Item 4(i) LRB-2022-25

Perth and Kinross Council · 20 September 2022
Back to Local Review Body — 20 September 2022 and its agenda

Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.

Original council PDF · Download plain text

Page 1

4(i)
LRB-2022-25
LRB-2022-25
21/02169/FLL – Erection of a dwellinghouse and garage/
ancillary building, land 30 metres south west of 32 Lintrose
Holding, Campmuir
INDEX
(a) Papers submitted by the Applicant (Pages 11-64)
(b) Decision Notice (Pages 67-68)
Report of Handling (Pages 69-77)
Reference Documents (Pages 45-63 and 79)
(c) Representations (Pages 81-98)
9

Page 2

Page 3

4(i)(a)
LRB-2022-25
LRB-2022-25
21/02169/FLL – Erection of a dwellinghouse and garage/
ancillary building, land 30 metres south west of 32 Lintrose
Holding, Campmuir
PAPERS SUBMITTED
BY THE
APPLICANT
11

Page 4

Page 5

Notice of Review
Page 1 of 5
NOTICE OF REVIEW
UNDER SECTION 43A(8) OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED)IN
RESPECT OF DECISIONS ON  LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCHEMES OF DELEGATION AND LOCAL REVIEW PROCEDURE)
(SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (APPEALS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2008
IMPORTANT: Please read and follow the guidance notes provided when completing this form.
Failure to supply all the relevant information could invalidate your notice of review.
Use BLOCK CAPITALS if completing in manuscript
Applicant(s) Agent (if any)
Name
Address
Postcode
Contact Telephone 1
Contact Telephone 2
Fax No
E-mail*
Mark this box to confirm all contact should be
through this representative: X
Yes No
* Do you agree to correspondence regarding your review being sent by e-mail?  X
Planning authority
Planning authority’s application reference number
Site address
Description of proposed
development
Date of application
MR AND MRS W FLEMING Name NORMAN A MACLEOD
No 32 LINTROSE
COUPAR ANGUS
PH13 9LJ
Address
Postcode
18 WALNUT GROVE
BLAIRGOWRIE
PH10 6TH
Contact Telephone 1
Contact Telephone 2
Fax No
07884177328
E-mail* namacleod@aol.com
PERTH AND KINROSS
21/02169/FLL
No 32 LINTROSE, COUPAR ANGUS PH13 9JL
CHANGE OF USE OF LAND, DEMOLITION OF FARM BUILDINGS AND
ERECTION OF A DETACHED HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE
6/12/2021 Date of decision (if any) 4/3/2022
13

Page 6

Notice of Review
Page 2 of XX5
Note. This notice must be served on the planning authority within three months of the date of the decision
notice or from the date of expiry of the period allowed for determining the application.
Nature of application
1. Application for planning permission (including householder application)
2. Application for planning permission in principle
3. Further application (including development that has not yet commenced and where a time limit
has been imposed; renewal of planning permission; and/or modification, variation or removal of
a planning condition)
4. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions
Reasons for seeking review
1. Refusal of application by appointed officer
2. Failure by appointed officer to determine the application within the period allowed for
determination of the application
3. Conditions imposed on consent by appointed officer
Review procedure
The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any
time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them
to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such
as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is
the subject of the review case.
Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the
handling of your review. You may tick more than one box if you wish the review to be conducted by a
combination of procedures.
1. Further written submissions
2. One or more hearing sessions
3. Site inspection
4 Assessment of review documents only, with no further procedure
If you have marked box 1 or 2, please explain here which of the matters (as set out in your statement below)
you believe ought to be subject of that procedure, and why you consider further submissions or a hearing
are necessary:
NOT APPLICABLE
Site inspection
In the event that the Local Review Body decides to inspect the review site, in your opinion:
Yes No
14

Page 7

Notice of Review
Page 3 of 5
1. Can the site be viewed entirely from public land? 
2 Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely, and without barriers to entry? 
If there are reasons why you think the Local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied
site inspection, please explain here:
NOT APPLICABLE
Statement
You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application.  Your statement must set out all
matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review.  Note: you may not have
a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date.  It is therefore essential that you
submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the
Local Review Body to consider as part of your review.  
If the Local Review Body issues a notice requesting further information from any other person or body, you
will have a period of 14 days in which to comment on any additional matter which has been raised by that
person or body.
State here the reasons for your notice of review and all matters you wish to raise.  If necessary, this can be
continued or provided in full in a separate document.  You may also submit additional documentation with
this form.
PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED SEPARATE DOCUMENTS –
1. NOTICE OF REVIEW WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
2. NOTICE OF REVIEW SUBMISSION APPENDIX
15

Page 8

Notice of Review
Page 4 of 5
Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes No
determination on your application was made? 
If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising new material, why it was not raised with the
appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should now be considered
in your review.
NOT APPLICABLE
List of documents and evidence
Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with
your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review.
NOTICE OF REVIEW WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
NOTICE OF REVIEW SUBMISSION APPENDIX
Note. The planning authority will make a copy of the notice of review, the review documents and any notice
of the procedure of the review available for inspection at an office of the planning authority until such time
as the review is determined.  It may also be available on the planning authority website.
Checklist
Please mark the appropriate boxes to confirm you have provided all supporting documents and evidence
relevant to your review:
Full completion of all parts of this form
Statement of your reasons for requiring a review
All documents, materials and evidence which you intend to rely on (e.g. plans and drawings or
other documents) which are now the subject of this review. 
PLANNING APPLICATION DRAWINGS AND SUPPORTING STATEMENT
16

Page 9

Notice of Review
Page 5 of 5
Note. Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification,
variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters
specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and
decision notice from that earlier consent.
Declaration
I the applicant/agent [delete as appropriate] hereby serve notice on the planning authority to 
review the application as set out on this form and in the supporting documents.
Signed Date 02/06/2022
17

Page 10

Page 11

1 
NOTICE OF REVIEW 
PLANNING AUTHORITY:  PERTH & KINROSS COUNCIL 
APPLICATION REFERENCE:  21/02169/FLL 
SITE ADDRESS: LAND 30 METRES SOUTHWEST OF 32
LINTROSE HOLDING, CAMPMUIR 
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: ERECTION OF A DWELLINGHOUSE AND
GARAGE/ANCILLARY BUILDING 
DATE OF REFUSAL:  04 MARCH 2022 
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS 
19

Page 12

2 
1 Introduction 
1.1 The proposed development was refused under delegated powers on 04 March 2022
for the following reasons:-
1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 19, Housing in the Countryside, of the Perth &
Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and its associated supplementary
guidance.  The proposal does not accord with any of the categories within the
policy.  In particular, the proposal is contrary to category 2 infill as the plot
created is not comparable in size to the neighbouring plots and does not have a
similar size of road frontage.  In addition, the size and design of the infill house is
not sympathetic to the neighbouring buildings. 
2. The proposal is contrary to Policy 1A and 1Bc), Placemaking, of the Perth &
Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019).  The design and siting of the
development does not respect the character and amenity of the place and does
not complement its surroundings in terms of appearance, height and massing,
materials, finishes and colour. 
2 Background 
2.2 The applicants are locally based, 4th generation farmers and the application site
forms part of a wider smallholding acquired in early 2021 which includes the adjacent
cottage at no.32 and a large field to the east.  Having sympathetically restored the
cottage last year, the applicants now propose to redevelop the adjacent poor quality
agricultural buildings to provide their main home from which to farm the smallholding
(with the cottage being retained as a holiday let).   
20

Page 13

3 
3 Rebuttal 
Plot
3.1 Whilst the Planning Officer has concluded that the proposals need to be assessed
under Category 2 (Infill Sites) of the Housing in the Countryside Supplementary
Guidance, it must be acknowledged that this is not a cleared site.  It is an existing
plot with established boundaries and a large number of poor quality and largely
derelict, non-traditional (and 1 traditional) buildings, and the SPG states that each
case will require to be assessed on its own merits.
3.2 It is worth noting that had the existing buildings been demolished prior to the
application being made, the proposal would have fallen under Category 6
(Development on Rural Brownfield Land) and demolition remains an option given the
poor state of repair of the buildings.
3.3 Whilst it is accepted that the application site has a wider road frontage (43m,
excluding the shared access to no.32 adjacent) than the neighbouring plots, the
difference is marginal when compared to the two plots directly opposite (which are
both 38m).  It should also be borne in mind that this is an existing plot, largely
covered in a variety of poor-quality non-traditional buildings, and its frontage is fixed
by the properties on either side.  There are a variety of plot frontages within this
particular building group.
3.4 The same is true for the plot depth, which is mirrored by part of the garden to the
‘Viewfield’ property immediately south. The proposed house is set slightly back for
two principal reasons:
1. Maintaining a reasonable set-off to the existing mature trees along the roadside;
and
2. Placing the proposed house within the footprint of the existing derelict buildings. 
21

Page 14

4 
3.5 There are no such mature trees along the frontage of existing houses on either side
of the application site (No.32 and Viewfield), nor on any of the existing properties on
the opposite side of the road so it is not unreasonable to expect some variation to the
existing building line when it comes to the application site.   
Size
3.6 In the same way that this building group contains a range of plot sizes, there is a
significant variance in the size of the existing houses.  The new houses at Orchard
House, The Brambles and Strawberry Fields, as well as the houses at Muirside and
Hillview House, are significantly larger than the flanking houses of No.32 and
Viewfield.  There is no uniformity, and the scale of the proposed house is in keeping
with the surrounding area. 
22

Page 15

5 
Design
3.7 The officer’s delegated report concludes that the proposed building does not
complement its surroundings in terms of appearance, height and massing, materials,
finishes and colour.  However, it is important to highlight that no site visit was
undertaken by the officer, who instead relied on Google Streetview and similar
electronic means.  As a consequence, we believe that the conclusions were based
on out-of-date and incorrect information.  
3.8 For example, the images on Google Streetview were taken in 2009 and don’t capture
the street level view of the two new build houses in the settlement (The Brambles
and Strawberry Fields, at the northern end of the street), which are not mentioned in
the delegated report. A site visit would also have identified that Strawberry Fields has
a garage built directly in front of the house, which can’t be seen from Google Maps.  
3.9 The proposed house is to be built using white wet-dash render, stone feature walls,
grey Cedral cladding and a slate roof, similar to the post-war traditional holding
cottage next door (No.32) and others nearby.   This is a significant improvement on
the three most recent properties in the settlement, which have beige Fyfe stone base
courses, white dry-dash render, and concrete tiled roofs.
3.10 The delegated report concludes that the proposed building, at 1.75 storeys, is at
odds with the surrounding houses, which are mainly single or 1.5 storeys.  However,
there are a substantial number of 1 ¾ storey houses in & around the settlement of
Campmuir – please refer to the attached appendices. 
4 Conclusions 
4.1 The reasons for refusal boil down to a difference of opinion on design issues, and we
believe that the officer’s conclusions are undermined by the lack of a site visit to
appreciate more recent developments in and around the settlement.  
4.2 From the evidence presented here, we would contend that the proposed design and
scale is in fact entirely in character with numerous other holdings in the Campmuir,
Lintrose, Kinnochtry and North Corston areas, where new homes have been built
alongside post-war holdings, and we respectfully request that the Local Review Body
grants planning permission for the proposed development. 
23

Page 16

Page 17

1 
SUPPORTING STATEMENT AND PHOTOS
LOCATION – The plot is located off the C442 road among a group of buildings in Lintrose
comprising of farm buildings and a dwelling.
EXISTING FARM BUILDINGS – Consideration was given to the feasibility of converting
the existing farm buildings, however, due to their condition and form of construction it was
considered impracticable. Please see photos below. A new farm building is being proposed
for the future to replace other derelict farm buildings although it does not form part of this
proposal.
PROPOSAL – The proposal is to demolish the existing farm buildings and erect a dwelling
house and detached garage within the footprint of the existing buildings. The existing cottage
and farm will be retained in the ownership of the applicants with the existing cottage being
available for holiday let and the farm continuing to be productive. 
DESIGN – The house and garage has been designed as 1 and ¾ storeys incorporating slate
pitched roofs, white wet dash render as well as stonework to the external walls. The 1 and ¾
storey design is typical of recent approvals in nearby locations.
TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY – A topographical survey has been prepared with levels as
shown on the Existing and Proposed Block Plans. Localised areas of upfill are proposed for
the front lawn and access to the garage.
TREES – Trees are located adjacent to the plot and C442 road. The trees will be retained and
all new work will be out with the root protection area. Further trees and beech hedges will be
planted as part of the landscaping plan.
BAT SURVEY – Please see the Bat Survey enclosed.
GROUND INVESTIGATION – This will be submitted if requested.
ACCESS – Access from the C442 road will be via the existing track and shared with the
existing cottage.
DRAINAGE – A private drainage system is to be utilised with private treatment plant and
located within the site with the discharge of the effluent taken to the Kinnochtry Burn. The
surface water will also connect to the tailrace and will be registered with SEPA.
REFUSE BIN STORAGE – Provision has been made for bin storage within the garden
ground of the plot and the bins will be taken adjacent to the C442 road on the day of
collection. 
PARKING – Provision has been made for parking and turning within the plot as shown on
the Proposed Block Plan as well as the proposal for vehicle storage in the garage.
AMENITY – There is ample area within the plot for leisure amenity of the occupants of the
dwelling. 
NEIGHBOURING AMENITY – The new house will be located at least 9m from the
neighbouring boundary and it’s not considered to have detrimental affect on the neighbouring
property.
25

Page 18

2
LANDSCAPING – Post and wire fences define the south west neighbouring boundary and
the north west boundary adjacent to the C442 road. Additional post and wire fences will be
erected to enclose the plot as well as the formation of beech hedges, garden lawns and
footpaths. Bin storage and drying areas are also provided.
STOVE - It is intended to provide a wood burning stove in the lounge. Please see details
below
Orion Vision 10kw...
3 Sided Contemporary Curved Multi-Fuel Stove...
Featuring Triple burn technology, Ecodesign 2022 compliant.
The Orion Vision is a 3 sided curved - completely cylindrical,
contemporary styled, wood burning stove with glass to three sides.
This stylish and elegant stove offers a nominal output of 7kw, and a
maximum output of 10kw.
Finished to a very high standard in charcoal grey - almost black, and
incorporating a flush fit, brushed stainless steel handle to compliment
its contemporary appearance, this 3 sided stove offers a view of the
flames from all angles of the room.
Manufactured from premium grade steel, unlike fragile cast iron, the
Orion Vision will heat up very quickly and wont crack or melt. The
firebox is fully lined to reflect the heat out from the appliance and to
prolong the life of the appliance.
The Orion Vision features Triple Burn combustion, where the gases
are re-ignited to obtain the maximum efficiency and heat output of the
stove with minimum fuel consumption, making the CO output lower
than any other stove in it's class.
26

Page 19

3 
The stove is Eco Design 2022 certified, and offers highly efficient
operation, with low fuel consumption. In recent independant tests
stoves that were Eco Design 2022 compliant, used 6 times less fuel
than traditional non compliant stoves. The result is that you save
money on fuel. 
Airflow control provides simple, but optimum control over the burn
rate and temperature output. An advanced glass cleaning air wash
system ensures that the large curved ceramic glass window and the
side glass remains clear to provide a warming view of the flames. 
Other features include a lower log storage compartment a removable
ash pan for ease of cleaning and a multi-fuel fire grate. Top flue exit
only. 
A fantastic - stylish wood burning stove at a fraction of the cost of
similar Scandinavian models. 
The Orion Vision carries a 2 year warranty and the
following quality standards: CE Marked to EN13240
and manufactured in accordance with  ISO 9001
Quality Standard. 
PHOTOS 
27

Page 20

4 
28

Page 21

5 
29

Page 22

6 
30

Page 23

7 
31

Page 24

8 
32

Page 25

9 
33

Page 26

Page 27

2 x new
builds. Single storey high pitched
roofs. W
hite dry dash, concrete tiled roof
1 with garage set directly in front of house
Appendix 3
Substantial 1 ¾ 
storey new
build, set back from
road
W
hite dry dash, concrete tiled roof, upstairs windows
overlooking road
Appendix 1
Single storey house had large extension added
2021 making entire dwelling into 1 ¾ 
height
Appendix 7
House currently having large extension
making into 1 ¾ 
height
Neighbouring property traditional farmhouse
of 1 ½ 
storey height
Appendix 6
BorelandMill development, set back from
the road and a mixture of single storey and 
1 ¾ 
height dwellings
Appendix 5
Traditional farmhouse of 1 ¾ 
storey height
Appendix 4
Traditional farmhouse of 1 ¾ 
storey height
Appendix 2
Proposed Development
35

Page 28

View
from
roadside and directly in front of cottage at no.32
Holding Lintrose, belonging to applicant
17/01417/FLL
Appendix 1. Orchard House
36

Page 29

Appendix 2. Foresters Cottage
37

Page 30

Erection of garage in front of house (2020) Ref 20/00001/FLL
17/01417/FLL (2017)
20/01718/FLL(2020)
16/01060/FLL (2016)
Appendix 3. The Brambles & Strawberry Fields
Drone footage of this area can be viewed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgP_lB4H0n4
38

Page 31

Appendix 4. Peattie Mill Farm
39

Page 32

Appendix 5. BorelandMill Development
Situated back from
the roadside and a mixture
of single storey and 1 ¾ storey dwellings
40

Page 33

Appendix 6. BorelandFarm
1 ¾ storey extension to original holding cottage granted 2021 and currently under construction
Traditional sheds alongside on road shown for height purposes
21/00844/FLL (2021)
Adjacent to BorelandFarm
is a traditional
stone 1 ½
storey farmhouse
41

Page 34

Appendix 7. No.18 LintroseHoldings
Extension and raising of the roof to former bungalow
to create 1 ¾ storey extension
21/00184/FLL (2021)
42

Page 35

Campmuir
-nearest settlement 300m
from
proposed
site
Contains a mixture of post-war white render
holdings (similar tothat currently owned by
applicant) and a variety of new
builds, most
of which are 1 ¾ storeyin height, some
situated back from
the roadside behind
older traditional properties
43

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

737325N
737325N
737375N
737375N
737300N
737300N
737350N
737350N
77.000
76.500
76.500
75.767
76.280
77.256
ST
N
1
S
TN
2
S
TN
3
75.776
75.718
75.626
75.549
75.530
75.546
75.622
75.881
75.705
75.688
75.765
75.764
75.768
75.930
75.921
75.869
75.956
76.110
76.186
76.707
76.763
76.850
77.052
77.097
77.070
76.994
76.909
76.992
77.464
77.488
77.468
77.515
77.582
77.221
77.125
77.110
76.937
76.888
76.701
76.631
76.620
76.608
76.509
76.524
76.392
76.234
76.104
76.056
76.103
76.191
76.889
76.855
76.741
76.691
76.587
76.420
76.263
76.062
76.000
76.007
76.774
76.888
77.003
76.816
76.741
76.599
76.449
76.795
76.986
76.988
76.896
76.644
76.668
76.707
76.784
76.799
76.860
76.929
77.064
77.101
76.990
76.989
77.116
77.117
77.247
77.163
77.099
77.146
76.811
76.868
76.845
75.959
75.791
75.700
75.887
76.200
76.375
76.473
76.607
76.677
76.722
76.550
76.639
76.351
76.026
75.757
75.614
75.596
75.817
76.132
76.416
76.491
76.448
76.647
76.599
76.485
76.588
76.651
76.481
76.125
75.824
75.554
75.370
75.752
76.101
76.431
76.467
76.131
75.748
75.529
75.247
75.670
75.518
75.538
75.526
75.541
75.72176.042
76.517
G
ravel
G
ravel
G
ravel
G
ravel
76.909
76.996
76.968
Grass77.084
G
77.154
77.154
77.315
G
76.067
TP
77.090
77.019
G
ravel
G
ravel
G
ravel
G
ravel
G
ravel
P
ow
er P
ole
FFL
FFL
77.253
77.400
R
idge
R
idge
R
idge
82.197
81.660
81.480
Eaves
E
aves
E
aves
79.845
79.585
79.671
C
oncrete
C
oncrete
C
oncrete
Slabs
S
labs
R
ough
track
R
ough
track
R
ough
track
R
ough
track
R
ough
track
R
ough
track
R
ough
track
R
ough
track
G
ravel
G
ravel
NORMAN
A
MACLEOD
namacleod@
aol.com
Tel: 07884177328
DRAW
ING
REF: EXISTING
BLOCK
PLAN
PAPER
SIZE: A1
DATE:DEC21
SCALE:1TO200
DRAW
ING
NO:1
REVISION:
PROJECT: ERECTION
OF A
HOUSE AND
GARAGE AT 32 LINTROSE,
CAMPMUIR, COUPAR ANGUS PH13 9LJ
46

Page 39

737325N
737325N
737375N
737375N
737300N
737300N
737350N
737350N
77.000
76.500
76.500
75.767
76.280
77.256
S
TN
1
S
TN
2
S
TN
3
75.776
75.718
75.626
75.549
75.530
75.546
75.622
75.881
75.705
75.688
75.765
75.764
75.768
75.930
75.921
75.869
75.956
76.110
76.186
76.707
76.763
76.850
77.052
77.097
77.070
76.994
76.909
76.992
77.464
77.488
77.468
77.515
77.582
77.221
77.125
77.110
76.937
76.888
76.701
76.631
76.620
76.608
76.509
76.524
76.392
76.234
76.104
76.056
76.103
76.191
76.889
76.855
76.741
76.691
76.587
76.420
76.263
76.062
76.000
76.007
76.774
76.888
77.003
76.816
76.741
76.599
76.449
76.795
76.986
76.988
76.896
76.644
76.668
76.707
76.784
76.799
76.860
76.929
77.064
77.101
76.990
76.989
77.116
77.117
77.247
77.163
77.099
77.146
76.811
76.868
76.845
75.959
75.791
75.700
75.887
76.200
76.375
76.473
76.607
76.677
76.722
76.550
76.639
76.351
76.026
75.757
75.614
75.596
75.817
76.132
76.416
76.491
76.448
76.647
76.599
76.485
76.588
76.651
76.481
76.125
75.824
75.554
75.370
75.752
76.101
76.431
76.467
76.131
75.748
75.529
75.247
75.670
75.518
75.538
75.526
75.541
75.72176.042
76.517
G
ravel
G
ravel
G
ravel
G
ravel
76.909
76.996
76.968
Grass
G
77.154
77.154
77.315
G
76.067
TP
77.090
77.019
G
ravel
G
ravel
G
ravel
G
ravel
G
ravel
P
ow
er Pole
FFL
FFL
77.253
77.400
R
idge
R
idge
R
idge
82.197
81.660
81.480
E
aves
E
aves
E
aves
79.845
79.585
79.671
C
oncrete
C
oncrete
C
oncrete
S
labs
S
labs
R
ough
track
R
ough
track
R
ough
track
R
ough
track
R
ough
track
R
ough
track
R
ough
track
R
ough
track
G
ravel
G
ravel
NORMAN
A
MACLEOD
namacleod@
aol.com
Tel: 07884177328
DRAW
ING
REF: EXISTING
BLOCK
PLAN 
W
ITH
NEW
BUILDINGS
SUPERIMPOSED
PAPER
SIZE: A1
DATE:DEC21
SCALE:1TO200
DRAW
ING
NO:2
REVISION:
PROJECT:ERECTION
OF A
HOUSE AND
GARAGE AT 32 LINTROSE,
CAMPMUIR, COUPAR ANGUS PH13 9LJ
47

Page 40

737325N
737325N
737375N
737375N
737300N
737300N
737350N
737350N
77.000
76.500
76.500
75.767
76.280
77.256
S
TN
1
S
TN
2
ST
N
3
75.776
75.718
75.626
75.549
75.530
75.546
75.622
75.930
75.921
75.869
75.956
76.110
76.186
76.707
76.763
76.850
77.052
77.097
77.070
76.994
76.909
76.992
77.464
77.488
77.468
77.515
77.582
77.221
77.125
77.110
76.937
76.888
76.701
76.631
76.620
76.608
76.509
76.524
76.392
76.234
76.104
76.103
76.191
76.855
76.741
76.691
76.587
76.420
76.263
76.062
76.599
76.449
76.795
76.988
76.896
76.644
76.668
77.101
76.990
76.989
77.116
77.117
77.247
77.163
77.099
77.146
76.811
76.868
76.845
75.959
75.791
75.700
75.887
76.200
76.375
76.473
76.607
76.677
76.722
76.550
76.639
76.351
76.026
75.757
75.614
75.596
75.817
76.132
76.416
76.491
76.448
76.647
76.599
76.485
76.588
76.651
76.481
76.125
75.824
75.554
75.370
75.752
76.101
76.431
76.467
76.131
75.748
75.529
75.247
76.042
76.517
G
ravel
G
ravel
G
ravel
G
ravel
76.909
76.996
76.968
Grass77.084
G
77.154
77.154
77.315
G
T
P
77.090
77.019
G
ravel
G
ravel
G
ravel
G
ravel
G
ravel
P
ow
er P
ole
FF
L
F
FL
77.253
77.400
R
idge
R
idge
82.197
81.480
E
aves
Eaves
79.845
79.671
C
oncrete
C
oncrete
C
oncrete
S
labs
S
labs
R
ough
track
R
ough
track
G
ravel
G
ravel
NORMAN
A
MACLEOD
namacleod@
aol.com
Tel: 07884177328
DRAW
ING
REF: PROPOSED
BLOCK
PLAN
PAPER
SIZE: A1
DATE:DEC21
SCALE:1TO200
DRAW
ING
NO:3
REVISION:
PROJECT: ERECTION
OF A
HOUSE AND
GARAGE AT 32 LINTROSE,
CAMPMUIR, COUPAR ANGUS PH13 9LJ
48

Page 41

NORMAN
A
MACLEOD
namacleod@
aol.com
Tel: 07884177328
DRAW
ING
REF: SITE CROSS SECTION
E-E
PAPER
SIZE: A1
DATE:DEC21
SCALE:1TO100
DRAW
ING
NO:4
REVISION:
PROJECT: ERECTION
OF A
HOUSE AND
GARAGE AT 32 LINTROSE,
CAMPMUIR, COUPAR ANGUS PH13 9LJ
49

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

NORMAN
A
MACLEOD
namacleod@
aol.com
Tel: 07884177328
DRAW
ING
REF: HOUSE VERTICAL CROSS SECTIONS
PAPER
SIZE: A1
DATE:DEC21
SCALE:1TO50
DRAW
ING
NO:7
REVISION:
PROJECT: ERECTION
OF A
HOUSE AND
GARAGE AT 32 LINTROSE,
CAMPMUIR, COUPAR ANGUS PH13 9LJ
52

Page 45

Page 46

NORMAN
A
MACLEOD
namacleod@
aol.com
Tel: 07884177328
DRAW
ING
REF: GARAGE FLOOR
PLANS AND
ROOF PLAN
PAPER
SIZE: A1
DATE:DEC21
SCALE:1TO50
DRAW
ING
NO:9
REVISION:
PROJECT: ERECTION
OF A
HOUSE AND
GARAGE AT 32 LINTROSE,
CAMPMUIR, COUPAR ANGUS PH13 9LJ
54

Page 47

Bat Survey Report
Workshop and Sheds
32 Holding
Lintrose
Blairgowrie
PH13 9LJ
August 2021
55

Page 48

Figure 1. Sheds to be removed circled in pink
56

Page 49

Introduction
1.1 Licensed bat worker Dr Garry Mortimer was commissioned to carry out bat
surveys on outbuildings and sheds (Figure 1) located at 32 Holdings, Lintrose,
Blairgowrie PH13 9LJ.
1.2 Aims and Objectives
To determine if any bat species are present and roosting in the buildings and sheds.
1.3 Species Protection Status
Bats are protected under Annex IIa and IVa of the EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EC) as
applied in Scotland under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994,
as amended by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (Scotland)
Regulations of 2004, 2007 and 2009. This creates a series of criminal offences that can
result in substantial fines and/or imprisonment. These offences are listed below and
make it illegal;
• To deliberately or recklessly capture, injure or kill bats
• To deliberately or recklessly harass a bat or group of bats
• To deliberately or recklessly disturb a bat wherever they occur in a  manner
that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to impair its ability to survive, breed
or reproduce, or rear or otherwise care for its young
• To deliberately or recklessly disturb a bat while it is hibernating or migrating
• To deliberately or recklessly disturb a bat in a manner that is, or is likely to
significantly affect the local distribution or abundance of the species to which it
belongs
• To deliberately or recklessly disturb a bat while it is rearing or otherwise caring
for its young
• To deliberately or recklessly disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or
place which it used for shelter or protection
• To deliberately or recklessly obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place
of a bat, or otherwise deny the animal use of the breeding site or resting place
(note that this protection exists even when the bat is not in occupation)
57

Page 50

• To damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place (Note this is a strict
liability offence and the prosecution do not have to prove deliberate or reckless
intent, merely that the roost was damaged or destroyed)
• To possess or control or transport any live or dead bat which has been taken
from the wild or anything derived from a bat or any such part of a bat
• In addition to the above offences it is an offence to knowingly cause or permit
such offences to be committed.
Site Description
1.4 The site is situated in a rural village setting approximately 4km south of Cupar
Angus. There is a single storey detached bungalow on site that is not part of this report.
The rest of the site comprises a collection of corrugated and wooden sheds and a
rendered building with a corrugated roof (Figures 2-5).
Figure 2. Rendered outbuilding/workshop with corrugated roof laid onto wooden
joists.
58

Page 51

Figure 3. Corrugated metal sheets laid onto wooden joists with no wall or roof
cavities present.
59

Page 52

Figure 4. Wooden sheds with virtually no bat roost potential.
60

Page 53

Figure 5. Corrugated lean to with no bat roost potential.
1.5 Standards and Guidance Followed for Bat Surveys
In July 2021 a roost inspection bat survey (Preliminary Roost Assessment) by Dr. G
Mortimer was carried out in accordance with guidance from the BCT.
1.6 Buildings Inspections
The outside and inside of the building and sheds were inspected using ladders,
endoscope and 10 x 40 binoculars where possible. The buildings were checked for any
potential bat access points, droppings on floors, walls or windows, urine stains, grease
marks or other indications that a roost was present.
Results
1.7 Due to the construction methodology of the rendered building with corrugated
sheeting and no roof or wall cavities are present there was very limited bat roost
potential present. The sheds with corrugated or flat roofs had almost zero bat roost
potential in the majority of the buildings. No signs of bats were recorded and many
61

Page 54

parts of the sheds were scoped out of further survey work. Following BCT Guidance
recommendations it was considered that a dusk activity survey would be required.
1.8 Dawn Dusk Activity Surveys
On August 17th three bat surveyors carried out dusk bat emergence surveys in suitable
conditions.
August 17 - Dusk - Start 20.10 – End 22.10; Sunset 20.48; Weather: 3/8 Oktas cloud
cover; Wind: Force 1 Variable, Temperature: 16 Celsius.
1.9 Results
No signs of bats were recorded either entering or leaving any of the buildings or sheds
that were being surveyed during the dusk activity surveys. Small numbers (2-3) of
common and soprano pipistrelle were recorded foraging around the woodland near the
site and single bat soprano pipistrelle summer non-maternity roosts are present in the
residential bungalow.
Discussion of Survey Results
1.10 The bat surveys were undertaken to assess whether there were roosting bats
present in the sheds and outbuilding at 32 Holdings Lintrose.
1.11 Following BCT Guidance and survey protocol no signs of bats were recorded
during the building or dusk activity surveys. Given the very limited bat roost potential
present no roosts are suspected to be present. No further survey work will be required.
Conclusion
1.12 It is considered that the proposed demolition works poses a negligible risk of
death or disturbance to European Protected Species and it is safe to proceed.
62

Page 55

•
DISCLAIMER
This report has been prepared by Dr Garry Mortimer of GLM Ecology, with
all reasonable skill and care within the terms of the agreement with the
client.  Dr Mortimer disclaims any responsibility to any parties in respect of
matters outside this scope.
Best efforts were made to meet the objectives of this study through desktop
study and field survey.
Information supplied by the client or any other parties and used in this report is
assumed to be correct and GLM Ecology accepts no responsibility for inaccuracies in
the data supplied.
It should be noted, that whilst every endeavour is made to meet the client’s brief, no
site investigation can guarantee absolute assessment or prediction of the natural
environment. Numerous species are extremely mobile or only evident at certain times
of year and habitats are subject to seasonal and temporal change.
GLM Ecology accepts no responsibility to third parties who duplicate, use,
or disclose this report in whole or in part.  Such third parties rely upon this
report at their own risk.
Document Prepared By
Dr Garry Mortimer
GLM Ecology
63

Page 56

Page 57

4(i)(b)
LRB-2022-25
LRB-2022-25
21/02169/FLL – Erection of a dwellinghouse and garage/
ancillary building, land 30 metres south west of 32 Lintrose
Holding, Campmuir
PLANNING DECISION NOTICE
REPORT OF HANDLING
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS (part included in
applicant’s submission, pages 45-63)
65

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

1 
REPORT OF HANDLING 
DELEGATED REPORT 
Ref No 21/02169/FLL
Ward No 2 - Strathmore 
Due Determination Date 9th March 2022 
Draft Report Date 4th March 2022
Report Issued by PB Date 4 March 2022 
PROPOSAL: Erection of a dwellinghouse and garage/ancillary building   
LOCATION:  Land 30 Metres South West Of 32 Lintrose Holding
Campmuir   
SUMMARY: 
This report recommends refusal of the application as the development is considered
to be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no
material considerations apparent which justify setting aside the Development Plan. 
SITE VISIT: 
In line with established practices, the need to visit the application site has been
carefully considered by the case officer.  The application site and its context have
been viewed by a variety of remote and electronic means, such as aerial imagery
and Streetview, in addition to photographs submitted by interested parties. 
This information has meant that, in this case, it is possible and appropriate to
determine this application without a physical visit as it provides an acceptable basis
on which to consider the potential impacts of this proposed development. 
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 
69

Page 62

2 
BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL 
The proposal relates to a site at Lintrose Holdings southwest of Campmuir.  Planning
permission is sought for the erection of a dwellinghouse and garage/ancillary
building.  There are existing non-domestic buildings on the site which are to be
demolished.  The new house will be positioned to the rear of the site on the site of a
demolished building with the garage/ancillary building located to the front of the site
also on the site of a former building.  There are residential properties either side of
the site and opposite.  These are single storey in appearance. 
The proposed new house will be a detached, four bedded property with
accommodation over two levels.  It will be finished in render and stone with a slate
roof.  The application submission indicates that the neighbouring cottage to the
northeast is in the ownership of the applicants and will be retained for holiday
accommodation and that a new farm building will be erected but is not part of this
application. 
SITE HISTORY 
None. 
PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION 
Pre application Reference: None. 
NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE 
The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through The National
Planning Framework, the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), Planning Advice Notes
(PAN), Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and
a series of Circulars.   
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 
The Development Plan for the area comprises the TAYplan Strategic Development
Plan 2016-2036 and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019). 
70

Page 63

3 
TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2016 – 2036 - Approved October 2017 
Whilst there are no specific policies or strategies directly relevant to this proposal the
overall vision of the TAYplan should be noted.  The vision states “By 2036 the
TAYplan area will be sustainable, more attractive, competitive and vibrant without
creating an unacceptable burden on our planet. The quality of life will make it a place
of first choice where more people choose to live, work, study and visit, and where
businesses choose to invest and create jobs.” 
Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 – Adopted November 2019 
The Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) is the most recent statement of Council policy
and is augmented by Supplementary Guidance. 
The principal policies are: 
Policy 1A: Placemaking  
Policy 1B: Placemaking  
Policy 2: Design Statements  
Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions  
Policy 19: Housing in the Countryside  
Policy 32: Embedding Low & Zero Carbon Generating Technologies in New
Development
Policy 39: Landscape  
Policy 40B: Forestry, Woodland and Trees: Trees, Woodland and Development
Policy 41: Biodiversity  
Policy 53B: Water Environment and Drainage: Foul Drainage
Policy 53C: Water Environment and Drainage: Surface Water Drainage
Policy 53E: Water Environment and Drainage: Water Supply
Policy 58A: Contaminated and Unstable Land: Contaminated Land
Policy 59: Digital Infrastructure  
Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development
Proposals 
OTHER POLICIES 
Housing in the Countryside Supplementary Guidance 2020 
CONSULTATION RESPONSES 
Transport Planning
No response in timescale. 
Scottish Water
Capacity at Lintrathen water treatment works for water supply.  No public Scottish
Water infrastructure in the vicinity. Private treatment options required. 
Development Contributions Officer
No developer contributions required. 
71

Page 64

4 
Dundee Airport Ltd
No objection. 
Environmental Health (Contaminated Land)
No objection subject to contaminated land condition. 
Environmental Health (Noise Odour)
Informative note with regard to woodburning stove. 
Biodiversity/Tree Officer
No objection subject to condition. 
Perth And Kinross Heritage Trust
Does not raise any issues requiring archaeological mitigation. 
Planning And Housing Strategy
Issues with compliance with Housing in the Countryside Policy. 
REPRESENTATIONS 
No representations received. 
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS 
Screening Opinion  EIA Not Required
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA):
Environmental Report
Not applicable
Appropriate Assessment Habitats Regulations 
AA Not Required
Design Statement or Design and Access
Statement
Supporting statement
submitted
Report on Impact or Potential Impact eg Flood
Risk Assessment
Not Required 
APPRAISAL 
Sections 25 and 37 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997
require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the development plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.  The Development Plan for the
area comprises the approved TAYplan and the adopted LDP2. 
The determining issues in this case are whether; the proposal complies with
development plan policy; or if there are any other material considerations which
justify a departure from policy. 
72

Page 65

5 
Policy Appraisal 
The site is in a rural area where Policy 19, Housing in the Countryside, of the Local
Development Plan applies.  Category 5 covers the conversion or replacement of
non-domestic rural buildings.  In this case although the proposal would result in the
replacement of a number of non-domestic buildings, from the photographs submitted
with the application the majority of the existing buildings are non-traditional. The only
exception is potentially the existing building on the site of the proposed garage /
ancillary building which looks to be of traditional form and construction.  However the
supporting statement suggests that this is not suitable for conversion.   Category 5
therefore offers no support to the proposal due to it not supporting the replacement
of non-traditional buildings with residential development.   
The most appropriate category to assess the proposal against therefore is category
2 Infill Sites.   Category 2 allows for the development of up to two houses in the gap
in between existing buildings providing a number of criteria are met:
• The plot created should be comparable in size to the neighbouring plots and
have a similar size of road frontage. 
In this proposal the plot size is considerably bigger than that on either side with a
larger road frontage although this is broken up by existing trees along the road
boundary. The rear boundary extends further back than either of the neighbouring
properties resulting in a much deeper plot. The proposed house is also set much
further back from the road than the neighbouring properties or indeed any of the
other houses within the building group which are fairly uniform with the exception of
the backland plot which it is understood was granted some time ago on appeal.
• The proportion of the plot to be occupied by the infill house is no
greater than that of the existing plots.
• There would appear to be no uses in the vicinity which would prevent
the achievement of an adequate standard of amenity for the new
house. There appears to be little in the way of an existing boundary to
the neighbouring property to the south west but a post and wire fence
and beech hedge is proposed and on this basis the amenity of the
existing house could also be maintained.  
• The size and design of the infill house should be sympathetic to the
neighbouring buildings. From looking at streetview the houses on either
side look to be mainly single storey or 1.5 storey. The houses opposite
are similar but the new proposed house is to be 1.75 storey with upper
storey windows. It is noted from the supporting statement that this
design is ‘typical of recent approvals in nearby locations’ but this must
be outwith this building group.  There appears to be little in the way of
upper storey windows in the immediate vicinity and in that sense the
overall appearance of the proposed house differs somewhat from the
character of the existing houses. 
Overall, whilst there are some concerns about the scale and design the main issue is
the plot size and siting of the house within the plot.   For the proposal to comply with
the Category 2 infill the dwellinghouse would have to be closer to the road similar to
73

Page 66

6
that of existing houses within the building group, with the garage to the rear, keeping
the buildings within the existing rear boundary line. It is appreciated that the
proposed new buildings have been positioned within the footprint of the existing
buildings, but this would only be a requirement if the proposal was being assessed
against category 5. Alternative positioning as suggested above would be a much
better fit with category 2 of the supplementary guidance.
An infill site should also include the full extent of the gap between houses. This site
does that. It is further noted that the retention of a field access within the infill plot or
plots will not be permitted.
For completeness the proposal is also assessed in terms of Category 1, Building
Groups. This also requires new housing to respect the character, scale and form of
the existing group, and to be integrated into the existing layout and building pattern.
This proposal fails to do this.
The principle of the proposed development is therefore contrary to the Housing in the
Countryside policy as it fails to meet any of the categories for development set out in
the policy and guidance.
Other aspects of the proposal will be assessed below.
Design and Layout
Placemaking policies seek to ensure that proposals make a positive contribution to
the built and natural environment. In particular policy 1A requires the design, density
and siting of development to respect the character and amenity of the place. Policy
1Bc) states that design and density should complement its surroundings in terms of
appearance, height, massing, materials, finishes and colour. In this case whilst the
layout of the development reflects the layout of existing buildings on the site this is
not compatible with the general character of the residential development in the
vicinity. As the proposal is being considered as an infill between residential
dwellings the design should better reflect the design and layout of other residential
properties in the vicinity. The proposed design is at odds with its surroundings with
the house being set back on the site and garage with parking to the front. As such
the proposal is not in accordance with Placemaking policies 1A and 1Bc).
Landscape
There are existing tress to the front of the site that are to be retained. This will help
to maintain landscape character. The surrounding area is relatively flat. The impact
of the development would be reduced by the construction of a more modest scale of
development of single storey appearance that would better fit with the character of
the area.
Residential Amenity
The proposed dwellinghouse is sited some distance away from other residential
properties and will not impact on them in terms of loss of privacy, overlooking or
overshadowing. Sufficient garden ground is proposed along with private amenity
space for utility use. Impact on existing residential amenity is acceptable.
74

Page 67

7
Environmental Health has been consulted and requests that an informative note be
attached with regard to the woodboring stove if recommended for approval.
Visual Amenity
Whilst it is acknowledged that re-development of the site could result in a visual
improvement the scale, siting and design of the development is inappropriate and
would have an adverse impact on visual amenity due to being out of character with
the surrounding residential development.
Roads and Access
The site is served by an existing access. Sufficient space for turning and parking of
vehicles is shown on the submitted plans.
Drainage and Flooding
The site is not in an area at risk of flooding. Foul drainage will be to a private
system. The proposal should dispose of surface water by a sustainable urban
drainage system (policy 53C). A condition with regard to this would be added should
permission be granted.
Conservation Considerations
There are no listed buildings in the vicinity. The site is not within a conservation area.
Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust was consulted but no archaeological mitigation is
required in this instance.
Natural Heritage and Biodiversity
A Bat Survey has been submitted that accords with best practice. A dusk survey
carried out in August 2021 confirmed that no roosting bats were present in the sheds
and outbuilding at 32 Holdings Lintrose. As there are no presence of bat roosts,
works can be undertaken without a derogation licence from NatureScot (formerly
Scottish Natural Heritage).
The Biodiversity Officer recommends conditions to enhance biodiversity through the
erection of bird nest boxes. Informative notes are also requested.
Developer Contributions
Primary Education
The Council Developer Contributions Supplementary Guidance requires a financial
contribution towards increased primary school capacity in areas where a primary
school capacity constraint has been identified. A capacity constraint is defined as
where a primary school is operating at over 80% and is likely to be operating
following completion of the proposed development, extant planning permissions and
Local Development Plan allocations, at or above 100% of total capacity.
This proposal is within the catchment of Burrelton Primary School.
75

Page 68

8 
Education & Children’s Services have no capacity concerns in this catchment area at
this time.  No developer contributions are required. 
Low carbon 
Proposals for new buildings should comply with policy 32 of the Development Plan.
This requires proposals for all new buildings to demonstrate that at least 10% of the
current carbon emissions reduction set by Scottish Building Standards will be met
through the installation and operation of low and zero-carbon generating
technologies. This application is being recommended for refusal however a condition
with regard to compliance with policy 32 would be attached should the application be
approved. 
Contaminated Land 
The site may have been contaminated by a former use.  Any approval would be
subject to conditional control with regard to contaminated land and would require
appropriate mitigation if contamination is found. 
Economic Impact 
The economic impact of the proposal is likely to be minimal and limited to the
construction phase of the development. 
VARIATION OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 32A 
This application was not varied prior to determination, in accordance with the terms
of section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended.   
PLANNING OBLIGATIONS AND LEGAL AGREEMENTS 
None required.   
DIRECTION BY SCOTTISH MINISTERS 
None applicable to this proposal. 
CONCLUSION AND REASONS FOR DECISION 
To conclude, the application must be determined in accordance with the adopted
Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.  In this respect,
the proposal is considered to be contrary to the Development Plan.  Account has
been taken of the relevant material considerations and none has been found that
would justify overriding the adopted Development Plan. 
Accordingly the proposal is refused on the grounds identified below. 
76

Page 69

9 
Conditions and Reasons 
1 The proposal is contrary to Policy 19, Housing in the Countryside, of the Perth
and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and its associated
supplementary guidance.  The proposal does not accord with any of the
categories within the policy.  In particular the proposal is contrary to category
2 infill as the plot created is not comparable in size to the neighbouring plots
and does not have a similar size of road frontage.  In addition the size and
design of the infill house is not sympathetic to the neighbouring buildings. 
2 The proposal is contrary to Policy 1A and 1Bc), Placemaking, of the Perth and
Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019). The design and siting of
development does not respect the character and amenity of the place and
does not complement its surroundings in terms of appearance, height and
massing, materials, finishes and colour. 
Justification 
The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no
material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. 
Informatives 
None. 
Procedural Notes 
Not Applicable. 
PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION 
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
77

Page 70

Page 71

Page 72

Page 73

4(i)(c)
LRB-2022-25
LRB-2022-25
21/02169/FLL – Erection of a dwellinghouse and garage/
ancillary building, land 30 metres south west of 32 Lintrose
Holding, Campmuir
REPRESENTATIONS
81

Page 74

Page 75

Page 76

Page 77

Page 78

Page 79

Page 80

Page 81

Comments to the Development Quality Manager on a Planning Application
Planning
Application ref. 21/02169/FLL
Comments
provided by
Joanna Dick
Tree and Biodiversity Officer
Service/Section
Strategy and Policy
Contact
Details
Phone 75377
Email biodiversity@pkc.gov.uk
Description of
Proposal
Erection of a dwellinghouse and garage building 
Address of site Land 30 Metres South West Of 32 Lintrose Holding Campmuir
Comments on the
proposal
Policy 41: Biodiversity
The Council will seek to protect and enhance all wildlife and habitats,
whether formally designated or not, considering natural processes in the
area. Planning permission will not be granted for development likely to have
an adverse effect on protected species unless clear evidence can be provided
that the ecological impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated. 
European Protected Species 
All bat species found in Scotland are classed as European protected species.
They receive full protection under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.)
Regulations 1994 (as amended) making it an offence to disturb a bat in a
roost, obstruct access to a roost and damage or destroy a breeding or resting
place of such an animal. The impact of development on protected species
must be understood before planning permission can be granted. 
Planning permission will not be granted for development that would, either
individually or cumulatively, be likely to have an adverse effect upon
European protected species (listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive
(Directive 92/43/EEC)) unless the Council as Planning Authority is satisfied
that:
(a) there is no satisfactory alternative, and
(b) the development is required for preserving public health or public safety
or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those
of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary
importance for the environment.
In no circumstances can a development be approved which would be
detrimental to the maintenance of the population of a European protected
species at a favourable conservation status in its natural range.
All methods in the submitted Bat Survey Report are in accordance with best
practice. A dusk survey carried out in August 2021 confirmed that no roosting
bats were present in the sheds and outbuilding at 32 Holdings Lintrose. As
there are no presence of bat roosts, works can be undertaken without a
derogation licence from NatureScot (formerly Scottish Natural Heritage). 
89

Page 82

Breeding Birds
For all wild bird species in Great Britain, it is an offence to intentionally or
recklessly kill, injure or take a bird; take, damage, destroy or interfere with a
nest of any bird while it is in use or being built; or obstruct or prevent any
bird from using its nest. 
Enhancement for biodiversity should be an objective of all planning projects
and can be realised in several ways depending on location, surrounding
habitats and landscape character. 
Tree and house sparrows are red listed as birds of conservation concern and
providing nest boxes for these species would enhance the biodiversity value
of the site.  This would contribute towards the Sparrows on the Edge Project
in the Tayside Local Biodiversity Action Plan.
Recommended
planning
condition(s)
If you are minded to approve the application then I recommend the following
conditions be included in any approval:
 Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, details
of the location and specification of four sparrow nest boxes shall be
submitted for the further written agreement of the Council as
Planning Authority. Thereafter, the four sparrow nest boxes shall be
installed in accordance with the agreed details prior to the occupation
of the relevant residential unit
Recommended
informative(s) for
applicant
 BATS2 edited The findings and recommendations contained with the
Bat Survey remain valid for a period of 24 months. If the approved
planning permission is not implemented within 24 months of the date
of the survey it is strongly recommended that an updated Bat Survey
is undertaken prior to any works commencing. Failure to do so could
potentially leave you open to prosecution should any bats be harmed
as a result of the works. Please note that bats are protected by law,
and it is a criminal offence to deliberately harm, capture, kill or
disturb a bat or its resting place.
 BION Existing buildings or structures may contain nesting birds
between 1st March and 31st August inclusive. The applicant is
reminded that, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as
amended (section 1), it is an offence to remove, damage or destroy
the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built.
Planning permission for a development does not provide a defence
against prosecution under this Act.
Date comments
returned 25 January 2022
90

Page 83

Page 84

Page 85

M e m o r  
To Development Management & Building         
Standards Service Manager   
Your ref 21/02169/FLL
Date  7 February 2022
Communities
a n d u m
From  Regulatory Services Manager
Our ref  KIM
Tel No       01738 476442
Pullar House, 35 Kinnoull Street, Perth PH1 5GD
Consultation on an Application for Planning Permission
PK21/02169/FLL RE: Erection of a dwellinghouse and garage building Land 30 Metres South
West Of 32 Lintrose Holding Campmuir for Mr And Mrs W Fleming
I refer to your letter dated 18 January 2022 in connection with the above application and
have the following comments to make.
Contaminated Land
Recommendation
I have no objections to the application but recommend the undernoted conditions be
included in any given consent.
Comments
A previous land use that has led to the contamination of a site is generally identifiable from
historical records.  However consideration needs to be given to situations where this is not
so apparent and there is the potential for contamination to cause a constraint in the
redevelopment of specific sites.  A good example of this is where there is a proposed use
change from agricultural to residential.
Under the contaminated land research programme administered by the Department of the
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Science Reports 2, 3, and 7 set out the framework for
deriving Soil Guideline Values or SGV’s  for proposed changes in land use and sets targets
based on the sensitivity of receptors and the land use function. Originally these soil guideline
values were restricted to what was considered to be “priority pollutants” but the research
programme has now been extended to include other contaminants and respective
toxicological data. These soil guideline values are based on risk evaluation in specific
circumstances which are a standard function of land use i.e. residential with plant uptake,
residential without plant uptake and commercial and industrial. 
The most sensitive land use recognised by the soil guideline values is “residential with
gardens”, where there is likely to be a greater contact between those at risk, in this case the
residents and any contaminants contained within the soil.  SGV’s for this land use type are
therefore at their most conservative and the potential for contaminants to be present and
cause a constraint to development are greater.
93

Page 86

Potentially there are a range of contaminants that could be present in agricultural land. This
is particularly true of areas used as farmyards which may have contained a variety of
buildings that have been put to a number of uses. Aside from the likely presence of made
ground any number of chemicals could have been used and potentially leaked or been
spilled. The risks associated with this remain difficult to quantify until there has been some
form of sampling and chemical analysis of the soils contained within the development area.
This will help determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development and whether
any measures are needed to mitigate against any risks that have been identified.
Therefore if planning permission is granted in respect of this development I would
recommend that the following condition is applied within the consent.
Condition
EH41
Prior to the commencement of works on site, an evaluation for the potential of the site to be
affected by contamination by a previous use should be undertaken and as a minimum, a
Preliminary Risk Assessment (Phase 1 Desk Study) will be submitted for consideration by
the Council as Planning Authority. If after the preliminary risk assessment identifies the need
for further assessment, an intrusive investigation should be undertaken to identify;
I. the nature, extent and type(s) of contamination on the site
II. measures to treat/remove contamination to ensure the site is fit for the use proposed
III. measures to deal with contamination during construction works
IV. condition of the site on completion of decontamination measures.
Prior to the completion or bringing into use of any part of the development the agreed
measures to decontaminate the site shall be fully implemented as approved by the Council
as Planning Authority. Validation that the scheme has been fully implemented must also be
submitted to the Council as Planning Authority.
94

Page 87

M e m o r  
To Development Management & Building   
Standards Service Manager   
Your ref 21/02169/FLL
Date  7 February 2022
Communities
a n d u m
From  Regulatory Services Manager
Our ref  OLW
Tel No       01738 476958
Pullar House, 35 Kinnoull Street, Perth PH1 5GD
Consultation on an Application for Planning Permission
PKC 21/02169/FLL RE: Erection of a dwellinghouse and garage building  Land 30
Metres South West Of 32 Lintrose Holding Campmuir     for Mr And Mrs W Fleming
I refer to your letter dated 18 January 2022 in connection with the above application and
have the following comments to make.
Environmental Health
Recommendation
I have no objections to the application but recommend the undernoted informative be
included on any given consent.
Comments
This application is for the erection of a dwellinghouse which will include the provision of a
single woodburning stove and associated flue.
Air Quality
Perth and Kinross Council have a duty to assess biomass boilers for capacity within the
range of 50kW to 20MW in terms of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter based on their
effect on air quality in the area. Though the application does not include any information on
the stove, it is likely to be domestic sized and therefore I have no adverse comments to
make with regards to air quality.
Odour
Another matter pertaining to the stove which could cause an issue has the potential for
smoke or odour disamenity. This Service has seen an increase in complaints with regards to
smoke and odour due to the installation of biomass appliances. This can be caused due to
poor installation and maintenance of the biomass appliances and also inadequate dispersion
of emissions due to the inappropriate location and height of a flue with regards to
surrounding buildings. 
I note from the submitted plans that the flue will terminate above roof ridge height, which will
aid in dispersion of emissions. I would advise that smoke/odour could be further minimised
through the use of fuel recommended by the stove manufacturer. 
95

Page 88

In light of the above, the residential amenity at neighbouring dwellinghouses should not be
adversely affected by smoke/odour. 
I would therefore have no objections to this development provided that the following
informative is attached to the consent.
Informative
The approved stove system shall be installed and thereafter operated and maintained in
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, such that smoke odours are not
exhausted into or escape into any neighbouring dwellings. Failure to do so may result in an
investigation and possible action by Environmental Health under the Environmental
Protection Act 1990.
96

Page 89

Comments to the Development Quality Manager on a Planning Application
Planning
Application ref.
21/02169/FLL Comments
provided by
Katrina Walker
Service/Section Development Plans Contact
Details
Description of
Proposal
Erection of a dwellinghouse and garage/ancillary building
Address of site Land 30 Metres South West Of 32 Lintrose Holding, Campmuir
Comments on the
proposal
This proposal is for a house and detached garage at Lintrose Holdings,
Campmuir. There is no settlement boundary identified in the LDP so the
application falls to be assessed against policy 19: Housing in the Countryside.
Although the proposal would result in the replacement of a number of non-
domestic buildings, from the photographs submitted with the application the
majority of the existing buildings are non-traditional. The only exception
might be the existing building on the site of the proposed garage / ancillary
which looks like it could be of traditional form and construction and may
have been appropriate for conversion. That is not what is being proposed,
however, and therefore overall I do not consider that category 5 of the
Housing in the Countryside SG would offer support to the proposal. I consider
that the most appropriate category to assess the proposal against therefore
is category 2 Infill Sites. 
Category 2 allows for the development of up to two houses in the gap in
between existing buildings providing a number of criteria are met:
 The plot created should be comparable in size to the neighbouring
plots and have a similar size of road frontage. In this proposal the plot
size is considerably bigger than that on either side with a larger road
frontage although this is broken up by existing trees along the road
boundary. The rear boundary extends further back than either of the
neighbouring properties resulting in a much deeper plot. The
proposed house is also set much further back from the road than the
neighbouring properties or indeed any of the other houses within the
building group which are fairly uniform with the exception of the
backland plot which I believe was granted some time ago on appeal.
 The proportion of the plot to be occupied by the infill house is no
greater than that of the existing plots.
 There would appear to be no uses in the vicinity which would prevent
the achievement of an adequate standard of amenity for the new
house. There appears to be little in the way of an existing boundary to
the neighbouring property to the south west but a post and wire
fence and beech hedge is proposed and on this basis the amenity of
the existing house could also be maintained. 
97

Page 90

 The size and design of the infill house should be sympathetic to the
neighbouring buildings. From looking at streetview the houses on
either side look to be single storey and 1.5 storey. The houses
opposite are similar but the new proposed house is to be 1.75 storey
with upper storey windows. It is noted from the supporting statement
that this design is ‘typical of recent approvals in nearby locations’ but
I’m unclear as to whether this is referring to recent approvals within
this same building group or elsewhere. As far as I can see from
streetview, and the plans of the most recently approved houses to the
northern end of the building group, there appears to be little in the
way of upper storey windows and in that sense the overall
appearance of the proposed house would appear to differ somewhat
from the character of the existing houses. 
 The proposal includes the full extent of the gap between existing
houses.
Overall, therefore, whilst I have some concerns about the scale and design
the main issue is the plot size and siting of the house within the plot. I would
have preferred to see the house sitting closer to the road similar to that of
existing houses within the building group, with the garage to the rear instead,
preferably keeping the buildings within the existing rear boundary line
although I would be more relaxed about the garden ground extending further
out. I appreciate that the proposed new buildings have been positioned
within the footprint of the existing buildings, but this would only be a
requirement if the proposal was being assessed against category 5.
Alternative positioning as suggested above would in my view be a much
better fit with category 2 of the SG. 
For completeness, if the proposal were to be assessed against category 1
Building Groups, I consider that the same comments would apply given the
requirement under this category for new housing to respect the character,
scale and form of the existing group, and to be integrated into the existing
layout and building pattern.
Recommended
planning
condition(s)
Recommended
informative(s) for
applicant
Date comments
returned 9/2/22
98