Item 4(iii) LRB-2022-59
Perth and Kinross Council · 13 February 2023
Back to Local Review Body — 13 February 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
4(iii) LRB-2022-59 LRB-2022-59 22/00707/FLL - Siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/storage use, erection of animal shelter and associated works (in part retrospect) (for a temporary period), land, 100 metres north east of Blairfordel Farm, Kelty, KY4 0HP INDEX (a) Papers submitted by the Applicant (Pages 135-186) (b) Decision Notice (Pages 153-154) Report of Handling (Pages 155-165) Reference Documents (Pages 175-186) (c) Representations (Pages 189-264) 133
Page 2
134
Page 3
4(iii)(a) LRB-2022-59 LRB-2022-59 22/00707/FLL - Siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/storage use, erection of animal shelter and associated works (in part retrospect) (for a temporary period), land, 100 metres north east of Blairfordel Farm, Kelty, KY4 0HP PAPERS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 135
Page 4
136
Page 5
1 NOTICE OF REVIEW Under Section 43A(8) Of the Town and County 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 2013 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. PLEASE NOTE IT IS FASTER AND SIMPLER TO SUBMIT PLANNING APPLICATIONS ELECTRONICALLY VIA https://www.eplanning.scot *' 4UUQOIHSX]W 7KXHOQW +' 4MKSX]W 7KXHOQW $OL HS\% Title Ref No. Forename Forename Surname Surname Company Name Company Name Building No./Name Building No./Name Address Line 1 Address Line 1 Address Line 2 Address Line 2 Town/City Town/City Postcode Postcode Telephone Telephone Mobile Mobile Fax Fax Email Email 3. Application Details Planning authority @RGTTOTM G[ZNUXOZ_`Y GVVROIGZOUT XKLKXKTIK T[SHKX Site address Description of proposed development Print Form Ms Bronwyn Tutty Perth and Kinross Council 22/00707/FLL Land 100 Metres North East Of Blairfordel Farm Kelty Siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/storage use, erection of animal shelter and associated works (in part retrospect) (for a temporary period) 137
Page 6
2 Date of application Date of decision (if any) Note. This notice must be served on the planning authority within three months of the date of decision notice or from the date of expiry of the period allowed for determining the application. 4. Nature of Application Application for planning permission (including householder application) Application for planning permission in principle 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) Application for approval of matters specified in conditions 5. Reasons for seeking review Refusal of application by appointed officer Failure by appointed officer to determine the application within the period allowed for determination of the application Conditions imposed on consent by appointed officer 6. 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. Further written submissions One or more hearing sessions Site inspection Assessment of review documents only, with no further procedure If you have marked either of the first 2 options, 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 necessary. 7. Site inspection In the event that the Local Review Body decides to inspect the review site, in your opinion: Can the site be viewed entirely from public land? Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely, and without barriers to entry? 13/04/2022 04/08/2022 138
Page 7
3 If there are reasons why you think the Local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here: 8. 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. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time your application was determined? Yes No If yes, please explain below a) why your are raising new material b) why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and c) why you believe it should now be considered with your review. N/A Please see Review Statement 139
Page 8
4 9. 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 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. 10. Checklist Please mark the appropriate boxes to confirm that 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 requesting 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. 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 hereby serve notice on the planning authority to review the application as set out on this form and in the supporting documents. I hereby confirm that the information given in this form is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature: Name: Date: Any personal data that you have been asked to provide on this from will be held and processed in accordance with Data Protection Legislation. Bronwyn Tutty Text Review Statement Planning Application Form Planning Statement Location/ Proposed Site Plan Caravan Sections Caravan Elevations/ Floor Plan Pirate Ship Elevations/ Floor Plan Bronwyn Tutty 02/11/2022 140
Page 9
SITING OF 2 CARAVANS FOR WELFARE/ AGRICULTURAL STOR- AGE USE, ERECTION OF ANIMAL SHELTER AND ASSOCIATED WORKS(IN PART RETROSPECT) FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS AT LAND 100 METRES NORTH EAST OF BLAIRFORDEL FARM, KELTY REVIEW STATEMENT Town and Country Planning(Scotland) Act 1997 as amended Planning Application Ref: 22/00707/FLL Appellant: Ms B. Tutty Date: October 2022 Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Review Site 3.0 Planning History 4.0 Proposal 5.0 Public Participation 6.0 Policy Framework 7.0 Evaluation of Proposed Development 8.0 Analysis of Refusal of Planning Application Ref: 22/00707/FLL 9.0 Conclusion 141
Page 10
1.0 INTRODUCTION Ms B. Tutty (“the Appellant”) submitted a planning application to Perth and Kinross Council (“the Council”) seeking planning permission for the siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/agricultural storage use, erection of animal shelter and associated works for a temporary period of 3 years at land 100m north east of Blairfordel Farm(“Review Site”). The application was registered on 13 April 2022 and validated on 2 June 2022. The application was refused under delegated powers on 4 August 2022 without any dis- cussion with the applicant despite email correspondence requesting an update. The decision notice for planning application ref: 22/00707/FLL is dated 4 August 2022 and cites the following reasons for refusal: 1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 1 Placemaking of the Local Development Plan 2 2019 as the development does not contribute to the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment. The proposal by virtue of the design and density of the de- velopment on an undeveloped rural site within a wider area of land within numerous ownerships is detrimental to the character and amenity of the place. 2. The proposal is contrary to Policy 8 Rural Business and Diversification of the Local Development Plan 2 2019 as the development of site has not been justified in terms of a site-specific resource or opportunity in relation to a new or existing business. 3. The proposal is contrary to Policy 39 Landscape of the Local Development Plan 2 2019 as the type of development within a small plot which lies in a wider piece of rural land would have a negative impact on the wider landscape character. The Appellant submits that there is no evidence to support refusal of the application on the grounds of a breach of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and that planning permission ought to be granted for the reasons set out within this Review Statement and related Documents. 2.0 REVIEW SITE The Review Site is situated outwith the Blairforge settlement boundary as defined by the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019. The site is located 350m to the north of the B966 Public Road as illustrated by the Site Location Plan forming part of application ref: 22/00707/FLL. The Review Site was formerly part of the larger Blairfordel farm complex and is one of a number of plots which have been created and sold off to different parties as the original farm complex has been subdivided. Access to the site is taken from the B966 public road through the Blairforge. Where the public road terminates a track leads from Blairforge to the application site. The 142
Page 11
track services adjoining fields as well as the application site by virtue of a gate in the north western corner. The site is contained by post and wire fencing. The boundaries are supplemented by sporadic trees and shrubs. The former static caravans are sited to the north east of the site while the animal shelter is located to the south east of the site. One of the static caravans has already been clad in recycled timber. The other caravan will be clad in timber to match should this application for temporary planning permission be granted. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY It was originally the Appellant's intention when she bought the application site to utilise the site: • to support the ecological needs of the natural environment. • to watch nature change and grow with the use of the land for growingtrees, fruit and vegetables creating a place for the appellant and her children (ages 6 & 12) to have the time and space to appreciate the natural environment and get an understanding of what it means • to connect back to nature and get back to a more basic and simple way of being something that has been lost and can be difficult to access in these fast paced busy times. • grow vegetables and plant fruit trees. NB: Soil has been tested and quality confirmed for growing. • plant wildlife friendly trees and hedges NB: Hedges as they make great nesting sites for birds as the dense foliage creates a safe, warm environment in which they can shelter from the cold in the winter and breed during spring and summer. • educating children on how to grow plants and to ‘help’ with common ‘land based jobs’. • offer children something different to the usual types of experiences that tend to be in abundance these days. NB: A huge inspiration for this came from Project Wild Thing https://vimeo.com/ondemand/projectwildthing • grow botanicals for use in the manufacture of natural skin care products by the Appellant’s other business interest Bodylush. The Appellant, was advised when buying the property that the above development would maintain the primary use of the site for agriculture and that the siting of caravans and an animal shelter would fall within the meaning of permitted development as defined by Class 18 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development)|(Scotland) Order 1992 as amended. Following complaints from neighbouring residents the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team engaged the Appellant advising of the alleged breaches in planning control and advised the Applicant to submit an application for planning permission. Planning application ref: 21/00966/FLL was submitted to the Council on 31 May 2021 and sought planning permission for the siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/storage facility use/occasional overnight accommodation and 1 touring caravan for storage use, the erection of an animal shelter, occasional informal camping and associated works (in retrospect). 143
Page 12
Planning application ref: 21/00966/FLL was refused on 8th October 2021. The decision notice for planning application ref: 21/00966/FLL outlines the reasons planning permission was refused. Prior to the expiry of the period for appealing planning application ref: 21/00966/FLL the Appellant reassessed her business and operating plan for the use of the site. Recognising the concerns raised by both the Council and neighbouring residents in response to planning application ref: 21/00966/FLL the appellant developed a viable business model for the property which will involve the growing of fruit, vegetables and botanicals. The planning case officer exchanged emails with a family member of the Appellant prior to the submission of planning application ref: 22/00707/FLL. In the exchange of emails it was confirmed that the Appellant intended to utilise the property to grow fruit and vegetables for sale as well as grow botanicals for use in natural skin care products manufactured by their other business Bodylush. The use of the land for these purposes falls within the meaning of agriculture as de- fined by Section 277 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning Etc (Scotland) Act 2006 and Planning(Scotland) Act 2019. As the Appellant would not be changing the existing use of the land planning permis- sion would not be required to cultivate the land in this way. The Appellant lives in Burntisland and will travel to the site 3- 4 times a week to main- tain the crops and botanicals sewn and care for the animals. The animals were due to arrive on site earlier this year. However, on the basis of planning permission for the animal shelter being refused planning permission it would have been irresponsible to bring the animals on site. The Review Site was bought without access to any of the existing buildings forming the Blairfordel farm complex. As such to utilise the site for the agricultural purposes outlined above there is a need to provide on-site storage facilities for tools, produce and to provide welfare facilities (a sheltered place for food to be consumed and to provide WC facilities) whilst the land is being worked hence the submission of planning application ref: 22/00707/FLL. Despite the planning statement accompanying planning application ref: 22/00707/FLL containing the information detailed in the above paragraphs the Report of Handling for application ref: 22/00707/FLL incorrectly states that it is the appellant’s intention,“to support the ecological needs of the natural environment through growing trees, fruit and vegetables, educating children on how to grow plants etc and grow botanicals. The applicant has her own children and there is no indication within the submission that any childcare business or otherwise is to be run from the site.” 4.0 PROPOSAL The proposal seeks retrospective planning permission for the retention of the static caravans and animal shelter on the Review Site for a period of 3 years ending in November 2025. One of the caravans has already been clad with recycled timber while the other will also be clad in matching recycled timber should temporary planning permission be granted. 144
Page 13
The purpose of this application is to obtain consent to retain the caravans on site for a tem- porary period of 3 years. This would allow the appellant to obtain the necessary consents and erect a permanent agricultural building on the site. Thereafter, the former caravans would be removed from the site. The caravans have been adapted with all internal fixtures, fittings and partitions removed to ensure that they can only used primarily for agricultural storage. 5.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In assessing planning application ref: 22/00707/FLL the Council followed the statutory neighbour notification procedure. A total of 15 letters of objection were received. The issues raised in the letters of objection are summarised as follows: contrary to LDP2 unacceptable access insufficient information on drainage flood risk no waste collection facilities use for residential/overnight accommodation lack of supporting information i.e. bat survey, tree survey, environmental statement damage to bridge on access road light pollution noise pollution mining risk area impact on listed buildings impact on historic interest within the area increase in traffic road safety concerns adverse effect on visual amenity inappropriate land use out of character with the area impact on ROW loss of trees loss of open space lack of car parking These issues are addressed in Section 7.0 of this Statement. However, in assessing planning application ref: 22/00707/FLL in relation to the concerns raised by the Ob- jectors it was concluded by the Case Officer that additional statements/reports would not be required for example Bat survey – there are no buildings/trees to be removed, tree survey – no trees to be felled, environmental statement – not required for this scale of development. 6.0 POLICY FRAMEWORK 145
Page 14
National Policy and Guidance The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through The National Plan- ning Frameworks, 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 2019. TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2016-2036 TAYplan sets out a vision for how the region will be in 2036 and what must occur to bring about change to achieve this vision. The vision for the area as set out in the plans states that: “By 2036 the TAYplan area will be sustainable, more attractive, competitive and vi- brant 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 The Local Development Plan 2 (2019) (LDP2) sets out a vision statement for the area and states that, “Our vision is of a Perth and Kinross which is dynamic, attractive and effective which protects its assets whilst welcoming population and economic growth.” It is the most recent statement of Council policy and is augmented by Supplementary Guidance. 7.0 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Sections 25 and 37 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 re- quire that planning decisions be made in accordance with the development plan un- less material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for the area comprises the approved TAYplan and the adopted LDP2. As this is an application involving alterations to a listed building, section 14(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 is also rele- vant to the outcome of the application and places a duty on planning authorities in determining such an application to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The determining issues in this case are whether; the proposal complies with devel- opment plan policy; or if there are any other material considerations which justify a departure from policy. Policy Appraisal 146
Page 15
The application site is situated in a countryside location outwith any defined settlement boundary. Background policies including the placemaking considerations are there- fore applicable in this instance. The main policy focus is to ensure that new develop- ment is appropriate to its location and does not result in any on or off-site negative impacts. Visual Amenity, Design and Layout The site is remote from the applicant’s home in Burntisland. Therefore, the caravans are required for agricultural storage purposes and have been designed as such so that their appearance and location is subservient in relation to the wider agricultural use of the site. The static caravans extend to 9.7 x 3.2 metres each in footprint with a ridge height of 2.8 metres above ground level. The original dark green coloured pitched roofs of the caravans will be retained while the walls will be finished with recycled timber cladding. The existing windows and door openings will be retained. The doors will be clad to match the walls while the existing windows will remain as existing. In terms of scale both structures have a combined floor area of 62sqm taking up 0.003% of the site. The caravans have been purposefully orientated on site to minimise visual impact and also to screen the functional preparation area from the elements as well as to create an operational inter-relationship between the storage facilities, the grazing land and the main arable complex in the western sector of the site. The site is enclosed by post and wire fencing with the northern boundary supple- mented by sporadic shrubs and trees. The caravans are positioned within the north eastern corner of the site. To minimise the visual impact of the caravans it is proposed to clad them both in recycled timber. The timber clad caravans will have a uniform appearance and a location that is commensurate with traditional small scale agricul- tural buildings commonly found on agricultural land. It is proposed to plant a landscape buffer comprising of native species of trees along the site boundaries to screen the site from surrounding properties and further minimise any visual impact while also providing protection from prevailing winds to the fruits, vegetables and botanicals be- ing cultivated. At a distance of 400m from the nearest homes to the west of the site and set against a wooded backdrop and the steep wooded slope to the north of the site the timber clad caravans and animal shelter by virtue of their scale, massing, location and finish will blend into the landscape. Landscape The timber clad caravans will have a uniform appearance and be of a scale, massing, design, finish and location that is commensurate with traditional small scale agricul- tural buildings. As such no landscape features of merit will be affected by the pro- posals. The boundary planting proposed will screen the site furthering the timber clad cara- van’s inconspicuous location and appearance while also enhancing the visual amen- ity, character and biodiversity value of the site and surrounding area. 147
Page 16
Residential Amenity The closest existing residential properties to the former caravans and animal shelter are all over 400 metres away. As such the use of the buildings for agricultural storage purposes and the provision of shelter for animals will not impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of noise or smell nuisance. Roads and Access The site is served by a private access road which leads onto the B966 public road. The proposals do not seek to alter the access arrangements to the site. Drainage and Flooding SEPA flood maps show that the site has not flooded historically. The proposals will not alter the levels of the site and as such the use of the former caravans for agricul- tural storage will not exacerbate instances of flooding on the site or on neighbouring land. Developer Contributions The Developer Contributions Guidance is not applicable to this application and there- fore no contributions are required in this instance. Economic Impact The proposed development will allow for the site to be used for agricultural purposes leading to the diversification and expansion of the Applicant’s existing business oper- ations. The economic impact of the proposal can be quantified by the creation of an additional 1 FTE post within the company as well as increased turnover and profit. With regard to the circular economy the proposal aligns in full with the aspirations of both the Council articulated by Circular Tayside and Scottish Government through Na- tional Planning Framework 4. Repurposing the caravans to form agricultural storage and cladding them in recycled timber will reduce the amount of waste being sent to landfill and consequently reducing carbon emissions as well as the release of latent carbon. 8.0 ANALYSIS OF REFUSAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 22/00707/FLL On 4 August 2022 the Council refused planning application ref: 21/02279/FLL on grounds that the proposal is contrary to the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) Policies 1 Placemaking, 8 Rural Business and 39 Landscape. Despite the evaluation of the proposed development against the Development Plan in Section 7 of this statement demonstrating the proposal’s complete compliance with Policy 1 of the adopted Local Development Plan this Section of the Statement will deconstruct the case officer’s reasoning to demonstrate that contrary to Report of Han- dling the refusal of planning permission was illogical and unreasonable given that the proposal does not engage Policies 8 or 39 of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019). Reason for Refusal 1 states: 148
Page 17
1.The proposal is contrary to Policy 1 Placemaking of the Local Development Plan 2 2019 as the development does not contribute to the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment. The proposal by virtue of the design and density of the development on an undeveloped rural site within a wider area of land within numer- ous ownerships is detrimental to the character and amenity of the place. With regard to Policy 1, the Report of Handling states: “It is evident from the wider rural area that some form of development can be seen but this generally consist of buildings requisite for agricultural purposes being located around central farm steadings or close to dwellings where they are related to small holdings. More generally sporadic rural development may consist of small animal field shelters, huts/bothies, or in some cases agricultural storage buildings in remote locations where they are related to the operation of a large estate. The applicant proposes caravans and although indicate they are temporary the siting of two cara- vans within wider agricultural land in this location is out of place and not a usual fea- ture in a rural landscape. Whilst I have no objection in principle to more productive use of land it must be the correct development in the correct place for example the development of a small holding or structured development of allotments.” The Report of Handling does not refer to the Planning Statement submitted in sup- port of planing application ref: 22/00707/FLL which addresses these concerns di- rectly. The proposed plans forming part of application ref: 22/00707/FLL show the former caravans to be clad in recycled timber so that visually they have the appear- ance of small scale agricultural buildings and are not out of character with the sur- rounding agricultural landscape given that the similar type buildings are prevalent in the surrounding area as again demonstrated by the photographs contained in the Planning Statement which the Report of Handling does not take into account. It has also been demonstrated in Section 7 of this Statement that the scale of the former caravans is commensurate with field shelters and small agricultural huts and sheds. Although the proposal involves the retention of the former caravans for a temporary period of 3 years the proposed plans also show that the caravans have been adapted internally with all partitions, fixtures and fittings removed ensuring that their only purpose is agricultural storage. Further, the reference to the existing buildings in the surrounding area being requi- site for agriculture and being located around central farm steadings is nonsensical given that the Report of Handling clearly states: “This parcel of land was formerly part of a larger agricultural holding and is one of a number of plots which have been sold off to different parties.” Therefore, the buildings and structures that can be seen in the area surrounding the Review Site are those belonging to the other parcels of land the were formerly part of the larger agricultural holding referred to. The Report of Handling goes on to states: 149
Page 18
“The concern as highlighted above is that the buildings proposed even if clad in tim- ber are not an appropriate solution even for temporary period. The applicant would need to justify the operation on the site and the minimum scale of building reasona- bly required. The necessity in this case is that the applicant has bought a small piece of agricultural land with no buildings remote from her dwelling. The site due to the lack of containment and that it has formerly functioned as a wider piece of agricul- tural land does not have the natural boundaries to provide enclosure and screening. Whilst it may be common to see smaller structures such as field shelters for animals sporadically sited in rural areas, the siting of these types of structures in open coun- tryside cannot be supported.“ The above extract demonstrates the unbalanced nature of the assessment of plan- ning application ref: 22/00707/FLL. At no point in the assessment does the Report of Handling acknowledge that the appearance of the timber clad former caravans is no different to typical agricultural buildings strewn across the rural landscape surround- ing the Review Site. Furthermore, neither Policies 1 or 8 of the Local Development Plan require there to be justification for the operation of the site and the minimum scale of building reasonably required. This is yet another fabricated test invented by the Planning Authority to justify refusing planning permission because there is a clear prejudice against the use of caravans to provide agricultural storage despite their appearance, in this instance, being commensurate with traditional timber agri- cultural buildings. The reference to the Appellants place of residence has no bearing on the need for agricultural storage. It should be noted that many farmers do not live on a farm for example hence why there is a proliferation of agricultural buildings across the rural landscape surrounding the Review Site. It should also be noted that there is clearly an element of prejudice within the Report of Handling towards the proposed develop- ment and the operation of the site because the Appellant does not live nearby. Notwithstanding the above concerns relating to manner in which the Report of Han- dling concludes the proposal to be contrary to Policy 1 it has been clearly demon- strated that the timber clad caravans are of a scale and finish (timber clad) that is commensurate with other agricultural buildings in the surrounding area. As such, the Appellant is of the view that the proposal satisfies Policy 1. Reason for Refusal 2 states: 2. The proposal is contrary to Policy 8 Rural Business and Diversification of the Local Development Plan 2 2019 as the development of site has not been justified in terms of a site-specific resource or opportunity in relation to a new or existing business. With regard to Policy 8 Rural Business and Diversification of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2, the Report of Handling states: “The planning statement details briefly that the applicant has developed a viable business model for growing fruit, vegetable and botanicals. However, the applicant 150
Page 19
has not applied for the development of a rural business under Policy 8 Rural Busi- ness and Diversification and although references are made the application is not supported by a business plan. In this case for the proposal to be considered under policy 8 very detailed criteria would need to be met but unfortunately it is considered that this is not a viable route to pursue as the policy requires a site-specific resource – in this case the applicant has purchased a small piece of undeveloped land remote from her home and there is no robust justification for a business.” The above extract from the Report of Handling makes reference to the business model developed by the appellant to ensure that the use of the site for agriculture (the existing use) remained viable. However, it is not a requirement of Policy 8 for a business plan to be submitted to demonstrate compliance with this Policy. This ap- pears to be a matter fabricated by the case officer designed to discredit the appel- lant. This is reaffirmed by the closing sentence in the above extract which seeks to discredit the appellant but also refers to the Review Site as undeveloped land when in fact it is agricultural land. This is further reflected by the confirmation that the proposed development does not even engage Policy 8 as planing application ref: 22/00707/FLL does not seek per- mission for the creation of a new rural business: “the applicant has not applied for the development of a rural business under Policy 8 Rural Business and Diversification” The Case Officer has also concluded that the proposed development would not ac- cord with Policy 8 even it was engaged by the proposed development on the basis that the Review Site does not constitute a site specific resource. For clarity the use of the site for agriculture will not change as a result of the proposed development. In- deed planning permission is only required for the temporary buildings/former cara- vans and not the use of the site for agriculture. In this context the Report of Handling causes great alarm as it would appear the Case Officer has not read the Planning Statement accompanying application ref: 22/00707/FLL or the planning application form which clearly outlines what this application seeks planning permission for. In addition the Report of Handling fails to recognise that agricultural land is not in abun- dance and land can’t simply be turned to the purpose of agriculture in any location. As such, despite the Review Site being on a typical the Review Site is very much a site specific resource. Despite the confused and contrived appraisal of the proposed development against Policy 8 of the Local Development Plan it is clear from the Report of Handling that planning application ref: 22/0707/FLL did not seek planning permission for the crea- tion of a new rural business and as such does not engage Policy 8. In this regard there is no justification for Reason for Refusal 2. Reason for Refusal 3: 3. The proposal is contrary to Policy 39 Landscape of the Local Development Plan 2 2019 as the type of development within a small plot which lies in a wider piece of rural land would have a negative impact on the wider landscape character. 151
Page 20
Similar to Reasons for Refusal 1 and 2, the Planning Statement submitted as part of planning application ref: 22/00707/FLL and Section 7 of this Statement clearly illus- trate the reasons by which the proposal does not impact on the wider landscape character of the area. The Report of Handling under Policy 39 states: “Policy 39 was not considered necessary to add in the previous refusal on this site but the overall piecemeal unauthorised development which has taken place here and on adjacent sites has the potential to have an impact. The proposal therefore due to the type of development of a small plot within a wider piece of rural land could have a negative landscape impact in terms of Policy 39 Landscape which would justify re- fusal under this policy.” The Report of Handling doesn’t specify what impact the proposal actually has on the landscape character of the surrounding area but rather insinuates that more develop- ment of this type could have a negative impact. This is a matter that is within the control of the Planning Authority and as such precedent is not a material planning consideration when each planning application is assessed on its own merits. Taking the content of the Planning Statement and Section 7 of this statement into account there is clearly no reasonable justification for concluding that the proposal is contrary to Policy 39. In this instance the proposal has been demonstrated to satisfy Policy 39. 9.0 CONCLUSION The proposal seeks planning permission for planning permission for the siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/agricultural storage use, erection of animal shelter and as- sociated works for a temporary period of 3 years on the Review Site. This Statement has demonstrated clearly defined reasons for the approval of planning permission irrespective of the Case Officer’s Report of Handling. The Appellant respectfully request that on the basis of there being no justifiable rea- sons for refusing planning permission, this Review is upheld and planning permission granted. 152
Page 21
Page 1 of 3 Ms Bronwyn Tutty 64 Kilmundy Drive Burntisland Fife KY3 0JP Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street PERTH PH1 5GD Date of Notice:3rd August 2022 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT Application Reference: 22/00707/FLL I am directed by the Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts currently in force, to refuse your application registered on 2nd June 2022 for Planning Permission for Siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/storage use, erection of animal shelter and associated works (in part retrospect) (for a temporary period) Land 100 Metres North East Of Blairfordel Farm Kelty David Littlejohn Head of Planning and Development Reasons for Refusal 1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 1 Placemaking of the Local Development Plan 2 2019 as the development does not contribute to the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment. The proposal by virtue of the design and density of the development on an undeveloped rural site within a wider area of land within numerous ownerships is detrimental to the character and amenity of the place. 2. The proposal is contrary to Policy 8 Rural Business and Diversification of the Local Development Plan 2 2019 as the development of site has not been justified in terms of a site-specific resource or opportunity in relation to a new or existing business. 3. The proposal is contrary to Policy 39 Landscape of the Local Development Plan 2 2019 as the type of development within a small plot which lies in a wider piece of rural land would have a negative impact on the wider landscape character. 153
Page 22
2 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 There are no relevant Informatives Notes The plans and documents relating to this decision are listed below and are displayed on Perth and Kinross Council’s website at www.pkc.gov.uk “Online Planning Applications” page Plan Reference 01 02 03 04 05 154
Page 23
REPORT OF HANDLING DELEGATED REPORT Ref No 22/00707/FLL Ward No P6- Strathearn Due Determination Date 1st August 2022 Draft Report Date 27th July 2022 Report Issued by JF Date 27.07.2022 PROPOSAL: Siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/storage use, erection of animal shelter and associated works (in part retrospect) (for a temporary period) LOCATION: Land 100 Metres North East Of Blairfordel Farm Kelty 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 has been visited on numerous occasions by the Enforcement Team with photographs provided to the case officer SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 155
Page 24
BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The application is for in part retrospective permission to site 2 static caravans for welfare/storage use, erection of animal shelter and associated works (for a temporary period). This follows on from a recent refusal of a similar application which included, in addition to what is proposed here, a tourer caravan, occasional camping and overnight use. The site is located to the east of a rural building group and is accessed from a private road and field track. The site is detached from the building group siting centrally within a larger area of agricultural/grazing land which has divided into lots and sold. This application has been simplified from the previous submission two include two static caravans and an animal shelter only. The applicants’ intentions are to support the ecological needs of the natural environment through growing trees, fruit and vegetables, educating children on how to grow plants etc and grow botanicals. The applicant has her own children and there is no indication within the submission that any childcare business or otherwise is to be run from the site. The applicant notes that she understood the works on site to be covered by Class 18 of the General Permitted Development Order. The order however still requires the submission of a prior notification application and requires that those structures should be requisite for the purposes of agriculture, it is not considered that static caravans which have not been designed for agricultural purposes can meet this requirement. However as the site has been developed the applicant cannot not investigate the prior notification process (as they cannot meet the prior requirement) planning permission is now required. The applicant lives in Burntisland and will travel to the site 3-4 times a week to maintain the crops and care for the animals. The applicant is seeking permission to retain the caravans on site for a period of three years to allow the applicant time to erect permanent agricultural buildings on the site. 156
Page 25
To date after the previous refusal an enforcement notice to remove the structures was served and subsequently appealed with the reporter only extending the compliance period for removal of the structures until September. SITE HISTORY 21/00966/FLL Siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/storage facility use/occasional overnight accommodation and 1 touring caravan for storage use, erection of animal shelter, occasional informal camping and associated works (in retrospect) 8 October 2021 Application Refused PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION Pre application Reference: N/A 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 8: Rural Business and Diversification Policy 15: Public Access Policy 27A: Listed Buildings Policy 39: Landscape 157
Page 26
Policy 40A: Forestry, Woodland and Trees: Forest and Woodland Strategy Policy 40A: Forestry, Woodland and Trees: Forest and Woodland Strategy Policy 41: Biodiversity Policy 52: New Development and Flooding 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 55: Nuisance from Artificial Light and Light Pollution Policy 56: Noise Pollution Policy 58B: Contaminated and Unstable Land: Unstable Land Policy 60A: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: Existing Infrastructure Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals OTHER POLICIES Placemaking Supplementary Guidance CONSULTATION RESPONSES Cleish And Blairadam Community Council Object with various points raised access, contrary to LDP2, impact on listed buildings, core path, residential amenity etc. The Coal Authority No objection Structures And Flooding No objection Environmental Health (Noise Odour) No objection Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) further information may be required. Transport Planning no objection but further clarification sought Development Contributions Officer No objection REPRESENTATIONS 15 representations were received: contrary to LDP2 unacceptable access insufficient information on drainage flood risk no waste collection facilities use for residential/overnight accommodation lack of supporting information i.e. bat survey, tree survey, environmental statement 158
Page 27
damage to bridge on access road light pollution noise pollution mining risk area impact on listed buildings impact on historic interest within the area increase in traffic road safety concerns adverse effect on visual amenity inappropriate land use out of character with the area impact on ROW loss of trees loss of open space lack of car parking These issues are addressed in the appraisal section of the report. However it should be noted that additional statements/reports would not be required for example Bat survey – there are no buildings/trees to be removed, tree survey – no trees to be felled, environmental statement – not required for this scale of development. 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 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. In this instance, section 14(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 places a duty on planning authorities in determining such an application as this to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. 159
Page 28
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 parcel of land was formerly part of a larger agricultural holding and is one of a number of plots which have been sold off to different parties. There have been recent refusals on two other plots for the erection of a dwellings to the east and south of this site and the enforcement team has been involved in a number of unauthorised developments over a number of plots. This application site is a central plot which the applicant has purchased and developed prior to any permissions being obtained. The planning statement details briefly that the applicant has developed a viable business model for growing fruit, vegetable and botanicals. However, the applicant has not applied for the development of a rural business under Policy 8 Rural Business and Diversification and although references are made the application is not supported by a business plan. In this case for the proposal to be considered under policy 8 very detailed criteria would need to be met but unfortunately it is considered that this is not a viable route to pursue as the policy requires a site-specific resource – in this case the applicant has purchased a small piece of undeveloped land remote from her home and there is no robust justification for a business. There is no site-specific resource or opportunity which makes this site different from many other rural parcels of land and it is considered that the applicant does not have a justified proposal for development at the site. Whilst the council is generally supportive of the ecological ideas and aspirations the applicant has this proposal/site is not considered to meet the policy requirements. If the application is alternatively considered as a personal development to aid a self- sufficient lifestyle then the siting of the caravans and shelter could be considered more generally under Policy 1 and the Placemaking Supplementary Guidance. It is evident from the wider rural area that some form of development can be seen but this generally consist of buildings requisite for agricultural purposes being located around central farm steadings or close to dwellings where they are related to small holdings. More generally sporadic rural development may consist of small animal field shelters, huts/bothies, or in some cases agricultural storage buildings in remote locations where they are related to the operation of a large estate. The applicant proposes caravans and although indicate they are temporary the siting of two caravans within wider agricultural land in this location is out of place and not a usual feature in a rural landscape. Whilst I have no objection in principle to more productive use of land it must be the correct development in the correct place for example the development of a small holding or structured development of allotments. It is therefore considered that the siting of these structures is not appropriate for the rural setting and it has not been justified why they are essential to manage this small piece of land. Whilst precedent cannot be given as a reason to refuse an application 160
Page 29
this type of sporadic development if allowed throughout Perth and Kinross would have a detrimental impact on the wider landscape character of rural areas. It is therefore considered that this type of development would not contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding natural environment and that the design and density of the development would not respect the character and amenity of the place. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy 1 Placemaking and supplementary guidance of the LDP2. In addition the proposal is contrary to Policy 8 Rural Business as growing botanicals for business has been detailed but no justification offered to meet the requirements of this policy, in particular there is no site specific resource. Design and Layout The site is contained by post and wire fences (with sporadic trees and shrubs) accessed via a field track. The applicant has sited the two static caravans to the northeast and an animal shelter to the southeast. One caravan has been clad in timber the other will also be finished the same if permission is granted. The applicant notes that for agriculture purposes there is a need to provide on-site storage facilities for tools, produce and to provide welfare facilities (a sheltered place for food to be consumed and to provide WC facilities) whilst the land is being worked. The concern as highlighted above is that the buildings proposed even if clad in timber are not an appropriate solution even for temporary period. The applicant would need to justify the operation on the site and the minimum scale of building reasonably required. The necessity in this case is that the applicant has bought a small piece of agricultural land with no buildings remote from her dwelling. The site due to the lack of containment and that it has formerly functioned as a wider piece of agricultural land does not have the natural boundaries to provide enclosure and screening. Whilst it may be common to see smaller structures such as field shelters for animals sporadically sited in rural areas, the siting of these types of structures in open countryside cannot be supported. It is considered that the siting of these structures, even for a temporary period, would be contrary to Policy 1 Placemaking and the supplementary guidance as the design, density and siting of the development would not respect the character and amenity of the place. Landscape The letters of representation have raised concerns about the impact on the landscape character of the area in particular the Loch Leven and Lomond Hills Local Landscape Area (LLA). It is considered that in terms of placemaking as stated above the proposal would be out of character and although the proposal in isolation may not have a significant detrimental impact it could contribute negatively if this type of development is permitted throughout the area with robust justification. The applicant has noted that the boundaries are to be planted but this would take a long time to mature and screen the development but in effect seeking to hide the development does not make it acceptable. 161
Page 30
Policy 39 was not considered necessary to add in the previous refusal on this site but the overall piecemeal unauthorised development which has taken place here and on adjacent sites has the potential to have an impact. The proposal therefore due to the type of development of a small plot within a wider piece of rural land could have a negative landscape impact in terms of Policy 39 Landscape which would justify refusal under this policy. Residential Amenity The proposal has been revised with the scale of development reduced from the previous refusal and is only to provide facilities for the applicant to farm the land. The applicant notes visits 3-4 times a week and it is anticipated that this would be by a single vehicle. Although letters of representation anticipate that more than what is proposed could take place this is not what is under consideration. Environmental Heath (EH) have been consulted and note that the pirate ship animal shelter is to be used for the shelter of goats and there is also an existing goat pen. The Code of Good Practice for the Prevention of Environmental Pollution from Agricultural Activity which was prepared in 2005 by the Scottish Executive recommends that new livestock buildings should not be within 400 metres of residential properties and where possible should be downwind of residential areas and the reverse is also true. EH consider due to the distance attenuation to existing residential properties, the number of animals at the site and with good husbandry practices that odour from the site should not adversely affect the residential amenity of existing dwellinghouses. Contaminated Land The Contaminated Land officer is unclear on the activities to be undertaken on the site and may have reviewed some information from the previous application. The site is essentially to be used for agriculture/horticulture which is not a change of use from the existing. As the application is not being supported this has not been further queried as there is no need to add planning conditions including a potential contaminated land condition. If the proposal was being supported this issue could have been investigated further. Roads and Access The access to the site is along a private track that connects with the public road network within Blairforge. No details have been provided as to the likely number of trips but the applicant has indicated she will visit 3/4 times a week. More information is required by Transport Planning (TP) but through further discussion with TP due to the reduced scale of the proposal it is not considered that this would form a reason to refuse the proposal. The would just require clarification on how the site is to be accessed for example any delivery of manure and where vehicles would be parked. 162
Page 31
A number of objections have raised road safety concerns, traffic, road maintenance issues, right of way and right of access. It is noted in letters of representation that there is a bridge which forms part of the private road and concerns regarding its condition have been raised. As with the rest of the private track the owners and/or those who have right of access would have maintenance/repair responsibilities. The owner of this site, should they have a right of access, would be liable to contribute and this would not be a planning issue. The right of way (ROW) runs along the existing private road then extends to the north (application site veers to the east). There is a site currently being developed along this track. It is considered that the application site could be developed with mitigation in place to protect the ROW during construction. Drainage and Flooding The application form states that there will be no new drainage connections and the SUDS box has been ticked on the form. The applicant states that there will be no foul drainage proposals other than a portable toilet. The letters of representation state that there has been a water connection installed on the site and that no SUDS details have been submitted. If the application had been supported this information could have been requested ultimately a small surface water soakaway to take the run off from the caravans could have been provided within the site. The Flood Team have no objection to the proposal. Coal Authority The proposed development lies in an area where there was extensive historical coal mining activity. Old mine workings can generate significant amounts of ground gases which may pose a high risk to developments. It is also possible that land around the mining may have been used for the disposal of mine spoil. The Coal Authority have been consulted and considering the scale and nature of the development proposed they do not consider that a Coal Mining Risk Assessment would be proportionate in this particular instance and do not object to this planning application. Conservation Considerations There is a listed building located over 650m from the site. This building is screened by the existing dwellings and the development of the site is not considered to impact the setting. There are a number of other historical assets in the area noted within letters of representation. However these are not adjacent to the application site, therefore the ROW and its associated historic route is not considered to be detrimentally impacted by the development. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity The application is not supported by a tree survey or an ecological assessment as noted in letters of representation. The site however does not have any significant 163
Page 32
tree cover and the proposals are of a small scale where it is considered that these reports would not be required. Developer Contributions The Developer Contributions Guidance is not applicable to this application and therefore no contributions are required in this instance. 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. 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 1 Placemaking of the Local Development Plan 2 2019 and the supplementary Placemaking Guidance as the development does not contribute to the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment. The proposal by virtue of the design and density of the development on an undeveloped rural site within a wider area of land within numerous ownerships is detrimental to the character and amenity of the place. 2 The proposal is contrary to Policy 8 Rural Business and Diversification of the Local Development Plan 2 2019 as the development of site has not been justified in terms of a site-specific resource or opportunity in relation to a new or existing business. 164
Page 33
3 The proposal is contrary to Policy 39 Landscape of the Local Development Plan 2 2019 as the type of development within a small plot which lies in a wider piece of rural land would have a negative impact on the wider landscape character. 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 N/A Procedural Notes Not Applicable. PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION 01 02 03 04 05 165
Page 34
Page 1 of 9 Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street Perth PH1 5GD Tel: 01738 475300 Fax: 01738 475310 Email: onlineapps@pkc.gov.uk Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid. Thank you for completing this application form: ONLINE REFERENCE 100554548-001 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Type of Application What is this application for? Please select one of the following: * Application for planning permission (including changes of use and surface mineral working). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application, (including renewal of planning permission, modification, variation or removal of a planning condition etc) Application for Approval of Matters specified in conditions. Description of Proposal Please describe the proposal including any change of use: * (Max 500 characters) Is this a temporary permission? * Yes No Description of Proposal Cont. Please state how long permission is required for and why: * (Max 500 characters) If a change of use is to be included in the proposal has it already taken place? Yes No (Answer ‘No’ if there is no change of use.) * Has the work already been started and/or completed? * No Yes – Started Yes - Completed SITING OF 2 TIMBER CLAD STATIC CARAVANS FOR USE AS AGRICULTURAL STORAGE AND A TIMBER ANIMAL SHELTER FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS PLANNING PERMISSION IS SOUGHT FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD OF 3 YEARS TO ALLOW FOR THE AGRICULTURAL BUSINESS TO BECOME ESTABLISHED AND CONSENT OBTAINED FOR A PERMANENT AGRICULTURAL BUILDING ON SITE. THIS NEW APPLICATION FOLLOWS THE REFUSAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 21/00966/FLL ON 08/10/21 166
Page 35
Page 2 of 9 Please state date of completion, or if not completed, the start date (dd/mm/yyyy): * Please explain why work has taken place in advance of making this application: * (Max 500 characters) Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THE PLANNING PERMISSION WAS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE SITING OF THE STATIC CARAVANS ON SITE AND THE ERECTION OF THE ANIMAL SHELTER. Ms 01/04/2021 BRONWYN TUTTY 167
Page 36
Page 3 of 9 Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Pre-Application Discussion Have you discussed your proposal with the planning authority? * Yes No Pre-Application Discussion Details Cont. In what format was the feedback given? * Meeting Telephone Letter Email Please provide a description of the feedback you were given and the name of the officer who provided this feedback. If a processing agreement [note 1] is currently in place or if you are currently discussing a processing agreement with the planning authority, please provide details of this. (This will help the authority to deal with this application more efficiently.) * (max 500 characters) Title: Other title: First Name: Last Name: Correspondence Reference Date (dd/mm/yyyy): Number: Note 1. A Processing agreement involves setting out the key stages involved in determining a planning application, identifying what information is required and from whom and setting timescales for the delivery of various stages of the process. IN AN EXCHANGE OF EMAILS WITH THE COUNCIL IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT THE RETENTION OF THE STATIC CARAVANS FOR AGRICULTURAL STORAGE PURPOSES AND ANIMAL SHELTER REQUIRED PLANNING PERMISSION AND COULD NOT BE THE SUBJECT OF A PRIOR NOTIFICATION APPLICATION AND DID NOT BENEFIT FROM PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AS THE STRUCTURES WERE ALREADY IN SITU. Miss Perth and Kinross Council JOANNE FERGUSON 21/01/2022 Land 100 Metres North East of Blairfordel Farm 696397 314298 168
Page 37
Page 4 of 9 Site Area Please state the site area: Please state the measurement type used: Hectares (ha) Square Metres (sq.m) Existing Use Please describe the current or most recent use: * (Max 500 characters) Access and Parking Are you proposing a new altered vehicle access to or from a public road? * Yes No If Yes please describe and show on your drawings the position of any existing. Altered or new access points, highlighting the changes you propose to make. You should also show existing footpaths and note if there will be any impact on these. Are you proposing any change to public paths, public rights of way or affecting any public right of access? * Yes No If Yes please show on your drawings the position of any affected areas highlighting the changes you propose to make, including arrangements for continuing or alternative public access. How many vehicle parking spaces (garaging and open parking) currently exist on the application Site? How many vehicle parking spaces (garaging and open parking) do you propose on the site (i.e. the Total of existing and any new spaces or a reduced number of spaces)? * Please show on your drawings the position of existing and proposed parking spaces and identify if these are for the use of particular types of vehicles (e.g. parking for disabled people, coaches, HGV vehicles, cycles spaces). Water Supply and Drainage Arrangements Will your proposal require new or altered water supply or drainage arrangements? * Yes No Do your proposals make provision for sustainable drainage of surface water?? * Yes No (e.g. SUDS arrangements) * Note:- Please include details of SUDS arrangements on your plans Selecting ‘No’ to the above question means that you could be in breach of Environmental legislation. Are you proposing to connect to the public water supply network? * Yes No, using a private water supply No connection required If No, using a private water supply, please show on plans the supply and all works needed to provide it (on or off site). 16187.00 AGRICULTURE 0 0 169
Page 38
Page 5 of 9 Assessment of Flood Risk Is the site within an area of known risk of flooding? * Yes No Don’t Know If the site is within an area of known risk of flooding you may need to submit a Flood Risk Assessment before your application can be determined. You may wish to contact your Planning Authority or SEPA for advice on what information may be required. Do you think your proposal may increase the flood risk elsewhere? * Yes No Don’t Know Trees Are there any trees on or adjacent to the application site? * Yes No If Yes, please mark on your drawings any trees, known protected trees and their canopy spread close to the proposal site and indicate if any are to be cut back or felled. Waste Storage and Collection Do the plans incorporate areas to store and aid the collection of waste (including recycling)? * Yes No If Yes or No, please provide further details: * (Max 500 characters) Residential Units Including Conversion Does your proposal include new or additional houses and/or flats? * Yes No All Types of Non Housing Development – Proposed New Floorspace Does your proposal alter or create non-residential floorspace? * Yes No All Types of Non Housing Development – Proposed New Floorspace Details For planning permission in principle applications, if you are unaware of the exact proposed floorspace dimensions please provide an estimate where necessary and provide a fuller explanation in the ‘Don’t Know’ text box below. Please state the use type and proposed floorspace (or number of rooms if you are proposing a hotel or residential institution): * Gross (proposed) floorspace (In square meters, sq.m) or number of new (additional) Rooms (If class 7, 8 or 8a): * If Class 1, please give details of internal floorspace: Net trading spaces: Non-trading space: Total: If Class ‘Not in a use class’ or ‘Don’t know’ is selected, please give more details: (Max 500 characters) ALL WASTE GENERATED FROM THE USE OF THE SITE FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES WILL BE STORED WITHIN THE STATIC CARAVANS AND REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND RECYCLED AT LOCAL WASTE RECYCLING CENTRES BY THE APPLICANT. Not in a Use Class THE COMBINED FLOORSPACE OF THE STATIC CARAVANS IS 60SQM AND THEY WILL BE REPURPOSED FOR AGRICULTURAL STORAGE. 60 170
Page 39
Page 6 of 9 Schedule 3 Development Does the proposal involve a form of development listed in Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Yes No Don’t Know Planning (Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013 * If yes, your proposal will additionally have to be advertised in a newspaper circulating in the area of the development. Your planning authority will do this on your behalf but will charge you a fee. Please check the planning authority’s website for advice on the additional fee and add this to your planning fee. If you are unsure whether your proposal involves a form of development listed in Schedule 3, please check the Help Text and Guidance notes before contacting your planning authority. Planning Service Employee/Elected Member Interest Is the applicant, or the applicant’s spouse/partner, either a member of staff within the planning service or an Yes No elected member of the planning authority? * Certificates and Notices CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE UNDER REGULATION 15 – TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATION 2013 One Certificate must be completed and submitted along with the application form. This is most usually Certificate A, Form 1, Certificate B, Certificate C or Certificate E. Are you/the applicant the sole owner of ALL the land? * Yes No Is any of the land part of an agricultural holding? * Yes No Do you have any agricultural tenants? * Yes No Certificate Required The following Land Ownership Certificate is required to complete this section of the proposal: Certificate E 171
Page 40
Page 7 of 9 Land Ownership Certificate Certificate and Notice under Regulation 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Certificate E I hereby certify that – (1) – No person other than myself/the applicant was the owner of any part of the land to which the application relates at the beginning of the period 21 days ending with the date of the application. (2) - The land to which the application relates constitutes or forms part of an agricultural holding and there are no agricultural tenants Or (1) – No person other than myself/the applicant was the owner of any part of the land to which the application relates at the beginning of the period 21 days ending with the date of the application. (2) - The land to which the application relates constitutes or forms part of an agricultural holding and there are agricultural tenants. Name: Address: Date of Service of Notice: * (4) – I have/The applicant has taken reasonable steps, as listed below, to ascertain the names and addresses of the other owners or agricultural tenants and *have/has been unable to do so – Signed: Ms BRONWYN TUTTY On behalf of: Date: 12/04/2022 Please tick here to certify this Certificate. * 172
Page 41
Page 8 of 9 Checklist – Application for Planning Permission Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Please take a few moments to complete the following checklist in order to ensure that you have provided all the necessary information in support of your application. Failure to submit sufficient information with your application may result in your application being deemed invalid. The planning authority will not start processing your application until it is valid. a) If this is a further application where there is a variation of conditions attached to a previous consent, have you provided a statement to that effect? * Yes No Not applicable to this application b) If this is an application for planning permission or planning permission in principal where there is a crown interest in the land, have you provided a statement to that effect? * Yes No Not applicable to this application c) If this is an application for planning permission, planning permission in principle or a further application and the application is for development belonging to the categories of national or major development (other than one under Section 42 of the planning Act), have you provided a Pre-Application Consultation Report? * Yes No Not applicable to this application Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 d) If this is an application for planning permission and the application relates to development belonging to the categories of national or major developments and you do not benefit from exemption under Regulation 13 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, have you provided a Design and Access Statement? * Yes No Not applicable to this application e) If this is an application for planning permission and relates to development belonging to the category of local developments (subject to regulation 13. (2) and (3) of the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013) have you provided a Design Statement? * Yes No Not applicable to this application f) If your application relates to installation of an antenna to be employed in an electronic communication network, have you provided an ICNIRP Declaration? * Yes No Not applicable to this application g) If this is an application for planning permission, planning permission in principle, an application for approval of matters specified in conditions or an application for mineral development, have you provided any other plans or drawings as necessary: Site Layout Plan or Block plan. Elevations. Floor plans. Cross sections. Roof plan. Master Plan/Framework Plan. Landscape plan. Photographs and/or photomontages. Other. If Other, please specify: * (Max 500 characters) 173
Page 42
Page 9 of 9 Provide copies of the following documents if applicable: A copy of an Environmental Statement. * Yes N/A A Design Statement or Design and Access Statement. * Yes N/A A Flood Risk Assessment. * Yes N/A A Drainage Impact Assessment (including proposals for Sustainable Drainage Systems). * Yes N/A Drainage/SUDS layout. * Yes N/A A Transport Assessment or Travel Plan Yes N/A Contaminated Land Assessment. * Yes N/A Habitat Survey. * Yes N/A A Processing Agreement. * Yes N/A Other Statements (please specify). (Max 500 characters) Declare – For Application to Planning Authority I, the applicant/agent certify that this is an application to the planning authority as described in this form. The accompanying Plans/drawings and additional information are provided as a part of this application. Declaration Name: Mr Paul Macari Declaration Date: 12/04/2022 A PLANNING STATEMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION Ms Bronwyn Tutty 174
Page 43
SITING OF 2 TIMBER CLAD STATIC CARAVANS AND A TIMBER ANIMAL SHELTER FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS AT LAND AT BLAIRFORDEL FARM, KELTY PLANNING STATEMENT CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Site & Context 3. Proposal 4. Policy Framework 5. Evaluation 6. Conclusion 175
Page 44
1. INTRODUCTION This statement has been prepared to support a retrospective planning application for the siting of 2 timber clad static caravans and an animal shelter at land at Blairfordel Farm for a period of 3 years ending in May 2025. Section 25 of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 directs that all planning decisions should accord with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise: Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 37 of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, re-affirms the above direction and confirms that in De- termining planning applications, the Planning Authority “shall have regard to the provi- sions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations”. The Scottish Planning Policy stipulates that in considering planning applications planning authorities should adopt a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development. Scottish Government Planning Policy states: “The planning system should support economically, environmentally and socially sus- tainable places by enabling development that balances the costs and benefits of a pro- posal over the longer term. The aim is to achieve the right development in the right place; it is not to allow development at any cost.” In addition the Scottish Planning Policy also states: “Proposals that accord with up-to-date plans should be considered acceptable in princi- ple and consideration should focus on the detailed matters arising. For proposals that do not accord with up-to-date development plans, the primacy of the plan is main- tained and this SPP and the presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development will be material considerations.” This statement shall demonstrate the proposal’s compliance with the objectives of the Development Plan that support the approval of planning permission. 176
Page 45
2. SITE & CONTEXT The development site is situated outwith the Blairforge settlement boundary as defined by the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019. The site is located 350m to the north of the B966 Public Road as illustrated by the Site Location Plan accompanying this application. The application site was formerly part of the larger Blairfordel farm complex and is one of a number of plots which have been created and sold off to different parties as the original farm complex has been subdivided. Access to the site is taken from the B966 public road through the Blairforge. Where the public road terminates a track leads from Blairforge to the application site. The track ser- vices adjoining fields as well as the application site by virtue of a gate in the north western corner. The site is contained by post and wire fencing. The boundaries are supplemented by spo- radic trees and shrubs. The former static caravans are sited to the north east of the site while the animal shelter is located to the south east of the site. One of the static caravans has already been clad in recycled timber. The other caravan will be clad in timber to match should this application for temporary planning permis- sion be granted. It was originally the Applicant's intention when she bought the application site to utilise the site: • to support the ecological needs of the natural environment. • to watch nature change and grow with the use of the land for growing trees, fruiand vegetables creating a place for the appellant and her children (ages 6 & 12) to have the time and space to appreciate the natural environment and get an understanding of what it means • to connect back to nature and get back to a more basic and simple way of being some- thing that has been lost and can be difficult to access in these fast paced busy times. • grow vegetables and plant fruit trees. NB: Soil has been tested and quality confirmed for growing. • plant wildlife friendly trees and hedges NB: Hedges as they make great nesting sites for birds as the dense foliage creates a safe, warm environment in which they can shelter from the cold in the winter and breed during spring and summer. • educating children on how to grow plants and to ‘help’ with common ‘land based jobs’. • offer children something different to the usual types of experiences that tend to be in abundance these days. NB: A huge inspiration for this came from Project Wild Thing https://vimeo.com/ondemand/projectwildthing • grow botanicals for use in the manufacture of natural skin care products by the Appel- lant’s other business interest Bodylush. The Applicant was advised when buying the property that the above development would maintain the primary use of the site for agriculture and that the siting of caravans and an animal shelter would fall within the meaning of permitted development as defined by Class 18 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development)|(Scotland) Order 1992 as amended. 177
Page 46
Following complaints from neighbouring residents the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team engaged the Applicant advising of the alleged breaches in planning control and ad- vised the Applicant to submit an application for planning permission. Planning application ref: 21/00966/FLL was submitted to the Council on 31 May 2021 and sought planning permission for the siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/storage facility use/occasional overnight accommodation and 1 touring caravan for storage use, the erec- tion of an animal shelter, occasional informal camping and associated works (in retrospect). Planning application ref: 21/00966/FLL was refused on 8th October 2021. The decision notice for planning application ref: 21/00966/FLL outlines the reasons planning permission was refused. Prior to the expiry of the period for appealing planning application ref: 21/00966/FLL the Applicant reassessed her business and operating plan for the use of the site. Recognising the concerns raised by both the Council and neighbouring residents in response to planning application ref: 21/00966/FLL the applicant has developed a viable business model for the property which will involve the growing of fruit , vegetables and bo- tanicals. The planning case officer has since exchanged emails with a family member of the Appli- cant. In the exchange of emails it was confirmed that the Applicant intended to utilise the property to grow fruit and vegetables for sale as well as grow botanicals for use in natural skin care products manufactured by their other business Bodylush. The use of the land for these purposes falls within the meaning of agriculture as defined by Section 277 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning Etc (Scotland) Act 2006 and Planning(Scotland) Act 2019. As the Appellant would not be changing the existing use of the land planning permission is not required to culti- vate the land in this way. The site is currently being prepared for planting. The Applicant lives in Burntisland and will travel to the site 3- 4 times a week to maintain the crops and botanicals sewn and care for the animals. The application site was bought without access to any of the existing buildings forming the Blairfordel farm complex. As such to utilise the site for the agriculture purposes outlined above there is a need to pro- vide on-site storage facilities for tools, produce and to provide welfare facilities (a sheltered place for food to be consumed and to provide WC facilities) whilst the land is being worked. 3. PROPOSAL The proposal seeks retrospective planning permission for the retention of the static car- avans and animal shelter on the application site for a period of 3 years ending in June 2025. One of the caravans has already been clad with recycled timber while the other will also be clad in matching recycled timber should temporary planning permission be granted. The purpose of this application is to obtain consent to retain the caravans on site for a temporary period of 3 years. This would allow the appellant to obtain the necessary con- sents and erect a permanent agricultural building on the site. Thereafter, the former caravans would be removed from the site. 178
Page 47
The caravans have been adapted with all internal fixtures, fittings and partitions re- moved. 4. POLICY FRAMEWORK 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 unaccept- able 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 - Approved November 2019 The principal policies are: Policy 1A: Placemaking Policy 1B: Placemaking Policy 39: Landscape Placemaking Guide 2020 The Council has prepared Placemaking Supplementary Guidance (2020) to sup- port Policy 1 (Placemaking) of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019). It is to be used in the assessment of planning applications and to assist in the placemaking process. 5. EVALUATION 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 ap- proved TAYplan and the adopted LDP2. The determining issues in this case are whether; the proposal complies with d velopment plan policy; or if there are any other material considerations which justify a departure from policy. Policy Appraisal The application site is situated in a countryside location outwith any defined settlement boundary. Background policies including the placemaking considerations are therefore ap- plicable in this instance. The main policy focus is to ensure that new development is ap- propriate to its location and does not result in any on or off-site negative impacts. Visual Amenity, Design and Layout The site is remote from the applicant’s home in Burntisland. Therefore, the caravans are required for agricultural storage purposes and have been designed as such so that their appearance and location is subservient in relation to the wider agricultural use of the site. The static caravans extend to 9.7 x 3.2 metres each in footprint with a ridge height of 2.8 metres above ground level. The original dark green coloured pitched roofs of the caravans 179
Page 48
will be retained while the walls will be finished with recycled timber cladding. The existing windows and door openings will be retained. The doors will be clad to match the walls while the existing windows will remain as existing. In terms of scale both structures have a combined floor area of 62sqm taking up 0.003% of the site. The proposed development relates to a relatively large site, but the physical development is quite modest, comprising of 2 static caravans and a small timber animal shleter. These buildings are positioned within the north eastern sector of the site which provides a logical layout as this area of the site is relatively flat. It also places the built development within a less visually intrusive position, further away from nearby housing in Blairforge and Blairfordel Farm. The timber finish of the static caravans is of a high quality, that softens their appearance allowing them to be absorbed within the countryside landscape. The caravans have been purposefully orientated on site to minimise visual impact and also to screen the functional preparation area from the elements as well as to create an opera- tional inter-relationship between the storage facilities, the grazing land and the main arable complex in the western sector of the site. The site is enclosed by post and wire fencing with the northern boundary supplemented by sporadic shrubs and trees. The caravans are positioned within the north eastern corner of the site. To minimise the visual impact of the caravans it is proposed to clad them both in recycled timber. The timber clad caravans will have a uniform appearance and a location that is commensurate with traditional small scale agricultural buildings commonly found on agricultural land. It is proposed to plant a landscape buffer comprising of native species of trees along the site boundaries to screen the site from surrounding properties and further minimise any visual impact while also providing protection from prevailing winds to the fruits, vegetables and botanicals being cultivated. At a distance of 400m from the nearest homes to the west of the site and set against a wooded backdrop and the steep wooded slope to the north of the site the timber clad car- avans and animal shelter by virtue of their scale, massing, location and finish will blend into the landscape. The site is largely obscured from view from the South due to the tree lined boundaries of the adjoining field. So much so that the static caravans and animal shelter are not visible from the B966. From an elevated position on the Hill Road to the north of the site the visual impact of the applicant’s caravans is significantly reduced when clad in timber. Overall, when viewed in context the proposed buildings will not be dissimilar to many small farm holdings and agricultural buildings found throughout the area and is considered to be of an appropriate scale and design. As such the development is conducive to the rural character and visual amenity of the area as required by Policies 1A, 1B and the criteria outlined within Policy 8 of LDP2 Landscape Policy 39 requires proposals to be compatible with the landscape character of the area. Any proposal should be a good fit with the landscape and amongst other things not erode local distinctiveness. Development and land use change should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Perth & Kinross's landscape. Development pro- posals will be supported where they do not conflict with the aim of maintaining and en- hancing the landscape qualities of Perth and Kinross. 180
Page 49
The Council’s adopted Landscape Supplementary Guide 2020 is applicable in respect to considering the potential landscape considerations from the proposed development. This guidance identifies the site as being located within the Loch Leven and Lomond Hills Local Landscape Area where the main objectives are as follows: • Maintain accessibility of this area for diverse user groups, and for diverse sport and recreational uses from bird watching to gliding • Retain and expand native or other appropriate woodland coverage around the loch and on the adjacent hills while retaining the dramatic open landform • Maintain special character of lochside buildings and designed landscape features, includ- ing those not listed on the Historic Scotland Inventory • Manage agricultural land around the loch to provide benefits for biodiversity and habitats • Increase the extent of wetland around the loch in order to enhance this internationally important wildlife site • Ensure particular care in siting and design of potentially intrusive structures such as masts and wind turbines It is acknowledged that any development within this site will have some degree of visual impact, the scale and extent of development in this instance is relatively modest and does not give rise to any significant concerns in respect to the objectives listed above. The exist- ing site is exposed to views from the Hill Road to the north of the site and from the residen- tial properties within Blairforge to the west but is screened from the southern approach from Kelty on the B996. However, the development by its very nature, retains much of the character of the existing site, with the vast majority of the site retained as open agricultural land. Furthermore, the most sensitive western area of the site will not feature any buildings or notable built development. The timber clad caravans will have a uniform appearance and be of a scale, massing, de- sign, finish and location that is commensurate with traditional small scale agricultural build- ings. As such no landscape features of merit will be affected by the proposals. The boundary planting will screen the site furthering the timber clad caravan’s inconspicu- ous location and appearance while also enhancing the visual amenity, character and bio- diversity value of the site and surrounding area. Residential Amenity The closest existing residential properties to the former caravans and animal shelter are all over 400 metres away. As such the use of the buildings for agricultural storage purposes and the provision of shelter for animals will not impact on the amenity of neighbouring res- idents by virtue of noise or smell nuisance. Roads and Access The site is served by a private access road which leads onto the B966 public road. The proposals do not seek to alter the access arrangements to the site or create parking on site. Drainage and Flooding SEPA flood maps show that the site has not flooded historically. The proposals will not al- ter the levels of the site and as such the use of the former caravans for agricultural storage will not exacerbate instances of flooding on the site or on neighbouring land. 181
Page 50
In terms of surface water run-off generated by the roofs of the caravans, it is proposed to install water butts so that the water can be collected and repurposed for the agricultural use of the site. Developer Contributions The Developer Contributions Guidance is not applicable to this application and therefore no contributions are required in this instance. Economic Impact The proposed development will allow for the site to be used for agricultural purposes lead- ing to the diversification and expansion of the Applicant’s existing business operations. The economic impact of the proposal can be quantified by the creation of an additional 1 FTE post within the company as well as increased turnover and profit. With regard to the circular economy the proposal aligns in full with the aspirations of both the Council articulated by Circular Tayside and Scottish Government through National Planning Framework 4. Repurposing the caravans to form agricultural storage and cladding them in recycled timber will reduce the amount of waste being sent to landfill and consequently reducing carbon emissions as well as the release of latent carbon. 6. CONCLUSION Taking cognisance of the above reasoning we have demonstrated that the scale of devel- opment proposed accords with the requirements of Policies 1A, 1B and 39 of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan. The proposal is of a scale that is commensurate with the context of the application site while the high quality design solution will contribute to the character and quality of development in the surrounding area. The proposed devel- opment aligns in full with the aspirations of the Development Plan. 182
Page 51
Gas Gov Kinnaird House 128m Beatha Cottage 128m Binn Wood The Ravine 132m 152m Parenwell Mast Blairfordel Sks 133m Iss Cottage Meml Grouse Butt Spr (dis) Track FB Blairforge Binn Quarry Mill Hill 124m W 145m Cameron House 106m 5m 106m 120m 120m Blairfordel Wood 121m 111m Maryburgh 112m Iss Iss W Pit (dis) Alderburn Sks Iss 118m Bronwyn Tutty BLAIRFORDEL FARM, KELTY, KY4 0HP SITE & LOCATION PLAN May 2021 SW1:500 & 10000 @A3 PLANNING NOTES All dimensions in mm, unless otherwise stated. Only scale for planning purposes. 100/1D Site plan Scale 1:500 Location plan Scale 1:10,000 Revisions; 04/07/21: Notes amended, Pirateship & tourer added 09/07/21: Scale bar resized 21/07/21: Steps & shed added 08/08/21: boundary line added to access road. Scale 1:500 Animal Shelter & Goat Pen Timeber Clad Static CaravansBoundary Tree Planting 183
Page 52
Section A-A Static 1 Section A-A Static 2 STATIC CARAVAN SECTIONS June 2021 SW1:50 @ A3 100/5A Bronwyn Tutty BLAIRFORDEL FARM, KELTY, KY4 0HP PLANNING Stabilising blocks Original static wall Larch cladding Seating Carpet floor finish Original windows Stabilising blocks Original static wall Larch cladding Seating Carpet floor finish Original window REVISIONS; 09/07/21: Scale bar resized 184
Page 53
A A STATIC CARAVAN 2 ELEVATIONS & FLOOR PLAN June 2021 SW1:50 @ A3 100/3B SPECIFICATION NOTES; Roof: Original static aluminium roof. Walls: Untreated larch boards, applied horizontially with waney lapping, all to weather naturally. Doors&Windows: All unaltered original aluminium static caravan windows & doors,finished in original colours. Bronwyn Tutty BLAIRFORDEL FARM, KELTY, KY4 0HP UPUP South Elevation North Elevation Floor Plan East Elevation West Elevation BathroomBedroom 2 Bedroom 1 Kitchen Cupboard Living room All orignal windows/Doors Waney lapped Larch cladding Boiler flue Timber decked step PLANNING Shed REVISIONS; 09/07/21: Scale bar resized 21/07/21: Annotation changed and shed added to floor plan Timber decked steps Shed/Storage 185
Page 54
PIRATE SHIP FLOOR PLAN & ELEVATIONS June 2021 SW1:50 @ A3 100/4B SPECIFICATION NOTES; Ship: for kids to use as a hut & climbing frame. Frame: 50x100 timber, untreated. Walls: Untreated larch boards, applied horizontally, all to weather naturally. Floors: larch board decking left to weather naturally and chips to be laid on floor. Bronwyn Tutty BLAIRFORDEL FARM, KELTY, KY4 0HP PLANNING North Elevation Floor Plan East Elevation West Elevation Larch cladding, waney lapped 50x100mm timber railing Central play area, to be laid with wood chips Kids play hut decking Kids play hut REVISIONS; 09/07/21: Scale bar resized 21/07/21: Annotation changed Animal Shelter Animal Shelter 186
Page 55
4(iii)(b) LRB-2022-59 LRB-2022-59 22/00707/FLL - Siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/storage use, erection of animal shelter and associated works (in part retrospect) (for a temporary period), land, 100 metres north east of Blairfordel Farm, Kelty, KY4 0HP PLANNING DECISION NOTICE (included in applicant’s submission, pages 153-154) REPORT OF HANDLING (included in applicant’s submission, pages 155-165) REFERENCE DOCUMENTS (included in applicant’s submission, pages 175-186) 187
Page 56
188
Page 57
4(iii)(c) LRB-2022-59 LRB-2022-59 22/00707/FLL - Siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/storage use, erection of animal shelter and associated works (in part retrospect) (for a temporary period), land, 100 metres north east of Blairfordel Farm, Kelty, KY4 0HP REPRESENTATIONS 189
Page 58
190
Page 59
191
Page 60
192
Page 61
193
Page 62
194
Page 63
195
Page 64
196
Page 65
197
Page 66
198
Page 67
199
Page 68
200
Page 69
201
Page 70
202
Page 71
203
Page 72
204
Page 73
205
Page 74
206
Page 75
207
Page 76
208
Page 77
209
Page 78
210
Page 79
211
Page 80
212
Page 81
Comments to the Development Quality Manager on a Planning Application Planning Application ref. 22/00707/FLL Comments provided by Lucy Sumner Service/Section Strategy & Policy Contact Details Development Contributions Officer: Lucy Sumner Description of Proposal Siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/storage use, erection of animal shelter and associated works (in part retrospect) (for a temporary period) Address of site Land 100 Metres North East Of Blairfordel Farm Kelty Comments on the proposal I have no comments to make on this proposal in terms of the Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing Supplementary Guidance. Recommended planning condition(s) Recommended informative(s) for applicant Date comments returned 16 June 2022 213
Page 82
214
Page 83
Comments to the Development Quality Manager on a Planning Application Planning Application ref. 22/00707/FLL Comments provided by Charlie Haggart Service/Section HE/Flooding Contact Details Description of Proposal Siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/storage use, erection of animal shelter and associated works (in part retrospect) (for a temporary period) Address of site Land 100 Metres North East Of Blairfordel Farm Kelty Comments on the proposal No objections. Recommended planning condition(s) N/A Recommended informative(s) for applicant The applicant is advised to refer to Perth & Kinross Council’s Supplementary guidance on Flood Risk and Flood Risk Assessments 2021 as it contains advice relevant to your development. Date comments returned 16/06/2022 215
Page 84
216
Page 85
M e m o r To Development Management & Building Standards Service Manager Your ref 22/00707/FLL Date 17/06/2022 Communities a n d u m From Regulatory Services Manager Our ref CHF Pullar House, 35 Kinnoull Street, Perth PH1 5GD Consultation on an Application for Planning Permission 22/00707/FLL RE: Siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/storage use, erection of animal shelter and associated works (in part retrospect) (for a temporary period) at Land 100 Metres North East Of Blairfordel Farm Kelty for Ms Bronwyn Tutty I refer to your letter dated 7 June 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 The proposed use of the site is unclear and ranges from storage through to home-schooling activities for primary aged children as stated in the letter of support dated 5/7/21. The site is in proximity to old mine workings with a trial pit shaft approximately 300m from the proposed application. In addition, there is land which was used historically for railway operations approximately 100m north of the site. Due to children potentially being on site for regular schooling activities the suitability of the land for this proposed use; including growing fruit and vegetables, and providing suitable water provisions, must be further investigated as the soil analysis to date is not sufficient for this propose. I therefore recommend the following condition be applied to the application. 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 217
Page 86
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. 218
Page 87
219
Page 88
220
Page 89
221
Page 90
222
Page 91
223
Page 92
224
Page 93
Mrs Gillian Caulfield (Objects) Comment submitted date: Sun 19 Jun 2022 This application is only slightly amended from the last refused 21/00966/FLL which still has an enforcement notice in place. The objections then are all still very relevant, as are the Scot Gov. Reporters' following an appeal. Our main objections are - Detrimental Impact on visual amenity and on the overall character of the area. Ever since the land was purchased, both caravans sited with the touring caravan (still in situ but not on application) & 'pirate ship' built, it has totally blighted the agricultural landscape. The siting of these structures are contrary to PKC Local Development Plan 2 (2019) Policy 1 Placemaking and the supplementary guidance 2020 as the design, density and siting of the development does not respect the character and amenity of the place. The current road structure does not support this application. The lane used by Blairforge residents was never intended for such volume of traffic. To say for use of their business they will access 2 to 3 times per week is untrue. Vehicles are seen numerous times per day & several times per week. On the morning of Sunday 5th June I took a picture and counted 7 vehicles parked on the area. Also tents were pitched after an over night stay. No provision has been made for parking or for the upkeep of the 'track' or Blairforge lane (ROW). No passing spaces are available. Road safety is a major concern. Our otherwise quiet lane has been turned into a 'race track'. Via applicant's instagram page (fitness/dance) she advertised 2 rural camping retreats, 14-15th May and 4-5th June on the land. 12 spaces @ £188 per overnight stay. Incorporating dance, yoga, massage, fire walking and camping. No mention of Bodylush skincare business. Pictures were taken inside the caravans on corner seating. Please access this page and you will witness various videos, pictures showing activities and numerous cars parked and tents erected. One caravan has been decorated inside and painted white, not for use for farming equipment and storage as detailed. On 20th May 2022, knowing an enforcement notice was in place a further static caravan has been sited on this application plan site, again being visited daily and increasing traffic. This is total disregard for planning structure. How can this be allowed to happen? Neighbours on the Hill Road have commented that the field is being turned into 'a community' with so much development of the land and siting of structures 225
Page 94
totally out of character (pirate ship & caravans). The application is noted as flooded at risk by SEPA. A SUDS study has not been done. Policy 53B: foul drainage. No information on the drainage requirements on this site are provided with the supporting statement, other than the use of a portable toileting facility. No Bat survey provided in this application. A tree survey has been omitted from this application, contrary to policy 408 of the LDP. As a family we firmly object to this application due to the reasons above. Gillian, Andrew & Lewis Caulfield 226
Page 95
Mrs Jane Mercer (Objects) Comment submitted date: Sun 19 Jun 2022 * health and safety concerns for residents of Blairforge and others using access road due to no pavements or lights. *increase in vehicular traffic at Blairforge *concerns re disposal of refuse and human waste *concerns re animal welfare. Animals should be checked daily not a few times a week. All others reasons for objections are as detailed by Mr and Mrs Gilmour 227
Page 96
228
Page 97
229
Page 98
230
Page 99
231
Page 100
232
Page 101
Ms Sara Lovelock (Objects) Comment submitted date: Mon 20 Jun 2022 Our household objects for the following reasons; Constant traffic to and from the site including through the night when a retreat/party is being held. This is on a private road which is showing considerable damage due to the increase in cars due to the party business. The fact that the owner is advertising the site for various purposes including "fire walking" on their social media sites which does not reflect the use implied within the application. Concerns regarding the lack of water supply and waste disposal given that this area is being used for public events and business use. The fact that a static caravan was placed on site despite the order that had been placed on the applicants at the time showing a total disregard for the regulations and the wellbeing of their neighbours. 233
Page 102
234
Page 103
235
Page 104
236
Page 105
237
Page 106
238
Page 107
239
Page 108
240
Page 109
Comments to the Development Quality Manager on a Planning Application Planning Application ref. 22/00707/FLL Comments provided by Lachlan MacLean Project Officer – Transport Planning Service/Section Transport Planning Contact Details TransportPlanning@pkc.gov.uk Description of Proposal Siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/storage use, erection of animal shelter and associated works (in part retrospect) (for a temporary period) Address of site Land 100 Metres North East Of Blairfordel Farm, Kelty Comments on the proposal The applicant is proposing to install a number of static caravans and animal shelters. The access to the site is along a private track that connects with the public road network within Blairforge. No details have been provided as to where the applicant proposes to park their vehicles when travelling from their dwellinghouse to the development site. The applicant has advised that there will be no parking on site. More information is required by Transport Planning to determine the impacts of this development and are currently unable to support this development. Recommended planning condition(s) Recommended informative(s) for applicant Date comments returned 24 June 2022 241
Page 110
242
Page 111
243
Page 112
244
Page 113
245
Page 114
246
Page 115
247
Page 116
248
Page 117
249
Page 118
250
Page 119
The Local Review Body 29/11/22 Planning Department Perth and Kinross Council LRB-2022-59 Appeal of planning refusal 22/00707/FLL Dear Panel Members, In order to assist the panel, and in line with our previous dealings with the Review Body, application 21/00976/FLL, the 12 objectors residing in Blairforge, will give one comment as below. We all stand by our original objections and endorse those of the Community Council and Kinross Civic Trust. We presume the panel will review these. There have been no material changes in the grounds for both of the Council’s original refusals, 21/00966/FLL and 22/00707/FLL. The site is subject to an unusual, if not unique, set of circumstances. It forms part of a larger area, the former Blairfordel farm, presently subdivided into 13 separate plots. Since the beginning of 2021 the Council has issued, an unspecified number of Planning Contravention Notices, at least 7, 6 Enforcement Notices, 2 Fixed Penalty Notices, 1 Amenity Notice and 1 Stop Notice over the constituent parts of the former farm, an area of just over 27 hectares. Two reports were prepared by an Enforcement Officer in April and August 2021 advising amongst other points, that the siting of caravans was a breach of planning legislation. One of the Enforcement Notices was issued over this specific site, that was appealed to the Scottish Government Reporter who ruled in his decision, dated 16th May 2022 that the appeal failed on ground (b) and grounds (c). These being, as stated in the Enforcement Notice, that the land was used for the siting of three caravans, the use of the land as a campsite, the use of the land for social gatherings and the erection of a timber structure in the form of a ship, being used an animal shelter and/or a hut or climbing frame. The enforcement notice was served after the first planning refusal and on the grounds, as stated, of non-compliance with planning regulations and requirements of the site. Two sections of the Enforcement Notice are as follows :- iii. The alleged breaches of planning control are not permitted development. iv. On 06 October 2021, a planning application (ref: 21/00966/FLL) for the “Siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/storage facility use/occasional overnight accommodation and 1 touring caravan for storage use, erection of animal shelter, occasional informal camping and associated works (in retrospect)” on the land was refused as the proposal was contrary to Policy 1 (Placemaking); Policy 8 (Rural Business and Diversification); Policy 52 (New Development and Flooding); Policy 53C (Surface Water Drainage); Policy 53E (Water Supply); and Policy 60B (New Development Proposals) of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) (LDP2). 251
Page 120
The Reporter only varied the timetabling to give the owner time to prepare a further application for planning consent, we presume in compliance with the Council’s Policy, being that under review. He stated that if consent was refused the Enforcement Notice was still to be complied with. The Reporter agreed with the Council in the respect of planning breaches and therefore a Scottish Government appointed person, an independent expert, confirmed the non- compliance with the existing planning legislation. The owner made a subsequent application, that under review, which varied very little from the original. This point was made in a number of the objections. Turning to the appeal documents lodged with the Review Body we would make the following comments. The appeal appears, in the main, to be a diatribe of unsubstantiated comments regarding the conduct of the Council and its officers, particularly regarding the report on handling. These are from a party that shows no professional planning qualifications and appears not to have a suitably qualified professional adviser. The appellant states that “there is no evidence to support the refusal of the application on the grounds of a breach of LDP 2”. The evidence is stated on the first page of her appeal at section 1. If there was no evidence why did the Reporter uphold the Council’s standpoint on the planning breaches noted in the Enforcement Notice which was served? There was no further appeal regarding this. Access is stated under 2 Review site as being “from the B966 (B996) through the Blairforge where the public road terminates a track leads from Blairforge to the application site.” This comment is incorrect and the roadway from the end of the adopted road at Blairforge to where the track starts is a private road accepted as such by the Council. Further comment will be passed on this later. The site is contained by post and wire fencing. On past judgements in planning applications in this general area recently introduced fencing, as this is, is unacceptable to the Council to define boundaries. At section 3 planning history the appellant gives a list of points raised in the first application 21/00966/FLL. This application was not appealed despite the reasons for refusal being similar to those of the application under review. The appellant did nothing to address these basic planning principles when making the subsequent application even after the same points had been upheld by the reporter. Comment has been passed in previous objections to the unsubstantiated comment regarding advice, at the time of purchase, about compliance. We would have expected that the source and professional qualifications of the advisor to be stated. The size of the site and the amount of ground presently cultivated does not require two static caravans as storage and the real reason for these is apparent in an objection to application, including activities on the site and interior images of one of the caravans. 252
Page 121
The amount of ground under cultivation does not amount to the requirements of, as claimed, a commercial operation. It is noted that the touring caravan remains on site. We arrive at page 9 of the appellants statement, page 13 of the whole document as downloaded. This is the start of the aforementioned remarks about the Council and its officers. Several points are raised by the appellant. Comment is passed about similar buildings in the surrounding area. The majority of the buildings and structures are subject to Enforcement Notices for removal of the structures and all are breaches of planning consent as no applications for planning permission have been made. Page 10 There is no reason to compare the caravans with the supposed agricultural buildings, a collection of shipping containers, and what are known as park homes. The term “fabricated test invented by the planning authority” is surely sailing very close to the wind, as being a slanderous remark. The comment about the proximity of the appellants home to the site is in our opinion valid as they profess eco credentials which is hardly in line with running an older diesel vehicle on a round trip of 20 miles three to four times a week. Between 60 and 80 miles a week. Comment is passed about the appellants company Bodylush one of her companies shown on the internet. That company was according to the appellants own internet writings closed in June 2022. Her other company continued to use the site and if the panel care to check the objection from Mr Dallas they will see evidence of that fact in contravention of the Enforcement Notice. Comment is passed providing a reason for the non-appearance of the goats. The appellant advised in the original application that they had no knowledge of animal husbandry, supporting letter first comment. If the panel visit the site they should have a good look at the Pirate Ship. There is, from the plans available, no door. The roof design is totally unsuitable to shed water and no covering is specified. This is because it is still the intention, in our opinion, to use the structure as was first intended, a children’s play hut/climbing frame. The introduction of livestock, not mentioned in the original application, is, in our opinion purely a device to aid the presentation of the application. There have been two other refusals of planning consent relating to the only other planning applications on the larger site to run their course to a decision by the Council. The Reports on Handling for the three refusals all state that access is via a private road they also state, should they have right of access. Surely before considering this appeal the panel should confirm whether there is a servitude or other right of access via Blairforge. The residents of Blairforge have carried out copious enquiries into the question of access to Blairfordel farm via Blairforge. The titles issued by the last owner of Blairfordel farm all appear to be identical regarding the access arrangements. They show a servitude right of access to the sites by a track which terminates at the point where the lands of Blairfordel meet the Right of Way from Blairforge to Parenwell Cottage. A Right of Way is governed by specific case law most heard and adjudicated on by the Court of Session. The fact that the road is a Right of Way gives no access to Blairfordel farm and in 253
Page 122
law precludes it. There is no indication of a servitude right of access through Blairfordel, this requires by law to be stated in the titles. We have extensive paperwork from the Registers of Scotland which show no servitude right of access to Blairfordel farm through Blairforge, the servitude right of access being from Benarty Road. None of the parties involved including the last owner of Blairfordel farm are in a position to satisfy the requirements of a prescriptive right of access, regular use over a period of 20 years. There is therefore no right of access via Blairforge. The way the new titles are written, each site is effectively land locked. One of the above-mentioned refusals, 21/00976/FLL, went to appeal and the Review Board have already set a precedent on this general larger site by upholding the Council’s decision to refuse planning consent. That review stated reasons which have been indicated by the Council as the reasons for the refusal of this application. Since the application was submitted a further “park home” has appeared on the site and a further timber structure is being constructed. There have also been further “social gatherings” of a commercial nature, one on 12/9/22 resulted in 16 vehicles being on site. All of these breaches have been reported to the planning department, with evidence. In the case of the gathering on 12/9/22 a video was sent to the council. We have attached this to the covering email to assist the panel. The breaches also indicate that the owner, in our opinion, has no intention of abiding by the constraints of any planning decision should consent be granted. The site can be clearly sighted from the Ballingry road and from the existing properties in the Northmost section of Blairforge, particularly at this time of year when the trees are denuded. In conclusion we consider that there is no valid reason for the panel overruling the original decision nor that of the Scottish Government Reporter in respect of the Enforcement Notice. On behalf of Mr & Mrs Carver, Mr & Mrs Cauldfield, Mr & Mrs Dallas, Mr & Mrs Forsyth, T Mr & Mrs Gilmour, Mr & Mrs Matheson, Mr & Mrs McCleary, Mr & Mrs Mercer, Mr & Mrs Neilson, Mr & Mrs Saunders, Mr & Mrs Stephen, Mr & Mrs Henderson, 254
Page 123
255
Page 124
256
Page 125
257
Page 126
258
Page 127
259
Page 128
260
Page 129
261
Page 130
262
Page 131
1 CDS Planning Local Review Body From: Bronwyn Tutty Sent: 18 December 2022 21:37 To: CDS Planning Local Review Body Subject: Response : LRB-2022-59 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAUTION: This email originated from an external organisation. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Lisa, Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town & Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation & Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Application Ref: 22/00707/FLL - Siting of 2 static caravans for welfare/storage use, erection of animal shelter and associated works (in part retrospect) (for a temporary period), land 100 metres north east of Blairfordel Farm, Kelty I refer to your letter dated 5 December 2022 enclosing the representation to the Review submitter from the Blairforge community. In response to the matters raised and to clarify some of the misunderstandings of the neighbouring community I comment as follows: The ambition has always been to operate the site in ambience with the neighbouring community. To date I have had no cross words with any members of the Blairforge Community and they remain welcome to visit the site and understand how it is being used. However, I do feel that irrespective of what I write it will be met with negativity and hostility by the community. The Review Statement outlines the areas of concern that I have pertaining to the way the application has been evaluated by the Council and outlines the reasons why I believe the application to be compliant with the Local Development Plan. The Statement is not a diatribe against the Council. As a Review Statement it sets out the planning reasons that I understand require to be taken into account in the determination of planning applications and applications for review. In the absence of reasoned justification as to why the repurposing of caravans for agricultural storage is not appropriate even for a temporary period when the siting of a caravan for residential purposes close by has been granted planning permission (application ref: 21/02058/FLL refers) it is only natural to feel an element of prejudice. The level of agricultural activity taking place on the site is very restricted until the matter of planning permission for the retention of the former caravans as agricultural storage facilities is resolved. This is the same reason that Bodylushious stopped trading. Sustainably and ethically sourcing botanicals takes significant time, resource and increased cost especially 263
Page 132
given the impact of EU Exit. The opportunity to grow, store and process botanicals on the Review Site would resolve these issues. However, the time taken to resolve the planning status of the agricultural storage units/former caravans has meant that it is no longer possible to continue trading with this level of uncertainty as if unsuccessful there will be no facilities to store materials or process produce. This is the same reason the cultivation of the site for growing fruit and vegetables has not intensified. Independent of the siting of caravans on the Review Site which is the subject of this application for Review, the Council has confirmed that the use of the site on not more than 28 days in any given 12 month period for yoga retreats with overnight camping falls within the meaning of permitted development as defined by Class 15 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992. I trust this information clarifies my position. Regards Bronwyn Tutty 264