(c) Representations (Pages 459-482)
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(v)(c) LRB-2023-42 LRB-2023-42 23/00075/FLL - Change of use of open space and extension to shop, 75-77 Balhousie Street, Perth, PH1 5BG 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
Mrs Rena Macdonald (Objects) Comment submitted date: Tue 14 Mar 2023 I wish to object to the proposed alterations at Balhousie Store on the following grounds. 1. There is no parking around this property. There are double yellow lines down both sides of the road. There is a bus stop a few metres diagonally across from the shop which causes a bottleneck when there is a bus stationary there. There is a small layby immediately outside the front door of the shop but the shop owner's van is normally parked there which only leaves room for 1 or 2 small cars. At the moment cars and other vehicles park half on the pavement because there is nowhere else to go. There would be an increase of delivery trucks too and not enough room for them. 2. The Council have only very recently re-introduced a rising bollard on Florence Place to reduce traffic on Balhousie Street. Takeaway premises/larger shop would surely increase traffic volume. 3. Increasing the size of the shop would entail the removal of 2 well established trees which sit on one of the very few green spaces in the area. Aren't we supposed to be planting more trees? 4. The smell from the takeaway area which is only a few metres from ( redacated ) 5. Asda is only across the other side of the road. Do we need another supermarket in such close proximity? We also have a chip shop/takeaway premises right next door to McDonalds which is just around the corner on the Dunkeld Road. There is yet another supermarket next door to this too, We also have more takeaway premises in the retail park just one street over also on the Dunkeld Road. More than enough in such a small area. 6. Traffic management would become problematic due to how narrow the road is with a mini-roundabout and a bus stop within a few metres. It is particularly busy at lunch time as many of the pupils from Perth Grammar and St John's Campus use the store. School finishing time makes Balhousie Street quite chaotic at the moment.
Page 11
No embedded text on this page.
Page 12
Linda Batchelor Lisa Simpson Head Of Legal Services & Clerk to the Local Review Body 1 High Street Perth PH1 5PA 13 November 2023 Ref: Formal Objection to Planning Application 23/00075/FLL & Appeal LRB- 2023-42 Shop Extension and Hot Food Takeaway 75-77 Balhousie Street Perth Dear Lisa Thank you for forwarding the details relating to the planning application and the appeal to the Local Review Body as set out above. Below are my responses and confirmation that I object to the proposal. Where I have raised points relating to the appeal, I have used the same numbering system as the Edinburgh architects for purposes of clarity. I will detail my responses to the appeal document, give to context to the ‘extant’ planning permission and explain why, from the perspective of a local resident, the appeal should be rejected. Appeal 1.3 I would dispute the area is poorly maintained and reduced in amenity value by a ‘short cut’ and ‘dog toilet’. The LRB will be aware of other grass areas generating their own short cuts. However, this is not a valid reason for concreting it over. A visual inspection and photograph show no obvious use as a ‘dog toilet’. 1.4 The ‘very modest 48m2’ extension will result in the destruction of 3 trees and concreting over a majority of the green valued amenity area. This is unacceptable. 1.5 The appeal states ‘appellant would undertake to improve the ongoing maintenance of the space.’ Would there be any conditions inserted into the planning consent to enforce this? And actions taken if the ongoing maintenance did not happen? I really don’t think so. This expedient claim is valueless. 1.7 As a formal objector, my main focus was on the food takeaway at the south end of the building. Firstly, for the benefit of the LRB I will detail the context behind this ‘extant’ planning consent, in a different era and long since expired. At the 2011 Planning Committee meeting the vote was a 50/50 split. Therefore, the Chair voted, as appropriate, to maintain the status quo. The DPEA Reporter with no knowledge of the local area overturned democratic council, and the will of the local residents on appeal. This was back in a time when environmental and health and road safety
Page 13
concerns were far less prevalent than today. The planning consent may be ‘extant’ but it is definitely no longer valid. The additional extension on the north side of the building will also damage the local environment and amenity of the local residents. Together, the fast food takeaway and shop extension will increase road traffic, and car parking on double yellow lines, in and already congested area, with a bus stop opposite, and Balhousie Street used as a ‘rat run’ by commuters working in the city. The shop already acts as a drop off and collection point for at least one national courier service, and the prospect of a constant stream of Deliveroo and Just Eat drivers and riders, together with stopping traffic, will damage the environment, the amenity value for the residents, and create additional traffic hazards to residents and schoolchildren from the nearby primary and secondary school campus. It is also noted that articles, in the local press, indicate that food takeaways can also be a focus of antisocial behaviour. Quoted Reasons for Refusal by Edinburgh architects I completely support the Council’s statement, referred to by the Edinburgh architects under Reasons for Refusal point 1. Comment on 3.0 Reasons to overturn the current decision. 3.1 The Edinburgh architects state they do not consider the landscape as an amenity and/or a “pleasant” space. They can hardly be expected to! As a resident, the trees mainly shield the stark bare end of the 3 story blocks of Florence Court flats, and are full of welcome colour in spring and summer. They do not act as a congregating point for local teenagers and are completely free of causing any antisocial behaviour. Replacing this area with an extension of the building will cause the destruction of a small, and welcome green area, and reduce the amenity value to residents. 3.6 The Edinburgh architects have been told the existing shop ‘is a locally owned family business serving the immediate local community’. And to a small extent that statement is true. But, and it is a very big but! Having lived in the immediate vicinity of the shop for over 20 years, I would estimate, from my own observations, that a very significant volume of their trade (70%) is from passing motorists. These motorists clog the roads, park on the pavements, thereby damaging the pavement and obstructing pedetrians. In terms of the quoted ‘20 minute neighbourhoods’ the Edinburgh architects mention Asda and Morrisons supermarkets. They completely fail to mention that within 10 minutes of this area, there is a McDonalds, and a range of shops on the Dunkeld Road, including a bakery, convenience store and hot food takeaway and post office. There are further shops, within ten minutes, at the bottom of the Crieff Road, also including a hot food takeaway.
Page 14
If we are to consider Morrisons as within the 20 min city concept then that includes the entire St Catherine’s retail park and, given the bus frequency the majority of the city centre. This being the case I find it difficult to justify the statement in point:- ‘I contributes to local living, including where relevant 20 minute neighbourhoods Given the above readily accessible retail outlets detailed above, and limited local usage, I see no reason for the existence of the shop at all! And certainly no reason to extend it. As for point ‘ii can be demonstrated to contribute to the health and wellbeing of the local community.’ This would appear to be a flight of pure fantasy! A shop extension with a hot food takeaway, will cause an increase in traffic volumes, increased pollution, and more traffic hazards for pedestrians and school children. I reject the concept that they can be held up as contributing to the health and wellbeing of the community. Conclusion In the 12 years since the first planning application was submitted there have been heightened environmental, and personal health and safety concerns. Ultimately this development will do nothing to enhance residents’ lives, while at the same time damaging the local areas amenity, increase noise and pollution levels and further damage our fragile environment. I trust the LRB will uphold the various Council Planning Policies referred to, and support the Planning Officers decision, along with my supporting letter, and deny the appeal A few self explanatory photographs are attached to highlight some of the points raised. The date/time stamp on the ‘shield-traffic’ pictures shows traffic volume in less than a minute and the shielding of the Florence Court flats. Yours sincerely Linda Batchelor
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
CDS Planning Local Review Body From: Rena Macdonald Sent: 14 November 2023 15:37 To: CDS Planning Local Review Body Subject: Re: LRB-2023-42 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. Dear Ms Simpson I stand by my original Formal Complaint comments but would add as undernoted:- The Architects are wrong in stating that there was only one objection to the proposed application. I submitted objections as did my neighbour. I disagree that the removal of trees is the primary objection. My biggest concern is the amount of extra traffic this would create. As previously stated, there is nowhere near the shop to park legally and at the moment people just park on the double yellow lines and usually half way on to the pavement. When a bus is stationary at the bus stop this creates a bottle neck. With regard to the extant original planning permission, I have lived here for 10 years and the site to the south of the shop remains a building site and an eyesore. With regard to the comments about 20 minute neighbourhoods, we already have this in abundance in our area. Indeed the town centre with all its amenities is a mere 10 minute walk from Balhousie Store let alone the retail parks etc on our doorstep. The smell from a takeaway is my main concern as I am in very close proximity to the Store. As to the state of the trees, In spring time they are a mass of white blossoms. Rena Macdonald