Item 4(iii) LRB-2022-51

Perth and Kinross Council · 16 January 2023
Back to Local Review Body — 16 January 2023 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(iii)
LRB-2022-51
LRB-2022-51
21/01685/FLL – Siting of 2 holiday accommodation units
and associated works, land 30 metres north east of Stable
Cottage, Huntingtowerfield, PH1 3JL
INDEX
(a) Papers submitted by the Applicant (Pages 199-226)
(b) Decision Notice (Pages 229-230)
Report of Handling (Pages 231-238)
Reference Documents (Pages 239-241)
(c) Representations (Pages 243-274)
197

Page 2

Page 3

4(iii)(a)
LRB-2022-51
LRB-2022-51
21/01685/FLL – Siting of 2 holiday accommodation units
and associated works, land 30 metres north east of Stable
Cottage, Huntingtowerfield, PH1 3JL
PAPERS SUBMITTED
BY THE
APPLICANT
199

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

4(iii)(b)
LRB-2022-51
LRB-2022-51
21/01685/FLL – Siting of 2 holiday accommodation units
and associated works, land 30 metres north east of Stable
Cottage, Huntingtowerfield, PH1 3JL
PLANNING DECISION NOTICE
REPORT OF HANDLING
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 
227

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

REPORT OF HANDLING  
DELEGATED REPORT  
Ref No 21/01685/FLL
Ward No P5- Strathtay
Due Determination Date 9th January 2022 
Draft Report Date 21st June 2022
Report Issued by JHR Date 24.06.2022  
PROPOSAL:  Siting of 2 holiday accommodation units and
associated works    
LOCATION:  Land 30 Metres North East Of Stable Cottage
Huntingtowerfield   
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.  
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.  
BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL  
This application is for the siting of two shepherd huts as holiday accommodation
units on land to the north of The Hirsel. The proposed units would fall under the
definition of caravans and environmental health note that a site licence would be
required.  
Access to the site would be from Castle Brae. An existing access arrangement that
is shared by a number of other properties within the vicinity of the site would be
utilised. The applicant stays in the Hirsel and already lets out stable cottage as a
holiday let. The proposal would utilise an existing car parking area next to Stable
Cottage with the shepherd huts located to the north of Stable Cottage and the Hirsel
in a paddock area. Ruthvenfiedl House which is in separate ownership is located to
the west of the site.  
SITE HISTORY  
20/01494/FLL Siting of 2 holiday accommodation units and associated works
12 January 2021 Application Withdrawn
231

Page 36

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).  
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 5: Infrastructure Contributions    
Policy 6: Settlement Boundaries  
Policy 17: Residential Areas    
Policy 40A: Forestry, Woodland and Trees: Forest and Woodland Strategy  
Policy 40B: Forestry, Woodland and Trees: Trees, Woodland and Development  
Policy 52: New Development and Flooding    
Policy 53B: Water Environment and Drainage: Foul Drainage  
Policy 53C: Water Environment and Drainage: Surface Water Drainage
232

Page 37

Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development
Proposals  
OTHER POLICIES  
National Roads Development Guide  
Placemaking SPG  
CONSULTATION  RESPONSES  
Structures And Flooding – No objection subject to conditional control.  
Environmental Health (Noise Odour) – No objection subject to conditional control.  
Development Contributions Officer – No objection.  
Scottish Environment Protection Agency – No objection received.  
REPRESENTATIONS  
The following points were raised in the 2 representation(s) received:  
• Adverse effect on visual amenity
• Inappropriate landuse
• Out of character with the area
• Over intensive development
• Road safety concerns
• Noise pollution and Light pollution.
• Flood Risk.
• Lack of information, errors and omissions in the planning application
form and planning drawings.  
The above matters are addresses under the appraisal section below. The following
matters are best addressed at this stage:-  
• Adverse impact/deterioration on the private road will be exacerbated.
This is a civil matter between the parties to resolve.  
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS  
Screening Opinion  EIA Not Required
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA):
Environmental Report
Not Required
Appropriate Assessment Habitats Regulations AA Not
Required
Design Statement or Design and Access
Statement
Not Required
Report on Impact or Potential Impact eg Flood
Risk Assessment
Planning Statement
Submitted
233

Page 38

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.  
Policy Appraisal  
This site is located within the settlement boundary of Perth which complies with
Policy 6 Settlement Boundaries.  
Within the settlement boundary Policy 17 of the adopted Local Development Plan 2
also applies. This identifies residential and compatible uses inside settlement
boundaries where existing residential amenity will be protected and, where possible,
improved. 
Generally, encouragement will be given to proposals which fall into one or more of
the following categories of development and which are compatible with the amenity
and character of the area: 
(a) Infill residential development at a density which represents the most efficient use
of the site while respecting its environs. 
(b) Improvements to shopping facilities where it can be shown that they would serve
local needs of the area. 
(c) Proposals which will improve the character and environment of the area or
village. 
(d) Business, homeworking, tourism or leisure activities. 
(e) Proposals for improvements to community and educational facilities.  
The proposal is for holiday use and would meet criterion (d) however there is still a
requirement to ensure that the operation of this use is compatible with neighbouring
residential properties.  
Currently there is a single commercial holiday let property next to the site (Stable
Cottage). If this application were approved this would change to three commercial
holiday lets set within this predominantly residential area of Perth (note allocated
housing site H319) to the north and east. The concerns regarding the potential
unauthorised use of a garage are noted however this matter would have to be
investigated and pursued through enforcement channels.  
From a land use and planning perspective the siting of caravans for holiday
accommodation use is not considered to be compatible with the amenity of adjacent
residential properties which are in close proximity to the site. While colleagues in
environmental health recommend the use of a noise management plan to limit noise.
Given the intensification of the use at the site, the style and design of the caravan
units which incorporate a large outdoor decking area it is considered that the noise
234

Page 39

from the daily operations of the commercial use will conflict with the residential
amenity of the area and contravene Policy 17: Residential Areas.  
Policy 9B is also applicable in the assessment of the application. This confirms that
proposals for new or expanded sites for holiday – related uses will be supported
where the proposals are compatible with Policy 1 – Placemaking. However, the
issues identified under policy 1 which is discussed in greater detail below under the
heading ‘Design, Layout and Landscape’ also results in a conflict with Policy 9B. 
Drainage and Flooding  
Flooding have been consulted on the application. They note that the site is afforded
protection by the Almondbank Flood Protection Scheme (providing 200-year event
standard of protection). As the proposed holiday accommodation is for the most
vulnerable land use, in terms of flood risk, they need to be considered against a
1000-year flood event. Therefore, a residual flood risk potentially remains (from
events exceeding the Almondbank Scheme SoP). Following further discussion with
the applicant, we are satisfied with the proposals.  
The units are to be elevated above existing ground level by 700mm which is
considered suitable in the instance.  The applicant should ensure the
foundations/supports are designed with potential risk of inundation in mind. An
outline flood action plan has been provided.  The flooding section note that the Flood
Action plan would require to be kept updated and made available to all occupants
and the developer should ensure that they sign up to SEPA’s Floodline warning
service. On this basis there is no objection to the proposal under Policy 52.  
Policy 53 B and 53 C relates to foul and SUDS drainage. The application form
confirms there no requirement for foul drainage and there is no intention to provide
SUDS arrangements. 
The submitted floor plans illustrate that there will be foul flows associated with this
development. No details have been provided to confirm how foul flows will be dealt
with to comply with Policy 53B. 
There will be an increase in hard surfacing at the site from the caravan roofs and
decking (as well as potential paths depending on the material used). With no suds
arrangements there is a conflict with policy 53C.  
Design, Layout and Landscape  
Policies P1A and P1B Placemaking are also of relevance.  These policies require
proposals to contribute positively to the surrounding built and natural environment
and to respect the character and amenity of the place. 
Caravan sites require both planning permission and a site licence. 
The consultation response from Environmental Health notes that the lodges would
fall under the definition of caravans and therefore a site licence would also be
required to operate the facility. 
235

Page 40

Certain terms of the caravan site licence require adequate lighting as well as suitable
access arrangements to the caravans. This is not illustrated on the submitted plans.
The suitability of the proposed paths and lighting cannot be properly assessed.
Having the path network and lighting close to the western boundary (if this was the
intention) would increase residential amenity impacts to neighbouring property. An
appropriate design and layout has not been detailed to comply with policy 1A and
1B.  
There is a woodland resource surrounding the site. The longevity and retention of
this tree/woodland resource is important as it creates a landscape framework for this
site. No information has been provided on the tree resource and given the lack of
information on path and drainage infrastructure it has not been illustrated that the
proposal complies with policy 40A/B: Trees and Woodland or that the landscape
framework will be protected Policy 39: Landscape.  
Residential Amenity  
The proposals relationship to residential amenity has already been considered as
unacceptable during the assessment against Policy 17: Residential Areas.  
Roads and Access  
Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development
Proposals encourages sustainable travel patterns and also seeks compliance with
the National Roads Development Guide.  
The vehicle access to the public road network for the site will be via the existing
vehicle access to the Hirst and Stable Cottage. No objection has been received from
the Transport Planning Section.  
Developer Contributions  
The Council Transport Infrastructure Developer Contributions Supplementary
Guidance requires a financial contribution towards the cost of delivering the transport
infrastructure improvements which are required for the release of all development
sites in and around Perth. The site is located in the ‘Full’ Transport Infrastructure
contributions zone (Appendix 3 of the Supplementary Guidance)  
Par 6.10 of the Guidance states that for holiday accommodation, temporary
structures will not be required to contribute. The proposed shepherd’s huts/caravans
appear to be movable and may therefore be deemed temporary.  
Economic Impact  
There would be a positive economic impact associated with the construction phase
and operation 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. 
236

Page 41

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.  
Conditions and Reasons 
1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 17: Residential Areas the adopted Perth &
Kinross Local Development Plan 2 2019. The style and design of the caravan
units, which incorporate a large outdoor decking area, along with the
intensification of the sites use is considered to conflict with the residential
amenity of this area. 
2 The layout and design of the proposal is not considered to respect the
residential character of the area or illustrate that site infrastructure can be
installed in a way which still contributes positively to the quality of the natural
environment or the wider landscape character of the area. Accordingly, the
proposal is contrary to Policy 39: Landscape, Policy 40A and 40B as well as
placemaking Policy 1A and 1B of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local
Development Plan 2 2019.  
3 The proposal is contrary to Policy 9B: Caravan Sites, Chalets and Timeshare
Developments: New and Expanded Touring Caravan, Motorhome /
Campervan, and Camping Sites of the Perth and Kinross Local Development
Plan 2, 2019 as the proposal fails to comply with the placemaking policies 1A
and 1B.  
4 There is a lack of information, there is no drainage information illustrating how
surface water and foul drainage will be managed to comply with Policy 53B:
Water Environment and Drainage: Foul Drainage, Policy 53C: Water
Environment and Drainage: Surface Water Drainage of the Perth and Kinross
Local Development Plan 2, 2019.  
Justification  
The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no
material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan.  
237

Page 42

Informatives  
None.  
Procedural Notes  
Not Applicable.    
PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION  
01  
02  
03
238

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47

4(iii)(c)
LRB-2022-51
LRB-2022-51
21/01685/FLL – Siting of 2 holiday accommodation units
and associated works, land 30 metres north east of Stable
Cottage, Huntingtowerfield, PH1 3JL
REPRESENTATIONS
243

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Page 64

Page 65

Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997
The Town & Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation & Local Review
Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013
Application Ref: 21/01685/FLL – Siting of 2 holiday accommodation units and
associated works, land 30 metres north east of Stable Cottage, Huntingtowerfield 
Further Representations Statement of Case (LRB-2022-51)
On behalf of our clients Ms. Carol Ann Fraser & Mr Gary Wright of , provided below
are ‘Further Representations’ in respect of the review of planning application decision Ref: 21/01685/FLL
– Siting of 2 holiday accommodation units and associated works at Huntingtowerfield.
These Further Representations address planning policy, material considerations and provide clarity on
important contextual matters to be brought to the attention of the Local Review Body (LRB). 
A) Contrary to Development Plan Policy
We fully support PKCs decision notice which confirms the above development proposals are contrary to
the adopted Perth & Kinross LDP2 2019. The relevant planning policies include:
• Policy1 A/B – Placemaking
• Policy 9B– Caravan Sites, Chalets and Timeshare Developments
• Policy 17 – Residential Areas
• Policy 39 - Landscape
• Policy 40 A/B– Forestry, Woodland and Trees
In addition to the above, the reasons cited in our letter of objection dated 01 December 2021 to the
application which reason why the proposed development contravenes the Development Plan policies are
maintained. A copy of this letter is attached with the Notice of - LRB-2022-51. 
B) Material Considerations
Absence of Market Evidence
Appellants letter dated 5 September 2022 
Page1 Para 3: No market evidence is provided by the appellant which confirms Stable Cottage has been
a successful holiday letting business for “some” 30 years. Further, the supporting documentation refers
to ‘some 30 years’ and ‘35 years’ casting uncertainty over the integrity of the case being made by the
appellant.
261

Page 66

Our clients cannot confirm that Stable Cottage has been a successful letting business for “some” 30
years or more, but they can confirm that since they moved to the area in November 2013 (some 9 years
ago) that has NOT been the case. The appellant himself told our clients directly that this was his own
impression. Furthermore, The Mallard has been in owner occupation since 28 February 2014 & Orchard
Cottage since 18 February 2016. For both properties (Mallard & Orchard Cottage) our clients are not
therefore aware of them being used a holiday accommodation during their time here.
Placemaking
Appellants letter dated 5 September 2022
Page 2 Para 2: The mention of “large decking area” refers to our clients original objection submission
Ref: 20/01494/FLL and relates ONLY to the size of the planned decking area in relation to the size of
shepherd’s huts as previously unlawfully positioned on site and shown in the appellants original
application drawings. This is NOT subjective, but fact taken from said application.
Page 2 Para 2: At present there is NO “five distinct layers of screening” and there are NO “large sheds”
in our clients property that cover the entire application site.
The appellant planted a few fast-growing screening trees last year which are understood to have died
and which have been subsequently removed.
Impact on Residential Amenity
Overlooking: At least one of the two unlawful Shepherd Huts on site in 2020 did have a window to the
west facing Ruthvenfield House in addition to a north and south facing windows that could be seen from
our clients garden and consequently would allow occupants to potentially observe our clients. Our clients
have photographic evidence to support the claim.
Lighting: Any new lighting connected to the Shepherd Huts would be immediate to Ruthvenfield house
and impact on amenity.
Noise: Our clients still await advice from PKC Environmental Health on what constitutes an unacceptable
level of noise. Their understanding therefore remains that they can dial an answerphone number for out
of hours disturbances or call the Police, neither are satisfactory in dealing with an onsite issue.
Loss of privacy: Our clients continue to receive many visits from new guest arrivals driving to their house
looking for Stable Cottage.
Trees and Public Safety
Appellants letter dated 5 September 2022
Page 2 Para 2: The mature tree line does not “completely obscure” the application site. This is partly
due to trees cut down by the appellant at the time of erecting a 2-metre-high wooden fence (replacing the
more traditional 1 metre wire and post fencing in place when our clients arrived at Ruthvenfield House in
November 2013)). The appellant further cut back many overhanging branches from those trees that hung
into their land in the summer of 2022. Our clients tree surgeon removed a few due to poor condition and
one blew over in a storm some years ago (before the new wooden fence was erected).
Many of the trees/shrubs are deciduous and when bare are capable of providing even less coverage.
262

Page 67

With certainty, where the appellant unlawfully sited the Shepherd Huts they were clearly visible and
above the garden fence height in the middle of summer. If the now proposed Shepherd Huts are sited as
originally placed, there would still be potential danger from falling trees.
The units in the previous planning application (ref:20/01494/FLL) were physically sited next to trees (one
unit was directly under a tree within the curtilage of Ruthvenfield House). The proposed siting could be
identical. This is a serious health and safety risk for guests staying in the huts, particularly since the area
is prone to strong winds and our clients have first-hand experience of tree damage directly close to
where the units were placed. Storm Arwen created tree damage in the surrounding area. The hut
positions if sited as before, would constitute an ill-considered layout which poses a risk to human life.
Ruthvenfield House has lost several trees over the years due to storm damage (this can be evidenced
should a site visit take place).
C) Contextual Matters
Inaccurate Planning History
Appellants letter dated 5 September 2022
Page 1 Para 5: The planning history referenced is factually inaccurate. The formal pre-application advice
(20/00349/Preapp) dated 17 August 2020 for the appellants previous application (ref:20/01494/FLL) was
sought after they had unlawfully sited 2 Shepherd Huts on the application site (12 July 2020), and after
our clients telephone call with the appellant @ 17:20 on 16 July 2020 and after our clients had contacted
PKC to ask for advice (email to PKC 15 July 2020).
Site History
Appellants letter dated 5 September 2022
Page 3 Para 5: The Tractor Shed was removed long before our client moved to Ruthvenfield House in
2013 as the paddock area now owned by the appellant was completely overgrown with no visible sign of
a base or hard standing foundation. A “reminder of the paddocks farming history” is therefore irrelevant.
Self-Catering Businesses
Reference to the surrounding residential and commercial letting uses of properties is inconsistent and
unclear in the Appellants letter dated 5 September 2022.
Appellants letter dated 5 September 2022
Page 2 Para 3: how can the appellant gauge the daily activities of a holiday accommodation user when
they do NOT meet all their guests during or since Covid and are often at work elsewhere during the day.
The daily activities are disputed without substantive evidence of the existing holiday let operation. The
activities associated with the proposed Shepherd Huts are subjective.
The previous holiday units at Orchard Cottage and The Mallard have been changed to residential use
which confirm the success of the area for residential enjoyment rather than a transient tourist market.
Why was their rental holiday use not continued?
263

Page 68

Page 2 Para 6: “intensification” There is NO evidence provided to support the claim of “experience of
having a higher share of holiday accommodation units” and certainly none since 2014. 
Page 2 Para 7 & Page 3 Para 1: Whether or not the business case “currently supports the hypothesis of
a site activity increase of 300%” is irrelevant.  Similarly, the decision to operate a “clear day” policy can
unilaterally be dropped at any point in the future.
Page 20 (Appendix G, Appellants letter to PKC dated 06/12/21)  
This letter was first seen by Bidwells and our clients on 05 October 2022 following a request to PKC to
have sight of the Notice of Review documentation. Importantly, PKC considered all this information
for over six months BEFORE taking their decision to REJECT the application on 28 June 2022 
D) LRB Site Visit
Should the LRB deem a site visit appropriate, it is recommended they include a visit to Ruthvenfield
House to (a) see our clients perspective and (b) view their photographs of the original siting of the
Shepherd Huts before either pre-application advice (20/00349/Preapp) or planning application
ref:20/01494/FLL. 
Conclusions
The proposal development of 2 Shepherd Huts contravenes the development plan, is void of market
evidence and inconsistent with site and planning history timescales raising doubt over the integrity of
Notice of Review LRB-2022-51 submission. It is requested that the Local Review Body take these
considerations into account in reaching their Local Review decision. 
264