(c) Representations (Pages 279-360)
Perth and Kinross Council · 12 February 2024
Back to Local Review Body — 12 February 2024 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(iv)(c) LRB-2023-53 LRB-2023-53 23/01040/FLL – Change of use of flat to form short-term let accommodation unit (in retrospect), 4 Knowehead House, Dundee Road, Perth, PH2 7EY REPRESENTATIONS
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
Mr Andrew Wood (Objects) Comment submitted date: Thu 27 Jul 2023 The conversion of this building was supported to multi occupancy. However for the residents both within the building and in the neighboring properties the use of this flat as become an significant issue due to noise and and the use of the roof area and roof hot tub for parties. The property is in a conservation area and has shared areas (both inside the building and outside) with all the other occupants who are entitled to quiet enjoyment of their homes. The current use is a blight on the neighboring properties and the reason for this objection. In the event the local authority are minded to grant this application strict conditions should be applied to the number of occupants and the use of the property for parties and the roof terrace and hot tub at night.
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
Mrs Jenny Jameson (Objects) Comment submitted date: Sun 06 Aug 2023 I would like to strongly object to planning permission being granted to Lea Deans /Deans Retreats at 4 Knowehead House. ( REDACTED ) as a result of Mr Deans intensive AirBnB business is enormous and also poses various security risks ( REDACTED ) There is a communal hallway which is used daily ( REDACTED ) number one's property as well as number three and four - apartment number five also uses it if access to meters is required. Given apartment four is occupied on a very regular basis by guests who stay from one night to three or four this results in very heavy traffic of strangers coming and going through ( REDACTED ) shared hallway( REDACTED ) security is threatened never knowing who may be staying or accessing the house. Having a key safe outside the house also increases our vulnerability and is another very obvious security risk. No member of the Deans family or representative from Deans Retreats is ever present when guests arrive to explain the house rules or personalise the service and highlight this is a residential building and as such a higher level of consideration should be paid to the residents whose permanent home this is. The flat is advertised as Knowehead Penthouse, with a hot tub on the balcony and sleeping up to 6. It is not a penthouse apartment, the hot tub was installed without any discussion with the residents or any safety checks and it is a two bedroom flat which sleeps 4. The way it is portrayed obviously attracts people keen to enjoy the facilities and party. Many guests like to party on the balcony - cigarettes are regularly found ( REDACTED) . There is total disregard for the property or the fact it is in a conservation area and the noise that comes from the guests on the balcony or in the hot tub is significant which has to be endured by us and neighbours in other properties on Dundee Road and Commercial Street. Often guests have food delivered or other guests arriving - the bell is broken or they cannot hear it as it is never answered ( REDACTED ) Mr Deans was completely disingenuous when he bought the flat, when he fitted the key safe (without discussion) he said it was because his girlfriend forgot her keys when in fact it was for his guests, when he moved out after only several weeks he said it was temporary and at no point did he mention short term letting although this was obviously his intention all along. Safety is a major concern - because many guests party on the balcony and in the hot tub with alcohol there is a definite health and safety risk which has never been addressed by Mr Deans or his family. The mix of alcohol, water and only a short glass balustrade between the balcony and a significant drop seems like an accident waiting to happen. Mr Deans has never answered sufficiently our question of who
Page 10
would be liable for any damage to person or property in the event of such an accident Mr Deans is rarely available for any meetings with the other residents and the factor - in the time he has owned apartment 4 he has been unavailable for over 75% of the residents meetings. The general friendly, helpful and neighbourly atmosphere of Knowehead House has been completed disrupted by this intensive Airbnb business which seems to put profit over residents happiness and quality of life. A business which causes significant disruption physically and mentally to the other owners. It seems grossly unfair that ( RECATED ), have to suffer because of one money making operation. The residential nature of Knowehead House is completely at odds with intensive AirBnB.
Page 11
Mr Christopher Craig (Objects) Comment submitted date: Mon 07 Aug 2023 Statement concerning the Material Change of Use Planning Permission Application for 4 Knowehead House, Dundee Road, Perth PH2 7EY As Owners of [Redacted] since 2017, we have enjoyed residing at this property. For us, it is our second home that friends, family, coworkers and the occasional short- term let utilize for their enjoyment. The intensive, commercial letting of 4 Knowehead House seems contrary to the originally intended redevelopment of the building as a residential property with the occasional opportunity to rent as a holiday let, as outlined in the Deed of Conditions. We also have a specific concern about the section of the application whereby the flat is characterized as a "Penthouse Apartment with Rooftop Hot-tub". The hot tub in question was installed without the knowledge or consent of the other Owners at Knowehead and was placed on the balcony of 4 Knowehead House, which is also the roof of 5 Knowehead House and is, therefore, a common element. As a "common element", the other Owners of Knowehead House could be exposed to potential liability for damage, bodily injury or death should an accident occur. At no point has evidence of the indemnification of the other Owners of Knowehead been provided by Deans Retreat, nor has any evidence been provided that a structural engineering assessment to determine the suitability of the roof to support the weight of a hot tub been provided. Christopher Craig and David Bluhm
Page 12
No embedded text on this page.
Page 13
Dr Sathyadeep Samiappan (Objects) Comment submitted date: Mon 07 Aug 2023 Summary of objection to the Airbnb activities at 4 Knowehead house , Dundee road , Perth , PH27EY 1. I am living in [Redacted] The amount of disturbance and noise I experience can't be explained in words. It was listed in his hose policies that no parties and to keep noise levels low after 10 pm but it is not always the case. 2. Most of the people who rent Flat-4 prefer to party and stay in the balcony late nights . My bed room is [Redacted] They run and shout which you can hear clearly inside my bed room. On top of it they have installed a hot tub without getting permission from the owners and also not paying any attention how much disturbance it could cause to the people living beneath. 3. People turn un hot tub at 11 pm an it make growling noise and wakes me up from my sleep and need to text [Redacted] who will try to sort out the issue may be in an hour but by then I move down to my down stairs bed room to sleep . I have now permanently moved to downstairs bedroom as I couldn't tolerate it. 4. I can't win this situation as every time new people come they have no respect to the neighbours . Throwing cigarettes in my garden and the front door . Champagne corks etc some chocolate wrappers and rubbishes. They even throw at our cars and concerned regarding fire risk. 5. I am new to this country and not exactly how to raise my concerns to the council . But I take this as an opportunity to raise my concern. 6. This is a old Victorian house and I feel it has its limitations on what it could handle. No proper measures were taken when installing the hot tub by Mr Lee Deans. No permission asked from other owners. It is a heavy hot tub and its mechanics will cause significant noise through the roof of the flat located beneath, no proper checks made. Also in his statement he mentioned all the roof is sound proofed which is a false statement . The hot tub was installed to promote his bossiness with zero consideration to the neighbours. Some people turn the hot tub on after 10 pm and causes lot of disturbance to me. I try contacting Lee on many occasions he get back to me probably in 30 minutes and it will take almost 1 hour to resolve the issue. There was an occasion he didn't resolve the issue and says he didn't get any notification about my message and got back to me next day morning. This shows his inefficiency in managing the property. He never prevented the issues happening and also takes time to resolve the issue . I am the one suffering because of his inefficiency. 7. This is my first home put my heart and soul I can't use my own house freely and can't even live in peace .I kindly request the council to take look into my concerns and do your best to resolve the situation . Thanking you.
Page 14
No embedded text on this page.
Page 15
Mr Alexander Jameson (Objects) Comment submitted date: Tue 08 Aug 2023 Knowehead House - Objections to No.4 Airbnb Planning Application - 23_01040_FLL by Mr A Jameson [Redacted] Background - We purchased [Redacted] in March 2017 to downsize and live in a quiet residential property. To explain, our Apartment is [Redacted] The balcony adjacent to No.4 forms the roof over part of [Redacted]. Lee Deans owns the No.4 flat. 1. Intensive Airbnb - Lee Deans (Deans Retreats) operates an intensive Airbnb occupation throughout the year. This often has significant effects on some of the residential residents in the building, particularly Apartments [Redacted] being contiguous with No.4 flat. Lee Deans could not give an exact figure as to how many days he lets out each season, but our experience is generally 2 or 3 groups per week and for 1 to 3 days. 2. Early Days - Lee purchased No.4 in Autumn 2020 and subsequently lived in the flat for the first 2-3 months. Lee clearly always intended to use the flat for Airbnb but pretended it was going to be his own residence. This pretence did not last long and on 20.07.21 he circulated an email as follows: [Redacted] The unforeseen circumstances were never explained by Lee to the other residents, but why bother saying you are going to be a resident owner, when it is obvious that is not the case? 3. Hot Tub - Just before Lee moved into No.4 he installed a hot tub on the flat roof of No. 5 flat, without the other Owners' permission. No professional safety checks were carried out on the roof of No.5 flat for this large and heavy Hot Tub. The hut tub is noisy to use with a grinding sound affecting No.5 Apartment below. 4. Safety - We remain very concerned about Airbnb guests partying and drinking on the first floor roof with only a low parapet wall and glass screens that are not properly reinforced. We are concerned that Lee has not carried out a professional risk assessment and health & safety on his business activities at Knowehead. He has never offered to share any reports with us. It is also a concern that guests drink on the balcony and in the hot tub. If an accident happened would the joint owners be liable as the so called balcony may also be a roof that is in "common ownership". 5. Car Safety - Occasionally cigarette buts are thrown over the side of the balcony by Airbnb guests. They land in the car park close to our parked car. We have complained to Lee about this risk to our cars on various occasions and it happened again last weekend. Lee said he put out ash trays and it is mentioned in his rules, but that has not prevented it from happening. This may be an infrequent risk to our cars, but it is still serious. It also summarises the general disregard for the neighbouring owners by a few guests.
Page 16
6. Access - No.4 Apartment has no separate access, but has to use the front door and the common hallway, which is also used by No. 1, 2, and 3 Apartments. No.5 Apartment has a right to access the hallway if necessary but has its own access. Lee contends in his Justification Statement that only Apartment 3 & 4 use the hallway but this is completely incorrect. Lee is not there often enough to say who uses what door and his statement is just guesswork. 7. Airbnb Guests - The Airbnb guests arrive at random times; they never have to meet Lee or a representative from Deans Retreats; there is sometimes more than 6 guests; and they often have celebrations or parties. The quantity of bottles of alcoholic drinks collected by Lee's glass recycling bin demonstrates the regularity that Airbnb guests drink or party or both. On occasions we have helped the guests if Lee is not contactable. 8. Key Safe - Soon after the Airbnb started at No.4, Lee fitted a key safe on outside wall next to the front door. He did not ask the other owners if he could fit his key safe on a wall that is the common property of all the owners. He relies on this for getting his guests into the communal hallway. We have suggested to him that he should have someone to meet and greet and explain the rules, but he does not want to do this. If the lock safe is not permitted, he may have to find another way to provide access for his guests. 9. Party Flat - The hot tub attracts guests looking for a party flat. This is not helped by the online details advertising accommodation for 6 in a small 2 bedroom flat. We hear the normal footfall from upstairs in No.4, which is to be expected. But also we hear the shouting, loud music and activity even until 2am in the morning. On occasions we have knocked on the No.4 door to ask if the noise can be reduced but 2-3 times the door was locked and no one can hear us from inside. We prefer to try and sort out problems with the guests or with Lee, rather than report it to the Council or the Police. 10. Unsuitable Property - Lee confirms that his Airbnb activity is for 60% of the year (this suggests approx 220 nights). This figure appears to us to be on the low side, but in any case it is far too intensive for a small residential building with four other residential flats. This intense activity and the constant change of 1-3 groups arriving each week is uncertain and stressful. 11. Noise - Whilst Lee has fitted a noise monitor in No.4 Apartment, we have asked him in writing to fit a second noise monitor on the balcony. He has refused to do this. His Airbnb guests make a lot of the noise on the balcony, but it is not detected by the internal monitor. This may explain why Lee is not aware of the full extent of the noise and partying. Residents across the other side of the Dundee Road and Commercial Street can confirm this problem. Even when the noise does exceed 77db inside the No.4 flat, then it takes a complaint from his neighbours before Lee knows there is a problem. Surely commercial businesses should avoid any significant noise issues to residential neighbours and not just wait until it has exceeded the maximum noise, before trying
Page 17
to stop it. This is the critical point which prevents this intensive Airbnb use of No.4 by Deans Retreats from every being a compatible activity. 12. Airbnb Rules - Lee has some rules for guests but the rules are often ignored or not read by his guests. This results in Airbnb cars parking in the wrong parking place despite each space being clearly numbered; more than 2 cars; no attempt at recycling in the correct waste bins; the parties are either too loud or carrying on well beyond 10pm; and general anti-social behaviour from a significant number of the guests over the last 2 years. However the most ineffective rule that Lee has is "No Parties Allowed". There are two obvious difficulties with Lee's rules: - He did not share or discuss his Airbnb rules with the other neighbours, which might have dealt with some of our concerns two years ago. - On arrival guests are not met by either Lee or a representative from Deans Retreats. This is an opportunity wasted to reiterate the rules and tell the Airbnb guests that consideration for the safety and well being of the neighbours is paramount. 13. Recycling - Up to 2022, the owners have jointly used 5 green, 4 blue and 1 brown bin. When the Airbnb business started there was a massive change in recycling. Most of the Airbnb rubbish went into the green bin with most guests completely ignoring the Council's guidance for recycling in the other coloured bins. Regularly glass bottles were dumped in the green bin by his guests with no practical attempt by Lee to separate glass. We suggested he put in coloured bins in the Apartment and his cleaner removes and recycle the waste and glass correctly. Lee was unable to remedy the lack of recycling by his guests, with many complaints from his neighbours. After two years of pressure by all of us, Lee has eventually got a commercial glass recycling bin, which he uses and I agree it works well. Lee has also arranged an extra No.4 green bin which he manages. He has not arranged his own blue bin, but as before, very little is recycled by No.4 guests into the communal blue bins. It is noteworthy that Lee in his justification Statement says "...we have noticed a great uptake on this and almost fill a bin per month uplift"(Page 7 Line 1) This is a lot of glass bottles from one Apartment in a month and indicative of the No.4 problems. 14. Meetings - Knowehead Owners have had formal and regular management meetings with our Factor since 2017. It was not possible to hold meetings during parts of the Covid pandemic, but even so Lee has only attended 2 Owner meetings out of 8 since 2021. Lee does not contribute in any significant way to the management of the property, organising contractors, contributing to the gardening or taking out the communal bins. 15. Airbnb - Airbnb short term letting is undoubtedly taking business away from local Hotels and other short term providers. It is not necessarily the case that this is new business and there may not be much of an economic benefit if it is just displacing other local businesses. Hotels are better placed to cater for multiple guests without the antisocial behaviour more associated with Airbnb letting. It is obvious in Perth
Page 18
that Deans Retreats is very unpopular, for example at Howard's Court and the Monart Apartments. Since 2021, this Airbnb business has definitely completely changed the atmosphere at Knowehead House. 16. Planning - This intensive Airbnb business has had a significant impact on Knowehead House and even some neighbours across the two adjacent roads. The partying activities of the "hot tub" balcony and the noise from No.4 must be an unacceptable impact on the local area. Under the National Planning Framework NPF4-30, if the loss of this Apartment to a commercial business is not outweighed by the local economic benefits, then the proposal for a change of use should not be supported by the Council. From the Justification Statement for this Planning Application, there is no evidence that the Airbnb activity at No.4 adds economic benefits to Perth. This short term letting business could have transferred from other short term providers locally. From our observations a good proportion of the guests do not leave No.4 during their stay and often come well provided with food and supplies. Some will go to Deans Restaurant, but by nature Airbnb guests are pretty self-sufficient. We do not have statistics to prove this but surely it must be a possible to prove an economic benefit to outweigh the stress and significant problems caused by a poorly managed Airbnb business. 17. Conclusions - In some situations Airbnb works well, for example in self-contained house. But where it is in close proximity with other residential properties, a high level of cooperation and trust is needed between neighbours. Sadly there is little or no trust between Lee Deans and the other owners at Knowehead House. This is not personal, but it is because [Redacted] I understand that there has been a high level of animosity and objections from some of the other properties in Perth that have Airbnb activity managed by Deans Retreats including Howard's Court and the Monart Apartments. This consistency suggests there is a more significant problem here. WE therefore urge the Council to this reject this change of use Planning Application.
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
Ref: 23/01040/FLL — Application for review. 4 Knowehead House, Dundee Road, PH2 7EY — Mr L. Deans Comments submitted by Jack Dale, In my initial comments regarding Mr Deans’s planning application I included a summary of points where I considered his claims to be questionable. Having read the additional remarks that he has submitted in support of his request for review I feel compelled to comment at greater length on what I consider to be factually unsustainable assertions. • Mr Deans' remarks on "extensive refurbishment" are disingenuous, and misleading. Any significant structural work on the property was undertaken by the initial developer or subsequently by the owners collectively. Work on improving the communally owned grounds, including approved tree work, was undertaken before his ownership. The repair to the "outside communal staircase" has not yet been completed and is also being undertaken as collective effort. None of this was initiated by Mr Deans, nor paid for exclusively by him: nor, indeed, the furnishings of the reception hall. These steps were not taken to ensure the “luxury” of his tourist offering, but to enhance the amenities of the permanent residents. Quite how his comment that "the restoration aimed ..... to blend seamlessly with the surrounding residential characteristics" relates to his application for change of use is unclear, but certainly it is difficult to see how a hot tub on an elevated balcony exposed to Dundee Road and neighbouring properties now constitutes a seamless blend with the Kinnoull area. • Mr Deans' remarks on "Noise Management and Compliance" are specious. He repeats an argument employed in his original planning application, in which he refers solely to the absence of official complaints to the external authorities. But he suppresses any reference to the many complaints by the other residents directed to him personally. By doing so he is exploiting their willingness to deal with these concerns in an informal and neighbourly way.This is not only misleading but unfair. • Mr Deans' appeal to the title deeds ignores his disregard of their terms. It is correct that all the owners on purchase of their properties accepted a provision in the deeds that the flats could be used for holiday letting. But If Mr Deans believes that this
Page 35
provision overrides the national legislation and local authority regulations he is surely
mistaken.
What he fails to note is that the same deeds make provision for an owners committee
empowered to decide on repairs, alterations, development, etc in respect of the property.
Mr Deans has treated this committee's deliberations with scant respect. ("Your silly wee
committee" to quote his words to me.) He has frequently made decisions to enhance the
profitability of his business without reference to the committee and regularly been
confrontational rather than cooperative on matters of concern to the permanent residents.
• Mr Deans' claims re his economic contribution are subjective and exaggerated.
He repeats many of the points made in his original application, which strike me as
containing much special pleading. His implied comparison of his small flat in a converted
19th century mansion with large tourist establishments is bizarre. In fact, I suggest that the
contrast only highlights the central point of my original objection to his application: namely,
that the quality, character and location of Knowehead House render it an
inappropriate setting for the commercial operation run by Mr Deans.
• I note that Mr Deans offers no response to the allegations of disruption and
disturbance caused by his business to the lives of the permanent residents.
10 January 2004Page 36
1 CDS Planning Local Review Body From: Sent: 11 January 2024 17:39 To: CDS Planning Local Review Body Subject: LRB 2023-53 OBJECTION Follow Up Flag: Follow up Due By: 16 January 2024 10:00 Flag Status: Flagged 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. No 4 Knowehead House - Notice of Review to PKC Local Review Body - LRB 2023-53 I am objecting to the appeal lodged by mr Lee Deans / Deans Retreats regarding change of use to Number 4 Knowehead House, Dundee Road, Perth PH2 7EY All my original objections stand and are relevant to the appeal. SECURITY Since the original application there continues to be a very constant stream of guests staying at Number 4 KnoweheadHouse. The duration of stay varies from one night to two and the number of guests per stay varies from 2 to upwards of 6. This means on any given day at any given time we have total strangers accessing our property, using our communal car park, communal entrance, communal hallway and communal staircase. As highlighted previously access is gained by a key box located on the outside of the house adding another level of security risk. The permanent never know from one day to the next who we might encounter in our own home environment, what these people will be like or whether they will have any respect for the property or the people who actually live here. ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR Given the transitory nature of Airbnb guests there is little regard for consideration of others and the residents are regularly subjected to litter in the carpark, cigarettes thrown from the balcony of No 4, noise from frequent parties and hot tub use on the balcony. Guests pay no regard to litter and the council required appropriate disposal where of and do not seem to care if other residents are disturbed at all hours by food delivery operators going to the incorrect apartment. It seems when guests are staying a brief period in a property and are there for holiday, to celebrate a birthday, a party etclittle or no regard is paid to anyone else in the vicinity. MANAGEMENT
Page 37
2 Mr Lee Deans from Deans Retreats has made it clear on several occasions that he holds the other owners at Knowehead House in little regard. He considers the residents committee as a ‘silly little committee’, has only attended two out of a relevant 9 meetings, and appears not to think any decisions made by the committee have any bearing on him despite the fact that the title deeds clearly indicate that all owners must abide by the majority decisions. RESIDENTIAL VS COMMERCIAL I can only reiterate that the residential nature of KnoweheadHouse is completely incompatible with the intensive commercial activity of Deans Retreats in operating No 4 as a full time Airbnb Jenny Jameson 11/01/24
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
No embedded text on this page.
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
&()* Decision I dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission. Reasoning 1. I am required to determine this appeal in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for this site is comprised of the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), adopted 13 February 2023, and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (PKCLDP) adopted 29 November 2019 and its associated supplementary guidance. 2. The proposal is for the change of use of an existing two bedroom residential flat to a short term let accommodation unit. Having regard to the development plan, the key matter for consideration in this appeal is whether the proposed use would be compatible with or have an adverse impact on the character and amenity of the neighbouring residential properties. I consider that the most relevant development plan policies for this case are policy 30 (tourism) of NPF4 and policy 17 (residential areas) of the PKCLDP. 3. The appeal property forms the self contained upper floor of a two-storey purpose built apartment building. It is accessed through a ground floor door on the front elevation of the building. This opens to a small lobby with a cupboard and a flight of stairs leading to an upper hall and inner front door of the appeal property. The property has a designated parking space to the east of the building. It also has sole use of a small fenced off drying area to the north of the parking space. The ground floor flat, 2 Merlin House, has a separate front door located on the west side of the building. 4. Merlin House forms part of a courtyard development with two other two-storey buildings, each building accommodating two flats. The arrangement of the buildings within the development provides for a quiet, private enclosed courtyard with central parking area. Kestrel House to the south of the appeal site and Osprey House to the south east front on Decision by Ailie Callan, a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers ™ Planning appeal reference: PPA-340-2155 ™ Site address: Flat 1 Merlin House, Perth Road, Birnam, Dunkeld, PH8 0AA ™ Appeal by Ms Elizabeth-Anne Neil and Mr Christopher Neil against the decision by Perth and Kinross Council ™ Application for planning permission 22/01905/FLL dated 26 October 2022 refused by notice dated 24 March 2023 ™ The development proposed: change of use of flat from permanent residential use to short term letting use ™ Date of site visit by Reporter: 8 August 2023 Date of appeal decision: 1 September 2023
Page 59
PPA-340-2155 2 to Perth Road with Merlin House located to the rear of the site. The proposal would not change the access to the site, which is located between Kestrel House and Osprey house, or the central courtyard car parking. Eight parking spaces are provided; seven spaces allocated to properties and one shared visitor space. 5. As the proposal comprises of the reuse of an existing building for short term let accommodation, it would only be supported by part e) of policy 30 of NPF4 if it would not result in i) an unacceptable impact on local amenity or character of a neighbourhood area, or ii) where the loss of residential accommodation would be outweighed by a demonstrable local economic benefit. Part d) of policy 17 of the PKCLDP similarly requires tourism proposals to be compatible with the amenity and character of the residential area. 6. A number of objections were raised relating to the potential for noise and disruption to residents as a result of the proposed use. The appellants provided research which indicated that, in general, there are few incidences of anti-social behaviour associated with short term let accommodation use. However, impacts on amenity and character are not limited to recorded incidences of anti-social behaviour. 7. The appellants confirmed that the property would be occupied for stays of three nights and above. The noise and frequency of movements associated with a succession of guests arriving and leaving, including the movement of luggage and vehicles associated with guests and changeovers between guests, would not be typical of normal residential use. Having regard to the characteristics of the locality, I consider that this intensification of use and movements would adversely impact the amenity of the neighbouring residents and would alter the existing private residential character of the courtyard. 8. The appellants intend to control bookings and the demographic of guests; however, this cannot be controlled by planning condition. They also intend to use noise level monitors, a local greeting service and to be contactable by telephone in the case of any disruptive behaviour by guests. However, these measures would not guarantee to stop or prevent such behaviour from occurring or from impacting adversely on the amenity of permanent residents. The proposed management arrangements or ownership may change in the future and as such cannot be relied upon as a means to restrict or control potential adverse impacts on neighbouring properties. Furthermore, harm to amenity could arise even if there was effective control, due to the frequent turnover of guests. 9. I saw that the property had been arranged to accommodate up to four people with a double bed set up in each of the two bedrooms. It would not be inconceivable for more than one car to be used by guests staying at the property. Although the visitor parking space is identified for use by all residents in the development, it is located beside the parking space for 1 Merlin House and there are no barriers to restrict guests from using the space. The use of the parking space by guests staying at the property would reduce its availability for all other residents of the development, adversely impacting on their amenity. 10. The appellants submitted a green travel plan to encourage guests to use forms of transport other than cars. However, I do not consider that it, or the encouragement to park elsewhere in Birnam and Dunkeld, would be a reliable solution to the potential issues relating to parking at the development. In addition, I saw that the bicycle parking area identified on the submitted site plan was not in place and there were no other secure bicycle parking areas provided within the site. 11. Taking all of this together, I consider that the proposed short term let accommodation use would be incompatible with the current residential development. The potential for
Page 60
PPA-340-2155 3 increased noise or disruptive behaviour together with the potential likelihood of parking issues would adversely impact on the amenity of neighbours. Further, the introduction of a short term let accommodation activity within the site would alter the character of the development as a private, enclosed residential area. For these reasons, the proposal would not comply with clause i) of part e) of NPF4 policy 30 or with part d) of policy 17 of the PKCLDP. 12. With regards to clause ii) of part e) of policy 30, the appellants provided evidence relating to the contribution similar types of accommodation make towards supporting tourism in Birnam. However, having read this information I consider that the contribution that could be made to the economy from a single property would be limited. In addition, I consider that the removal of one residential property from the housing market would have a similar, limited impact. On this basis, the proposal would result in a balanced outcome rather than a demonstrable local economic benefit outweighing the loss of the residential property. As such, it would not satisfy clause ii) of part e) of policy 30 in NPF4. Other matters 13. The appellants have referred me to other applications for short term let accommodation proposals in Birnam. Based on the information provided to me, I do not consider the circumstances of those applications to be so similar that I am bound to reach the same conclusion. In any case, I am required to consider this appeal on its own merit. 14. A number of objections were made to the proposal on the basis that it would contribute to an existing declining need for community facilities and services. However, based on the information before me, I am satisfied that the impact on demand for facilities and services such as schools or health services arising from the change of use of one residential property would be limited. 15. The council provided its draft non-statutory planning guidance relating to change of use of residential property to short term lets. Having read the draft guidance, I note that none of the criteria would apply to the proposal to allow planning permission to be granted under the terms of the guidance. However, as this guidance has not yet been formally adopted, only very limited regard can be given to it. Conclusion 16. I therefore conclude, for the reasons set out above, that the proposed development does not accord overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan and that there are no material considerations which would still justify granting planning permission. 17. I have considered all the other matters raised, but there are none which would lead me to alter my conclusions. Ailie Callan Reporter
Page 61
No embedded text on this page.
Page 62
SPSO decision report Case: 201605668, Glasgow City Council Sector: local government Subject: handling of application (complaints by opponents) Decision: some upheld, recommendations Summary Mr C lives in a conservation area. An application for planning permission for external alterations to a property neighbouring his was submitted to the council. The proposal was to increase the height of the roof of an existing utility building and associated works to create additional living space. Mr C submitted objections to the proposal. The council produced a report of handling of the application and granted full planning permission subject to conditions. The first of these was that the development had to be implemented in accordance with the approved drawings. Mr C was concerned that the council's decision had been procedurally flawed and based on inaccurate information. He complained to the council about this. At both stages of the council's complaints procedure the responses stated their conclusions that the decision had been taken properly and on the basis of accurate information. Mr C was dissatisfied with these responses and raised his complaints with us. We upheld Mr C's complaints that statements in the report were inaccurate (specifically statements that the pitch of the roof 'will match' the main house and that the rooflights will be 'invisible from a public area'); that the approved drawings associated with the application did not contain sufficient written dimensions to ensure that the precise location and scale of what was being proposed was clear; and that the council did not respond reasonably to some of Mr C's complaints. We did not uphold complaints that the evaluation of the application against relevant guidance was unreasonable or that the inadequacies of the report of handling meant that the decision on the application was unreasonable. Recommendations What we asked the organisation to do in this case: Apologise to Mr C that they did not respond reasonably to some of his complaints about the handling of the application. Provide Mr C with a direct response to his complaint. Amend the approved drawings for the application to ensure the precise location and scale of what was being proposed, and has been approved, is clear. What we said should change to put things right in future: Relevant council staff should be reminded that statements of fact in reports of handling should be accurate. Relevant council staff should be reminded that approved drawings should be adequately dimensioned to ensure the precise location and scale of what is being proposed is clear. In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:
Page 63
Relevant council staff should be reminded that issues raised in complaints should be directly responded to. We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set. 547"6=>=I=E;="($'$( "1FEK9AEJ"GL:CA;"J=;KFI"AE>FID9KAFE"CA;=EJ=<"LE<=I"K@="4G=E"2FM=IED=EK"3A;=E;="M)$&$ @KKGJ0%%NNN$JGJF$FI?$LB%<=;AJAFE#I=GFIKJ%(&'-%<=;=D:=I%<=;AJAFE#I=GFIK#(&',&+,,.#(&',&+,,.
Page 64
No embedded text on this page.
Page 65
SPSO decision report Case: 201606059, The City of Edinburgh Council Sector: local government Subject: handling of application (complaints by opponents) Decision: some upheld, recommendations Summary Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application. In particular that the council had failed to consider their waterside development policy (policy Des 9), had failed to consult with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and had unreasonably accepted that works for the planning application were initiated on time. Mr C also complained about the council's communication with him. We took independent planning advice. We found that that policy Des 9 should have been referred to in the report of handling (a report containing information on a planning application). It was not possible to know whether this policy had been taken into consideration during the processing of the planning application, as was required. We also found that it was not possible to say whether consideration of policy Des 9 would have resulted in a different outcome. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. We also found that SEPA should have been consulted and we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We did not find any evidence that the council had unreasonably accepted that works for the planning application were initiated on time and we did not uphold this part of the complaint. Regarding communication, we found that some of the issues raised by Mr C had been not been adequately addressed, however, other issues raised by him had been reasonably clarified. We were concerned that a further response letter had had to be issued to Mr C. The council had accepted that there had been a delay in responding and that Mr C should not have had to submit a formal complaint to prompt a full response to his enquiries. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. Recommendations What we said should change to put things right in future: Development plan policies relevant to the processing of any particular application should be referenced in the report of handling. Where a statutory consultation appears to be required as part of the processing of a planning application, but has not taken place, this should be explained in the report of handling. 547"6=>=I=E;=0#"*$'$( 1FEK9AEJ"GL:CA;"J=;KFI"AE>FID9KAFE"CA;=EJ=<"LE<=I"K@="4G=E"2FM=IED=EK"3A;=E;="M)$&$ @KKGJ0%%NNN$JGJF$FI?$LB%JAK=J%JGJF%>AC=J%<=;AJAFE8JLDD9IA=J%(&',&,&+/$G<>
Page 66
No embedded text on this page.
Page 67
SPSO decision report Case: 201605227, The City of Edinburgh Council Sector: local government Subject: handling of application (complaints by opponents) Decision: upheld, recommendations Summary Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application to extend a restaurant near his home. Mr C was concerned that a parking policy had not been taken into account when determining the application and that the planning service had not waited on a consultation response from the roads service at the council before approving the application. During their own consideration of the case, the council accepted that parking had not been covered in the planning officer's report for the application and they apologised for this failing. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that there was no evidence that the relevant policy for parking had been considered when determining the planning application. While there was no statutory requirement to await a roads service consultation response before determining the application, the advice we received highlighted that proceeding without all the relevant information was a key shortcoming. However, there was no evidence that proceeding without the consultation response made any difference to the council's decision to approve the application. On balance, we upheld the complaint. However, based on the advice we received, we did not consider that there was any further action that the council were required to take in respect of the application. We did make a recommendation to ensure that material considerations and relevant policies are taken into account when determining a planning application in the future. Recommendations What we said should change to put things right in future: All material considerations should be taken into account when determining a planning application. The correct policies should be identified and referenced in the report of handling. We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set. 547"6=>=I=E;=0#"*$'$) 1FEK9AEJ"GL:CA;"J=;KFI"AE>FID9KAFE"CA;=EJ=<"LE<=I"K@="4G=E"2FM=IED=EK"3A;=E;="M)$&$" @KKGJ0%%NNN$JGJF$FI?$LB%<=;AJAFE#I=GFIKJ%(&'-%D9O%<=;AJAFE#I=GFIK#(&'+&.'+*#(&'+&.'+*
Page 68
Summary of objection to the Airbnb activities at 4 Knowehead house , Dundee road , Perth , PH27EY 1. The Flat-4 is used for airbnb and attract the guest who like to party. The host do encourage partying in the flat despite the house rules says no partying. It is always 6 people partying right on my roof . I can’t have an unbroken sleep most nights because of the amount of noise the guest makes. - Lee refuses to put a sound monitor outside on the balcony and therefore has no idea what noise is made or parties take place on the my roof. 2. There were instances I have to go to downstairs bedroom to sleep because of the noise they make. It is an old building with wooden floors so when people walk upstairs you could hear it just imagine people getting drunk howling , shouting and running . My point is these guest don’t know the building well so don’t pay any attention to these . If someone lives long term they will be considerate to the neighbours and respect their peace. 3. People keep the hot tub on even after 10pm and it is a quite big hot tub sitting above my bedroom . It makes awful noise inside my house . I personally feel when installing such a commercial grade hot tub to a private residential property neighbours opinion should have sought and it should be made sure it is not going to cause any disturbance to them. But I don’t think Mr Lee or his associates in the business checked with us. Also despite making a strong complaint against this till date never bothered to ask about the noise their hot tub making. This explains how much respect the dean’s retreat have for their neighbours. 4. The guest also throw the rubbishes and cigarettes in my garden and entrance . They have smashed a glass bottle in the common walk way and threw the beer cans in the private car park on the new year . We could have easily stepped on it causing an injury . Every time a new trouble and issues arises . None of the earlier concern were discussed by Mr Lee Deans with us and also seems like he is not interested as he doesn’t turn up for the Owner’s meeting don’t think whatever his guest were doing is wrong. I really don’t see anything have changed in the operation of the airbnb from before to go for an appeal sadly it is getting worse with antisocial behaviour from the guest. 5. I am doctor by profession and need my time in home to rest and get ready for my next day .with the airbnb business my sleep is affected and going through a stressful situation. This was discussed with my line manager and the RCGP referred me for occupational health . I can submit the proof if needed. It is affecting my health , work , life and career. I bought this flat with lot of expectation . All my neighbours were pleasant other than flat-04. I kindly request the council to consider the other residents point when looking into Mr Lee Dean’s appeal. Thanking You. 6. This antisocial behaviour is bad in our quiet residential building and must be against planning policy.
Page 69
CDS Planning Local Review Body From: Andrew Wood Sent: 14 January 2024 20:54 To: CDS Planning Local Review Body Subject: LRB 2023-53 Representation to LRB re the use of Knowehead House - Party Flat Follow Up Flag: Follow up Due By: 16 January 2024 10:00 Flag Status: Flagged 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 Sirs We are disappointed to note that since the committee determination of the August application for No 4 that there has been a continuation of the use at an intense level. There are some key points we wish to bring to the committees attention; 1. This appeal is contrary to NPF 4 Policy 30 & PKC LDP2 Policy 17:Residential Areas and we understand that these policies remain enforceable and appropriate till the next local development plan is adopted. 2. NPF4 Policy 3 Health & Safety & PKC LDP2 Policy 56: Noise Pollution – These policies seek to protect people and places and reduce health & safety risks and encourage health & wellbeing 3. We believe PKC should be taking enforcement action against this Airbnb business given the continued use and the associated problems following the refusal of the retrospective planning application for change of use that was refused in August. 4. Short stay guests have less care and regard for near neighbours than longer term resulting in anti-social behaviour which is not compatible with this quiet residential area and conservation area. 5. There has been regular noise over the last few months from the Airbnb guests on the No.4 balcony sometimes later than10pm and there is no control over this or the numbers involved. 6. The hot tub and the use of the balcony makes this a “party flat” for many of the Airbnb guests 7. This ongoing use does do not justify the adverse impacts in residential amenity experienced by near neighbours. Yours sincerely Andrew and Rosemary Wood
Page 70
1 CDS Planning Local Review Body From: John Forbes Sent: 14 January 2024 13:19 To: CDS Planning Local Review Body Subject: Ref: 23/01040/FLL 4 Knowehead House, Dundee Road. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Due By: 16 January 2024 10:00 Flag Status: Flagged 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 Lisa Simpson. Thank you for your leer informing us about the above property. Our view on the maer has not changed in the least. In fact it has been further fueled by the noise coming from this party flat over the fesve period. We can tell you that it is just not acceptable to expect the residents or Neighbour’s to be subjected to pares, music, screaming and shoung coming from this property. I assume that your representaves would not like to live with this going on around them or if it was going on around elderly relaves. We are no different. Please take this serious maer into consideraon. We are hopeful that you will consider the well being of Mr Lee Deans Neighbour’s while he himself is probably enjoying a quiet home. I look forward to hearing the outcome. Kind regards Mr Forbes and Ms Burne
Page 71
1 No. 4 Knowehead House – Noce of Review to PKC Local Review Body from 12.12.2023 Planning Applicaon Ref No – 23/01040/FLL - LRB Appeal - 2023-53 (Lee Deans) Representaons by Alexander Jameson Summary of Objecons to the Change of Use Applicaon and this Appeal: The Applicant argues that because there have been no complaints to the Council he should be allowed to connue his intensive Airbnb business. He misses the point that he should be prevenng ansocial acvity and pares and not waing for complaints before taking any acon. Unfortunately Deans Retreats cannot effecvely control their Airbnb acvies. The track record of Deans Retreats at Knowehead House demonstrates that the applicaon of its own Airbnb rules is not comprehensively adhered to or enforced. The Applicant does not live in this house there is a lack of control, and he rarely meets his Airbnb guests or visits to check. This Airbnb business relies on access into No.4 Knowehead through the communal car park, using the external key safe, entering by the front door and communal hallway/recepon area that is used by six other Owners. With recent Airbnb occupancy at Knowehead House at approx 90%, the esmated number could be at least 600 individual transient guests over a 12 month period, which is a massive intrusion for the other residents. Guests arrive at any me even late at night. The local economic benefits of Deans Retreats are marginal and do not outweigh the adverse impacts on residenal amenity of the near neighbours. This appeal for change of use to a commercial Airbnb business is contrary to NPF4 And PKC LDP2. Aer three difficult years with the Airbnb problems, we do not trust the Applicant and he connues to mostly ignore the neighbours. We understand that similar problems have occurred in other properes in Perth that have Airbnb flats managed by Deans Retreats. This suggests there is a more significant problem here.
Page 72
2 1. General - My planning objecons and correcons to Lee Deans’ Jusficaon Statement submied to PKC on 08.08.23 are sll relevant and correct. These objecons will be updated by adding my extra comments on the Noce of Review submied by Mr Lee Deans on 12.12.23. He specifically refers to Points 1i), 1(ii) and 2 in his appeal. 2. Point 1(i) – An unacceptable impact on local amenity and character of the neighbourhood area: This intensive Airbnb business operated by Deans Retreats is totally out of character in this residenal building and non-commercial part of the Perth. Deans Retreats started operang commercially at No.4 in 2021. The vague assessment in the Applicant’s planning applicaon suggested the occupancy rate “for the year was 60%”. We quesoned this percentage at the me. We have kept an occupancy record since mid October to early January, covering the less popular months of the year. Over 80 nights (and we were away for a further 4 nights but these dates have been excluded) the current occupancy rate has been over 90% with 75 nights occupied by short term guests. This is a very intensive business with anything from 1 to 6 people arriving every 1-2 days and only two occasions guests stayed for 3 days. Using these stascs, and assuming a low average of only 3 guests per night (and it could be 4), this suggests at least 140 guests stayed at the No.4 flat during these 80 nights. Given this period is mostly low season, it is not unreasonable to esmate at least 600 different people staying at No.4 throughout the year (using a 90% occupancy rate). The Applicant menoned in his planning applicaon in August that 2 out of the 5 Apartments at Knowehead carry out some Airbnb acvity. This is no longer the case as No.3 has not applied for a short-term leng licence as at 1st October 2023 and therefore remains a residenal property. No.4 is therefore the only business in Knowehead House and an excepon in this residenal neighbourhood. The focus of this intensive Airbnb business is” commercial gain” and the Applicant has lile interest in the four other residenal flats in the building. He rarely discusses his business with us and has never asked the other owners how he can control or reduce the disturbance and noise problems. The Applicant has only aended 2 out of 9 Owner meengs since 2021 and in a recent message to one Owner, his absence is explained. He wrote that the Owners’ Commiee is “a silly lile commiee”. In legal terms the Knowehead Commiee is constuted by each Owners’ Title Deeds and they confirm that majority decisions among the 5 owners is binding. The communal property is managed by the Commiee (or Knowehead Owners Associaon in the Deeds). Failure to comply with Commiee decisions increases the chances of unacceptable impacts on the other Knowehead owners and nearby neighbours. The Applicant generally does what he wants without consulng the other Owners. Since purchasing No.4 in 2021, the Applicant has failed to do the following acons: Examples - Ask permission to install a hot tub on a communal roof; check the structural integrity and weight limits for this roof; take out a bespoke insurance to cover his commercial business risks; failure to fit a noise monitor on the balcony; failure to properly enforce noise and disturbance rules. In addion the Applicant fied a key lock safe on an
Page 73
3 external/communal wall without permission and crucially he did not review his Airbnb rules with the other owners and ask what migaon measures might help his neighbours. Efforts to Enhance the Local Amenity – Apartment No.4 was completely refurbished in 2017 by Corryard Developments Ltd and it was in good condion then as we stayed there briefly before moving into No.2. The extensive refurbishment claimed by the Applicant consist of minor repairs, cleaning and redecoraon in the flat. Any work to the roofing, poinng, masonry, communal staircase or gardens have been carried out by the joint owners as these are communal areas. The Applicant has no interest in gardening and has not been involved in managing it and his only acon over 3 years has been to pay the No.4 contribuon towards the gardening cost. The Applicant might have cleaned, redecorated and furnished No.4, but he has not enhanced the local amenity. Fing a hot tub and allowing pares is the exact opposite. Noise Management and Compliance – The Applicant produces a set of brief rules, but he does not discuss his rules with the other Owners. His rules are oen ineffecve and probably not read by the majority of his guests. No representave from Deans Retreats meets the guests when they arrive (as has been recommended by other owners). This absence of someone meeng and instrucng the guests is important to reinforce good behaviour and avoid problems. Adversed as “Knowehead Penthouse Apartment” with a hot tub, it is apparent that most guests stay at No.4 to either to have a party or to enjoy the hot tub or both. In August 2023 the Applicant claimed that Deans Retreat verify that all guests have a minimum age of 24 years old. Example - As an example there was an 18th birthday party for a few girls over a two night stay in May 2022. On this rare occasion Lee met the party on the first evening. No guests were over 24 but he did not stop their party. No.4 was booked because the family did not want the noise of the party at their own home nearby in Perth. This completely nullifies any claims by Deans Retreats that they screen guests and prevent pares. The Applicant may have fied a noise monitor but rarely takes acon and has never confirmed that he has requested guests to leave early despite the many pares. Because this is a short term leng business, the objecve should be proacve to try and avoid any disturbance, rather than waing for it to happen. On occasions the Applicant has not replied to noise complaints unl the next morning. Example – The most recent complaint to the Applicant related to his Airbnb guests making a lot of noise on 31st December for an hour or so aer 10.30pm on the balcony and in the hot tub. They then played music and were noisy in the Apartment. The Applicant said that as it was Hogmanay, he had decided to let his guests enjoy themselves aer 10pm. It was not unl approx 12.30pm unl the Applicant sent a message to the guests to turn the music down. I made the point to Lee that even though it was Hogmanay, if the Applicant wanted to allow his guests to have a noisy party later than 10pm on Hogmanay then he could have asked the other neighbours in advance of the evening. He did not do this. However, the more important message from this incident was that the Applicant was not aware that the hot tub noise earlier in the evening was excessive with shoung and loud music. This is because the Applicant has no noise monitor installed outside on the balcony. This noise from the hot tub
Page 74
4 easily travels across the Dundee Road and Commercial Street as confirmed by other nearby objectors. This example also highlights a major weakness in the Applicant’s noise control efforts waing for noise complaints. He chooses not to help and work with the other Owners. No.4 guests oen enjoy the hot tub earlier in the evening and noise is not picked up by the monitor inside the flat. By the me the guests go inside it is late and very inconvenient to then complain either to the No.4 guests or send a message to Deans Retreats. Why should it be necessary for the neighbours to complain to reduce the noise? If possible, we prefer not to complain to the Council or the Police. These reasons are why we don’t complain as oen as we could. The objecon from the Owner of from August 2023 tesfies to the serious problems resulng from excessive noise from No.4 Apartment and the operaonal grinding noise from the Hot Tub itself directly about his accommodaon. Legal Compliance – Noise and ansocial behaviour is regularly a problem at No.4 Knowehead including pares; hot tub use later in the evening; under-age pares; guests throwing cigaree bus into the car park, beer cans over the balcony near to parked cars, champagne cork into our garden; leaving broken bole in the car park, parking in the wrong car parking space: failing to recycle properly; disturbing other neighbours with late night food deliveries. - The more concerning Legal Compliance issue which has not been menoned by the Applicant for No.4 is the risk of pares on the Balcony with many guests drinking alcohol. This is a Health & Safety risk and the other Owners are concerned about this risk and the possible lack of bespoke insurance cover for Deans Retreats business acvies. This has been requested before but never confirmed by the Applicant. - The Applicant menons a CCTV system which has been installed in the car park. His asseron is incorrect as this system has nothing to do with the Applicant and is not there to ensure the safety and well-being of his guests. Point 2 – The change of use applicaon is contrary to the Naonal Policy Framework 4 and the Perth & Kinross Local Development Plan etc. Naonal Planning Framework - The Developer Corryard Development Ltd received Building Warrant Approval in 2015/16 to alter Knowehead House and carried out this work by April 2017. This is completely unrelated to Deans Retreats applicaon for a retrospecve planning applicaon for a change of use in 2023. Planning Policies - The queson of the compability and compliance of No.4 Knowehead House for a change of use has been reviewed independently by Planning Objecons Scotland as a separate but complimentary Report on behalf of the three Owners. Title Deed Provision - Whilst the Knowehead House Title Deeds do specify that the Units/Flats can be tenanted or used for holiday lets, the Applicant is incorrect in assuming that this in any way confers a right to a Change of Use. The rights in the Title Deeds are unrelated to Scosh Planning Law. Furthermore, it is irrelevant from a planning perspecve that the Title Deeds have this “Use” clause. There has been no “comprehensive understanding or acceptance among the residents” that specific Airbnb acvies are in any
Page 75
5 way approved by the other Owners. For the common areas (excluding what is individually owned) the car park, parts of the gardens, the front door, the hallway, the staircase and landing and the external parts of the building, the management control is clearly all communal and controlled by the Owners Commiee. Airbnb guests need to use the communal car park, garden area, front door, hallway and staircase for access. Change of Use - It is irrelevant and absurd to claim that by repurposing the individual flats, this somehow jusfies changing No.4 from a residenal to a commercial property. The four other owners have not made use of this incorrect assumpon. Economic Contribuons - Most of these comments by the Applicant miss the relevance of NPF4 Policy 30 when considering the benefit of one short term holiday leng flat versus the unacceptable impact of this Airbnb business on local amenity and the character of a neighbourhood. The so called local economic benefit is not quanfied or detailed in any tangible way except for the obvious financial benefit going to Deans Retreats. These economic consideraons will be dealt with in more detail by Planning Objecons Scotland. Community Engagement - The Applicants’ points are theorecal and I doubt they are tangible community engagement. Environmental Consideraons - The Applicant may not monitor his guests’ car use, but from our cursory review of the Airbnb guests from mid October to early January, it appears that 43 pares arrived by car and only 3 pares did not park a car in the car park. The 90% + use of cars is surprisingly high given the central locaon in Perth facilitang the potenal use of buses and trains. It is likely that far more car emissions were incurred by travelling to Perth than would have been saved by walking into town. Secondly there has been a significant lack of recycling despite recycling complaints by the other Owners at most Knowehead meengs and wring to the Applicant to encourage his guests to use the correct recycling bin. The Applicant did eventually supply a separate glass bin because most of the No.4 boles were going in green or blue bins. The glass recycling is much beer but the recent green and blue bin change is sll causing complicaons for the guests. CONCLUSIONS - Contrary to the Applicant’s claims, this intensive Airbnb business has no posive impact on the property, the local amenity or the character of the neighbourhood. Furthermore, Deans Retreats avoids engagement and cooperaon with its near neighbours and the Owners Commiee. We urge the LRB to refuse this appeal because of the many problems and ongoing issues with this intensive Airbnb business. Their track record does not give confidence that Deans Retreats can prevent ansocial behaviour problems. Planning condions are unlikely to be effecve with this commercially driven business.
Page 76
Rebuttal to Comments on: Application Ref: 23/01040/FLL – Change of use of flat to form short-term let accommodation unit (in retrospect), 4 Knowehead House, Dundee Road, Perth, PH2 7EY Date: 28/01/2024 Throughout the planning and appeal process I have included factual and data based evidence shedding light on comments made by a handful of neighbours which should be considered merely heresay. In the initial stages of operation in 2020, minor challenges were encountered and subsequently resolved through collaborative efforts with neighbours. However, as time progressed, Mr. Jameson's requests in particular became increasingly unrealistic and irrational, leading to a communication impasse. In presenting the information, it is our intention to demonstrate that the concerns raised lack substantiation. The authoritarian and gang like approach used by the committee members has left me uncomfortable on the grounds of my own property where I have made every effort to ensure compliance with all regulations, new and old, implemented by Perth and Kinross Council. Knowehead House is an apartment block with communal living areas and with communal living some tolerances must be provisioned. The extent of the complaints logged over the last year at Knowehead House have been minimised to the following: 1st February 2023: Some cigarette buts in the car park area, 4 glass bottles in the green waste bin. (Mr Jameson). Replied and rectified immediately. Friday 12th May 2023: Children running on the roof terrace. (Mr Sathya Samiappan) Contacted guests immediately and rectified. 26th November 2023: Green bin waste in the Blue Bin. Mr Dale threatened with Environmental Health department and to revoke my right to any external bins via the committee. He suggested I would need to take all future waste to the skip. (Mr Dale) Our cleaner is trained to check bins on leaving the building. This would have been rectified on departure. I made contact with environmental health previously to this to make a collaborative effort with PKC to ensure we had all measures in place which they recommend in prevention of cross contamination. They were satisfied that our practices are superior to 95% of other similar properties. Extra recommended measures implemented. 13th December 2024: Cigarette buts in the car park area. Replied and rectified immediately. (Mrs Jameson) 1st January 2024: Noise on Hogmanay evening coming from the apartment at 11.30pm. 1 x beer can and 1 x glass bottle in the car park. (Mr Jameson) These issues and frequency of issue would be found in any communal living development and are not indifferent to local amenity in a flatted property anywhere else. Enhancement of Local Amenity: It cannot be argued that the property was not brought back in to use after being empty for over 2 years. Mr Dale has also not been in the property to have known the extent of remedial works required. These were predominantly caused by the age of the property and long outstanding roofing issues at the property which had caused damage over the period laid empty. I had rectified these personally initially and there was also collaborative efforts made with neighbours on 2 occasions at later dates of which I have receipts for all roofing works.
Page 77
Noise Management & Antisocial Behaviour: I find it highly unlikely if the noise issues mentioned were substantial that there would not be 1 instance lodged with the Police or Perth and Kinross Council over the 4 years of operation. It is much more likely that these issues were not substantial enough to alert any authority. I have since been sent conformation via Freedom of Information Officer showing zero reports made. The Noise monitor logs previously sent also attest to this and show a proactive approach in prevention of any disturbances. The accusation of advertising as a “party flat” is completely false. We highlight in all advertising materials that Parties are not allowed and state this as a specific reason for refusal or removal and/or loss of security deposit. Title Deed: At no point was it mentioned that the Title Deed and provision for all properties in the building to be used for holiday letting would supersede local and national planning regulations. However, it certainly bares relevance where all owners have signed this legally binding document agreeing to its uses and who have also benefitted from use of this provision. This legal document forms an agreement and acceptance of comings and goings of holiday letters by all residents at Knowehead House site. Roof Terrace Area: The roof terrace area is privately owned by number 4 Knowehead House. When purchasing the property it was highlighted that the terrace area was structurally reinforced and had the weight bearing capacity of 40 adults. A calculation was carried out with the original structural engineers Millards of Dundee prior to purchase of the hot tub. The optimum placement and positioning was confirmed in line with the structural steel beams. Steel beam placement was also confirmed with Corryard who developed the building in 2017 to ensure structural and personal safety Economic Benefit: Knowehead Penthouse is unique and should be treated in this fashion. There is not a property like this in Perth and Kinross and draws guests in from all over the UK to enjoy what Perthshire has to offer. I have included below representations displaying the value it offers and the positive affects it has on our city.
Page 78
No embedded text on this page.
Page 79
No embedded text on this page.
Page 80
No embedded text on this page.
Page 81
No embedded text on this page.
Page 82
No embedded text on this page.