPL for erection ofa dwelling house, (in principle), at Saucher village. I am gratefulfor the opportunity to comment further. I fully concur with the reasonsfor refusal of this application as outlined by David Littlejohn in his letter of 19030"July 2023. This is on a green }401eldsite and any development would have a detrimental e}402030ectoverlooking Pathways. There is the question of drainage and sewage as I understand that the nearby tank and outlet is at capacity already. I am concerned about the access to the proposed site as a sizeable part of the land will be taken up by the side of the existing houses of Mullmac and Kanrossmar. I will also lose amenityfrom the area that I wrap and store my silage bales. While it has been pointed out that this is not a planning matter, my opinion is that it is a consequence of the application, should it go ahead, that myfarming activities will be disadvantaged. I do hope that the Planning Authority reach ajust decision. Yours Sincerely, Andrew Penny.
Page 37
Planninglrb@pkc.gov.uk Dear Sir/Madam Re:LRB-2023-40 - Application Ref: 23/00923/IPL - Erection of a dwellinghouse (in principle), land 75 metres north west of Mullmac, Saucher, Kinross Thank you for affording us the opportunity to comment on Mr Taylor’s representation. Our client would like to highlight just a few points:- ● The alternative application approved by the committee for this site reference 23/01262/IPL is capable of implementation. ● Our client’s view remains that the access arrangements being considered by the Local Review Body has numerous advantages over the approved committee application namely:- Landscape, bio-diversity and nature enhancements - additional hedgerow planting. - additional tree planting. - creation of a bio-diversity swale to connect existing watercourse with wider hedgerow network (creates a blue/green infrastructure corridor). Improves residential amenity/wellbeing - reduces vehicular movements in close proximity from 6 properties to 2 properties. - avoids potential legal discussions, updates to titles with neighbours and associated expense to all parties. ● Our client notes that Mr Taylor does not live directly adjacent to this site and has not been involved in any legal discussions pertaining to this site. Our client hopes this short response assists the Local Review Body with their deliberations and respectfully submits that the appeal be allowed with conditional control applied. Yours sincerely, John Russell MRTPI AssocRICS
Page 38
Planninglrb@pkc.gov.uk Dear Sir/Madam Re:LRB-2023-40 - Application Ref: 23/00923/IPL - Erection of a dwellinghouse (in principle), land 75 metres north west of Mullmac, Saucher, Kinross Thank you for affording our client the opportunity to comment on Mr Penny’s representation. Our client has liaised with Mr Penny and for the avoidance of any doubt the access arrangement to and from the field and bale storage area will remain operational as existing. As a consequence, our client maintains that there will be no significant adverse effect on the farming operation/tenancy. The concerns regarding the location and potential drainage capacity are noted. As highlighted in the approved committee report for the site, see paragraph 42 of 23/01262/IPL:- This could potentially be resolved through provision of a new private system serving the dwelling and could be considered further should a detailed application be submitted. Any impact on any existing drainage connection/network for the grouping, including the access being located on top of an existing septic tank would be a civil matter between the developer and neighbours and not a material planning consideration. The client is happy for this to be incorporated into conditional control as applied to the approved application for the site 23/01262/IPL I trust this commentary will assist the LRB’s deliberations and enable them to approve this alternative layout which incorporates numerous residential amenity/wellbeing, landscape, bio-diversity and nature enhancements. Kind regards, John Russell MRTPI AssocRICS