24/01188/Flm
Perth and Kinross Council · 13 May 2026
Back to Planning and Placemaking Committee — 13 May 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Perth and Kinross Council Planning and Placemaking Committee - 13 May 2026 Report of Handling by Development Management and Building Standards Service Manager (Report No. 26/124) Proposal: Formation of a 49.9 MW solar farm and battery energy storage system comprising of ground mounted solar arrays, inverters, transformers, a substation, a DNO substation, security fencing, CCTV cameras, cabling, access tracks and associated works Location: Kinnon Park Farm, Methven, Perth, PH1 3NE Ref. No: 24/01188/FLM Ward No: P9 - Almond and Earn Summary This report recommends refusal of the application as the development is not considered to comply with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no material considerations apparent which outweigh the Development Plan. Background and Description of Proposal 1. The proposed development is located at Kinnon Park Farm lying 700m to the south-west of the settlement of Methven, on the A85 and lying 3.5km west of the city of Perth. Kinnon Park Farm steading comprises several vacant buildings and fields which have been in agricultural use. The wider Kinnon Park area also encompasses the occupied Kinnon Park Farmhouse and the part-occupied Kinnon Park Cottages, which are not included within the proposals and are outwith the applicant’s ownership. In terms of existing watercourses, the East Pow borders the site to the south. The Pow Water is a tributary of the River Almond which joins the River Tay in Perth. 2. The existing site topography shows the existing ground levels fall relatively steeply through the northern third of the site from 98m at Morrishill Wood in the north to 40m across the central area. From here, the site generally slopes more gently down to 20m at the watercourse known as East Pow, which flows east along the southern site boundary. Small, elevated sections are present around the existing farm buildings and in a relatively flat area in the east of the site. Broadly, the site aspect is south facing and rises from south to north.
Page 2
3. The existing use of Kinnon Park Farm is agricultural arable land, mostly planted in crop for grain. The group of buildings that form the farmstead complex are located within the Site. However, none of the ancillary structures will be used as a site compound, but the Site compound will be located next to them. The fields are delineated by a combination of mixed shelter belts, hedgerows with individual trees with evident gaps. The site rises approximately 35m in the south and to 95m in the north. The southern fields of the site are relatively level with the landform rising across the northern fields, located to the north of Kinnon Park. The East Pow Watercourse defines the site’s southern boundary and field drains are found throughout the site. The site is accessed by an existing track which connects to the U47 before the A85 to the northeast. 4. The proposed development includes the change of land use from agricultural to enable renewable energy generation of up to 49.9MW and a battery energy storage system for a period of up to 40 years. The total site area (all land) is 99 Ha, and the total development site area after iterations of design and public consultation feedback is approximately 80.66 Ha. 5. The installation and operation of the solar farm and battery energy storage will comprise: Arrays of ground mounted solar panels. Panels will have mountings up to 3m high, fixed south facing. The panels will be located in rows or strings to provide a coherent and simple layout. 232 inverters and 20 transformers will be positioned around the solar farm to allow conversion of energy into electrical current suitable for feeding into the grid. The proposed battery storage unit and DNO substation will be installed in secure containers at 3m in height and located adjacent to field 7. The site’s proposed boundary treatment consists of 9.39km of 2m high deer fencing and would be supported by wooden posts, also 2m high. CCTV will be erected at strategic locations throughout the site as shown on the proposed plans. The creation of 2,000 sq m new access tracks is proposed, to service maintenance of the solar panels Landscape mitigation measures for the site include additional boundary landscaping to the east, west and south of the site boundary, and areas of ecological enhancement adjacent to Kinnon Park Farmhouse and Kinnon Park Cottages. Approximately 7,900 m of new native deciduous species rich hedgerow. New hedgerow tree planting: total of 249no including large scale woodland trees such as Oaks and Beech, and small scale hedgerow trees for example Hawthorn and Field Maple. 13 hectares of wildflower meadow grassland. 79 hectares of grassland inside the security fencing sown with a grazing mix Two large areas comprising 4Ha to be retained as “no development” and to be managed as ecological areas nearest to the existing residential properties around the Kinnon Park Farmstead and farmhouse
Page 3
Site History 6. 04/02335/FUL An application for Full Planning Permission was withdrawn on 23 December 2005 for the conversion of an existing steading and erection of 11 dwellinghouses 7. 05/01778/OUT was approved on 23 December 2005 for the construction of a golf course and associated buildings and parking (in outline) 8. 23/00012/PAN submitted on 18 August 2023 for the formation of a 49.9 MW solar farm comprising ground mounted solar arrays, inverters, transformers, a substation, a DNO substation, battery storage facility, security fencing, CCTV cameras, cabling, access tracks and associated works 9. 23/01609/SCRN submitted on 17 October 2023 for the formation of a 49,9mw solar farm Environmental Impact Assessment 10. An EIA screening has been undertaken. The proposal being a Schedule 2 development in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. In the case of these regulations, prohibition is given to the granting of planning permission to “EIA development” unless an environmental impact assessment has been undertaken. In this case the Council has taken the opinion that it is not EIA development, and that sufficient information has been submitted with the application to enable a determination in consideration of all relevant environmental matters. These environmental aspects requiring further consideration, are namely: noise, landscape and visual amenity, trees and biodiversity, roads and transportation and flood / drainage matters. It should be noted that the Council requested detailing of the grid connection as this was not submitted with the initial proposals. Upon receipt of this grid connection, the Council maintain the view that the project as a whole would not require an EIA to be undertaken. Pre-Application Consultation 11. Pre application Reference: 23/00015/PREAPM 12. The proposed development is classed as a Major development in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, therefore the applicant was required to undertake formal pre-application consultation with the local community. 13. A Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report has been submitted with the planning application. A Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) was submitted to Perth and Kinross Council on the 9th August 2023. The PAN sets out the consultation strategy which includes the arrangement of two in-person consultation events, which were held two weeks apart from each other.
Page 4
14. In this instance, two Public Notices detailing all relevant information regarding the consultation process were published in the Perthshire Advertiser and The Courier on the 15th of August and the 17th of October 2023. On Monday and Tuesday 16th and 17th of October 2023, 2,500 flyers were hand-delivered to the homes of those living closest to the application site. Furthermore, a consultation website was set up in advance of the first and second public consultation events at Kinnon Park - Namene Solar outlining the proposals, and the consultation process, as well as an ability to download the information boards and an option to leave online feedback. The website has remained active for visits at any time. 15. Two public events in the form of a ‘drop-in session’ were held on Tuesday 22nd of August 2023 between 15.30 and 19.30 hours and a second on Tuesday 24th October 2023 between 1530 and 1930 hours. Both events were hosted at the Methven Community Centre. Development Plan 16. The Development Plan for the area comprises National Planning Framework 4 and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) along with its associated statutory supplementary guidance. National Planning Framework 4 17. The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) is the Scottish Government’s long-term spatial strategy with a comprehensive set of national planning policies. This strategy sets out how to improve people’s lives by making sustainable, liveable and productive spaces. NPF4 has an increased status over previous NPFs and comprises part of the statutory development plan. 18. The Council’s assessment of this application has considered the following policies of NPF4: Policy 1: Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises Policy 2: Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policy 3: Biodiversity Policy 4: Natural Places Policy 5: Soils Policy 6: Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 7: Historic Assets and Places Policy 11: Energy Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place Policy 29: Rural Development Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 19. 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
Page 5
economic growth.” It is the most recent statement of Council policy and is augmented by Supplementary Guidance. 20. The principal relevant policies are, in summary. Policy 1A: Placemaking Policy 1B: Placemaking Policy 2: Design Statements Policy 6: Settlement Boundaries Policy 8: Rural Business and Diversification Policy 15: Public Access Policy 26A: Scheduled Monuments and Archaeology: Scheduled Monuments Policy 26B: Scheduled Monuments and Archaeology: Archaeology Policy 29: Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy 31: Other Historic Assets Policy 32: Embedding Low and Zero Carbon Generating Technology in New Development Policy 33A: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy: New Proposals for Renewable and Low-Carbon Energy Policy 35: Electricity Transmission Infrastructure Policy 38C: Environment and Conservation: Local Designations Policy 39: Landscape Policy 40B: Forestry, Woodland and Trees: Trees, Woodland and Development Policy 41: Biodiversity Policy 47: River Tay Catchment Area Policy 50: Prime Agricultural Land Policy 51: Soils Policy 52: New Development and Flooding Policy 53A: Water Environment and Drainage: Water Environment Policy 53C: Water Environment and Drainage: Surface Water Flooding Policy 55: Nuisance from Artificial Light and Light Pollution Policy 56: Noise Pollution Policy 60A: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: Existing Infrastructure Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals Policy 61: Airfield Safeguarding Statutory Supplementary Guidance 21. Supplementary Guidance - Flood Risk and Flood Risk Assessments (adopted in 2021) Supplementary Guidance - Forest & Woodland Strategy (adopted in 2020) Supplementary Guidance - Landscape (adopted in 2020)
Page 6
PKC Non Statutory Guidance 22. Planning Guidance - Planning & Biodiversity Supplementary Guidance - Renewable & Low Carbon Energy (draft) National Guidance 23. The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through Planning Advise Notes, Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and a series of Circulars in addition to NPF4. Planning Advice Notes 24. The following Scottish Government Planning Advice Notes (PANs) and Guidance Documents are of relevance to the proposal: PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PAN 69 Planning and Building standards Advice on Flooding PAN 75 Planning for Transport Creating Places 2013 25. Creating Places is the Scottish Government’s policy statement on architecture and place. It sets out the comprehensive value good design can deliver. It notes that successful places can unlock opportunities, build vibrant communities and contribute to a flourishing economy and set out actions that can achieve positive changes in our places. National Roads Development Guide 2014 26. This document supports Designing Streets and expands on its principles and is the technical advice that should be followed in designing and approving of all streets including parking provision. Consultations 27. As part of the planning application process the following bodies were consulted: External 28. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) - No objection. However, it recommended that all PKHT comments are fully taken into consideration. 29. Transport Scotland - No objection subject to the inclusion of a condition relating to a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) 30. National Gas Transmissions (NGT) - Given that NGT operates a high-pressure gas pipeline that runs through the proposed development site, a holding objection
Page 7
has been submitted, and the applicant must not proceed with any development without further assessment being undertaken by the Asset Protection Team. This is to ensure that no works are undertaken in the vicinity of any gas pipelines. However, NGT have stated that the holding objection is subject to several conditions relating to development within the Easement Strip of the pipeline, pipeline crossings, cables crossing and works to be carried out in accordance with the relevant British Standards policy. 31. NatureScot - No objection. Given the much-reduced population of geese, and the amount of suitable habitat in the vicinity of the Special Protected Area (SPA), NatureScot not considered that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the goose interest of the SPA. 32. Scottish Water - No objection. 33. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) - No objection, subject to the inclusion of a condition to ensure that the proposed infrastructure is built to the levels specified in the now updated Flood Risk Assessment. 34. Health and Safety Executive - No objection. However, the applicant is advised to see the full consultation response for any further guidance. 35. Dundee Airport Ltd - No objection. It has been confirmed that, at the given position and height, this development would not infringe the safeguarding criteria and operation of Dundee Airport. 36. Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust (PKHT) - Initial objection. However, as a result of a subsequently submitted photomontage, PKHT have removed their objection. Internal 37. Transportation and Development - No objection, subject to the inclusion of conditions relating to the upgrade of a road junction, a temporary speed limit, core path obstruction and fire and emergency vehicles access. 38. Developer Contributions Officer - No contributions required. 39. Tree Officer - No objection 40. Structures and Flooding - No objection, following the submission of a revised surface water drainage scheme, including design drawings and calculations, and fire water safety information for the BESS site. 41. Development Plan Team - No objection subject to the inclusion of a condition to secure a Soil Management Plan. However, it has been recognised that the proposed development will result in an industrialisation of a countryside location, and that there will be adverse impacts on local visual amenity.
Page 8
42. Biodiversity Officer - No objection, subject to the inclusion of conditions relating to the Biodiversity Study, an updated Ecology Study, a site Biodiversity Action Plan, and exclusion zones around all trees. 43. Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) - No objection. A search of the historic records did not raise any concerns regarding ground contamination. 44. Environmental Health (Noise Odour) - No objection, subject to the inclusion of conditions relating to nose ratings, noise complaints, external lighting, a screening plan, glint and glare and construction working hours. Representations 45. 320 representations were received (316x objection, 1x general comment, and 3x support). The main issues raised within the representations are: 46. Objection Comments The proposed development will result in an adverse effect on visual amenity The proposed development is contrary to Local Development Plan Policy The proposed development will result in an adverse impact on employment provision The proposals are excessive in terms of height The proposed development will result in a flood risk The proposed development will result in an inappropriate land use The proposed development will result in a loss of open space There is a lack of car parking proposed The proposed development will result in light pollution The proposed development will result in a loss of trees The proposed development will result in a loss of sunlight and daylight The proposed development will result in noise pollution The proposed development is out of character with the surrounding area The proposals will result in over intensive development The proposed development will result in overlooking The proposed development will result in roads safety concerns The proposed development will result in Traffic Congestion The proposed development will have an adverse impact on local biodiversity 47. Support Comments The proposed development will result in environmental improvement 48. Non-Material The proposed development will devalue surrounding properties The proposed development will result in an increase in the price of available agricultural land
Page 9
No local community benefit has been proposed. No indication of what other sites been explored for suitability. 49. These issues are addressed in the Appraisal section of the report. Additional Statements Screening Opinion EIA not required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not Required Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations AA not required Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Submitted Report on Impact or Potential Impact eg Flood Risk Assessment Submitted Battery Safety Management Plan Submitted Drainage Impact Assessment Submitted Tree Protection Plan Submitted Glint and Glare Study Submitted Access Management Plan Submitted Bat Tree Survey and Assessment Submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Submitted Ecological Impact Assessment Submitted Planning Statement Submitted Construction Environment Management Plan Submitted Appraisal 50. Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) require the determination of the proposal to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises NPF4, the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 and statutory supplementary guidance. The relevant policy considerations are outlined in the policy section above and are considered in more detail below. In terms of other material considerations, this involves considerations of the Council’s other approved policies and supplementary guidance.  Principle 51. The key determining policy issues for this specific proposal at this location include: the principle of the development and its contribution towards renewable generation targets/net zero agenda, (Policies 33 and 35 of the LDP2 and Policies 1 and 11 of the NPF 4), landscape/visual impact and recreational interests/access, (Polices 15
Page 10
and 39 of the LDP2 and Policy 21 of the NPF4), impacts on prime agricultural land (Policy 50 of the LDP2 and Policy 5 of the NPF 4), impacts on/from flooding and the water environment (Polies 52, 53A and 53C of the LDP2 and Policy 22 of the NPF4), residential amenity (Policies 1A and 1B), cultural heritage & historic environment (Policies 26A, 26B, 27A of the LDP2 and Policy 7 of the NPF4), biodiversity/ecological impact (Policies 40 and 41 of the LDP2 and Policy 3 of the NPF4), pipeline and airfield safeguarding (Policies 54 and 61 of the LDP2), and transport (Policy 60A of the LDP2 and Policy 13 of the NPF4). 52. Policy 33 of the LDP2 generally provides support for the development of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure, subject to detailed assessment against various environmental and other planning issues. This is also reflected in Policies 1 and 11 of the NPF4. However, stronger emphasis is placed over the contribution of the proposal to renewable energy generations targets than to other landscape and or amenity impacts. Justification for the development in relation to the net zero agenda is detailed in the submitted Planning, Design and Access Statement. In this case, the proposal is a 49.9MW solar farm and associated infrastructure/works which would generate renewably sourced electricity into the national grid, via the Boroughmuir substation. It is indicated that this would be the equivalent to providing energy that could power approximately 11,000 homes. Notwithstanding any environmental or other planning issues, the proposal would provide a substantial contribution towards renewable energy generation to support national and local objectives in relation to net zero and carbon emission reduction. This being the case, the proposed development is considered to be supported by the general principals of NPF4, and in particular Policy 11: Energy. However, the development, owing to inadequate mitigation in seeking to offset landscape concerns raised, fails to comply with Policy 11(e)(ii) ‘Energy’, of the National Planning Framework 4 (2023). 53. Policy 35 of the LDP2 also supports the development of electricity transmission infrastructure, where this is sensitively designed, and suitable mitigation is ensured. In this case, it is not considered that the development is sensitively designed, or that suitable mitigation is offered. The development proposed raises significant landscape and visual amenity concerns being of a scale, form and location which will dominate the immediately adjoining settlement of Methven. It is considered that its visually prominent location, partially situated on elevated ground adjacent to the Greenbelt, will greatly alter the character and appearance of this location, at odds with the wider agricultural setting in which it is located. Changes have been made in terms of reducing the scale and location of the development, with two fields being removed. The development, as proposed, is still excessive in scale and too close to residential properties, footpaths, and roads. Therefore, the development, owing to its size, scale, appearance and location, raises significant landscape character and visual impact concerns, failing to contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment. The development is subsequently considered contrary to Policies 1A, 1B ‘Placemaking’, and Policy 39 ‘Landscape’ of the adopted Perth & Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and Policy 4(a) ‘Natural Places’, of National Planning Framework 4 (2023), as well as the Council’s Placemaking Supplementary Guidance (2020).
Page 11
Design and Layout 54. LDP2 Policy 1A: Placemaking states that development must contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment. All development should be planned and designed with reference to climate change, mitigation and adaptation. The design, density and siting of development should respect the character and amenity of the place, and should create and improve links within and, where practical, beyond the site. Proposals should also incorporate new landscape and planting works appropriate to the local context and the scale and nature of the development. LDP Policy 1A and Policy 1B list a range of criteria upon which design matters will be assessed. 55. In this instance, the proposed layout shows that most of the site will accommodate solar panel units, with a number of internal site access routes providing access within the site. The individual solar panel units will sit at a height of approximately 2.66 metres, with a pitch of 15 degrees from horizontal. Each unit will be approximately 7.2 metres wide and sit on support poles, which will be piled to a depth of between 1.5 to 2.5 metres. The units would be enclosed by deer fencing approximately 2 metres in height, with CCTV cameras mounted on 4 metres high poles. 56. A number of substations are also proposed within the site, close to its eastern boundary. These form a group and include two Distribution Network Operator (DNO) substations and a client substation. A battery station is also proposed to the north-west of the DNO area. Each DNO substation will sit at 3.48 metres in height (including base), measure just over 6 metres in length and be 2.4 metres wide. The client substation and storage will be 3.2 metres high (including base), measure just over 6 metres in length and be 2.4 metres wide. The battery energy storage system (BESS) comprises a battery transformer, which will sit at a height of approximately 3 metres and measure just over 4.6 metres in length, with inverters and control gear sitting at a height of approximately 2.65 metres (including base) and measure just over 6.1 metres in length. 57. The solar panel units would be connected to the client and DNO substations by underground cabling, with the BESS adjoining field I (7) to its east. The proposed development would then be connected with an underground cable that runs to Burghmuir Station close to the A9 road to the west of Perth (approximately 3.4 km east of the Site). The proposed development would use a limited materials palette with muted colour finishes. The photovoltaic panels to the solar units have been designed to absorb light rather than reflect it and their muted colour finish will ensure that they are visually recessive in the landscape. 58. Furthermore, the site will be secured by deer fencing of a standard design, with large aperture galvanised mesh stretched on wire and supported by timber posts approximately 2 metres in height. Where access gates are required, these are likely to be double leaf timber gates, in a height and style to match the rest of the fencing.
Page 12
Landscape and Visual Amenity 59. NPF4 Policy 4: Natural Places states that development proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment, will not be supported. Furthermore, development proposals that are likely to have a significant effect on an existing or proposed European site (Special Area of Conservation or Special Protection Areas) and are not directly connected with or necessary to their conservation management are required to be subject to an “appropriate assessment” of the implications for the conservation objectives. 60. LDP 2 Policy 39 states that development should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Perth and Kinross’ landscapes. 61. A revised Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been prepared as part of the Planning, Design & Access Statement submitted in support of this application. Policy 39 of LDP2 and associated Placemaking Supplementary Guidance is of relevance in relation to the potential landscape & visual impact of the development. The landscape context sees the site set in a predominantly rural/agricultural setting with the settlement of Methven to the north/northeast and smaller clusters of, and individual, farm buildings and cottages in the surrounding area. The location is within the ‘The Broad Valley Lowlands – Tayside Landscape Character Type’ as defined in the Landscape Character Assessment. However, there are no formal landscape designations associated with the proposed development site. 62. Whilst the development may soften in time as planting becomes established, there will be an immediate and sudden change in landscape character in this localised setting, impacting not just views outward from Methven, but also local walking and cycling routes nearby. This will, ultimately, have an adverse impact on the landscape experience of users of local core paths and roads, and will impact on the views from the Greenbelt. Furthermore, the proposal will result in major or moderate adverse visual effects from key viewpoints for users of footpaths and the local roads network. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to be contrary to Policies 1A and 1B of the LDP2 2019, as well as the adopted Placemaking Supplementary Guidance. 63. It is not considered that the development is contrary to Policy 11 of the NPF4 whereby greater weight in any planning balance under this policy is placed on renewable energy benefits. However, in order for a development to be fully supported by this policy, it is necessary for a development proposal to set out appropriate mitigation. Even with a proposed increase in tree planting and landscaping, it is not appropriate for mitigation to offset the significant landscape character impacts. 64. It is important to note that, in this instance, a planning balance must be considered having regard to any landscape impacts against the zero carbon renewable energy benefits provided by the NPF4. In this case, it is the view of officers that the significant landscape impacts outweigh those renewable energy benefits.
Page 13
Prime Agricultural Land / Soils 65. NPF4 Policy 5: Soils states that Development proposals will only be supported if they are designed and constructed: i) In accordance with the mitigation hierarchy by first avoiding and then minimising ii) the amount of disturbance to soils on undeveloped land; and iii) In a manner that protects soil from damage including from compaction and erosion, and that minimises soil sealing. Furthermore, development proposals on prime agricultural land, or land of lesser quality that is culturally or locally important for primary use, as identified by the LDP, will only be supported where it is for: a) Essential infrastructure and there is a specific locational need and no other suitable site. b) Small-scale development directly linked to a rural business, farm or croft or for essential workers for the rural business to be able to live onsite. c) The development of production and processing facilities associated with the land produce where no other local site is suitable. d) The generation of energy from renewable sources or the extraction of minerals and there is secure provision for restoration; and 66. In all of the above exceptions, the layout and design of the proposal minimise the amount of protected land that is required. 67. LDP2 Policy 50: Prime Agricultural Land states that outside the identified settlements, development on prime agricultural land will not be permitted, unless it is necessary to meet a specific established need, such as a major infrastructure proposal and only when there is no other suitable site available on non-prime land. Small - scale development directly linked to rural business, including housing, may also be acceptable on prime agricultural land, providing it is compatible with all other aspects of the policy framework of the Plan and there are no other suitable non-prime land sites available, and it does not adversely affect the viability of the agricultural unit. 68. In this instance, the land capability of the agricultural land within the application site is classed as 2 & 3.1 & 3.2. Each relevant Class is explained further below: Class 2 - Land capable of producing a wide range of crops Class 3.1 - Land capable of producing consistently high yields of a narrow range of crops and/ or moderate yields of a wider range. Short grass leys are common Class 3.2 - Land capable of average production though high yields of barley, oats and grass can be obtained. 69. An updated layout plan has been provided which shows that the proposed panels, located in the southeast of the site on class 2 land, have been removed. This is a significant improvement as the loss of prime land has been reduced to approximately 0.1ha of 3.1 class. However, it is important to note that, due to lack of
Page 14
cultivation, drainage & fertility management, the failure to actively manage the land for crops is likely to result in the demise of its future capabilities. In the face of potential food security issues, there are concerns over the loss of productive agricultural land. 70. The loss of agricultural land being actively used may also result in a future loss of local skills in agricultural land management practices. Other than financial incentive, it is difficult to justify the proposed development on productive agricultural land, when poorer quality land could have been identified in less favourable, south facing land within Perth & Kinross. In light of the above and given that the loss of Prime Agricultural Land amounts to around 8% of the site, it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to LDP2 Policy 50: Prime Agricultural Land. 71. Furthermore, the proposed development has been justified on the basis of national grid connection via the Boroughmuir Substation. Given the connection capacity which exists at this substation there is a high likelihood for further subsequent energy related development within this immediate location. When this factor is considered alongside any wider visual amenity impacts that have been already identified, the development is not considered to comply with Policy 50 of the LDP2. 72. LDP2 Policy 51: Soils states that the Council seeks to protect soils from damage such as erosion or compaction. Developments located on areas of good quality agricultural soils will only be supported where they: (a) minimise impact on soil resources. (b) implement appropriate soil management measures, particularly for valuable soils such as good-quality agricultural soils*, and soils with a high organic content. (c) adopt best practice when moving, storing and reinstating soils (see Scottish Soils: https://soils.environment.gov.scot/) (d) consider opportunities to re-use soils necessarily excavated from the site. 73. In terms of the proposed development, the nature of the technology used will provide a minimum impact on soils. However, trenching for cables and other infrastructure may still have an impact. This being the case, and in order to protect soils that may be subjected to movement, any consent issued would require a condition that a Soil Management Plan is submitted for written approval. Residential Amenity 74. NFP4 Policy 23 (e) states that development proposals that are likely to raise unacceptable noise issues will not be supported. 75. LDP2 Policy 17: Residential Areas, highlights that areas of residential and compatible uses inside settlement boundaries will see existing residential amenity protected and, where possible, improved. 76. LDP2 Policy 55: Nuisance from Artificial Lights and Light Pollution states that consent will not be granted for proposals where the lighting would result in obtrusive
Page 15
and/or intrusive effects. The Council may secure the regulation of lighting installations and their maintenance through the use of conditions attached to the granting of planning permission. 77. In this instance, the applicant sumitted a revised site layout plan and an updated Solar Photovoltaic Glint and Glare Assessment. The Glint and Glare assessment has been undertaken to assess the possible effects of glint and glare from the proposed solar farm on the surrounding road network and any residential properties within a 1km radius of the development. 78. The assessment identified that solar reflections are geometrically possible towards 25 of the 30 assessed dwelling receptors. Regarding six of the dwellings, solar reflections are possible for less than three months of the year and less than 60 minutes on any given day. Furthermore, screening has been identified to significantly obstruct views of reflecting panels. In light of this, there is no impact is predicted, and therefore, mitigation is not required. 79. In terms of the further 15 dwellings where a solar reflection is geometrically possible for more than three months and less than 60 minutes on any given day, screening, in the form of existing vegetation is predicted to partially obstruct views of reflecting panels for seven of these dwellings. Furthermore, there is a significant distance of at least 400m, at its closest point, between the reflecting panel area and the receptors. In addition, the solar reflection effects would mostly coincide with direct sunlight, which is a more prominent source of light. This being the case, a low impact is predicted, and therefore, mitigation is not required. 80. For the remaining four dwellings, no significant screening or mitigation measures have been identified for two of the properties, and, given that the duration of reflections is predicted to be greater than three months a year, but less than 60 minutes on any given day, a moderate impact is predicted. Therefore, mitigation is recommended in line with revised Glint and Glare Assessment. In light of this, any consent issued would require conditions relating to external lighting, a Mitigation Screening Plan as per the submitted Glint and Glare Assessment, and light pollution complaints to the Council. Therefore, it is considered that, subject to conditions, the proposed development is in accordance with LDP2 Policy 55. 81. LDP2 Policy 56: Noise Pollution states that there will be a presumption against the siting of development proposals which will generate high levels of noise in the locality of existing or proposed noise sensitive land uses and similarly against the locating of noise sensitive uses near to sources of noise generation. 82. In this instance, a Noise Impact Assessment was submitted with the application. The assessment has been undertaken using worst case scenario with all components identified working simultaneously and at 100% capacity. The NIA states that component would not be operational continuously but for shorter periods of a few hours at a time and maximum noise emissions occur when components are working to charge or discharge electricity and lower when energy is being stored.
Page 16
83. The NIA states that transformers and inventors are operational during daylight hours only 07:00 to 23:00 for the core hours of daytime period. During the nighttime period only the battery station would be operating and cooling systems would operate less frequently during the nighttime period than compared to daytime periods. 84. Therefore, the NIA concluded that, in line with BS4142, the development is less likely to have an adverse impact on the residential properties. However, it is recommended that any consent issued would require conditions relating to all plant and equipment, noise limits, noise complaints to the Council and construction working hours. Therefore, it is considered that, subject to conditions, the proposed development is in accordance with NPF4 Policy 23, LDP2 Policies 17 and 56. Roads and Access 85. LDP2 Policy 15: Public Access states that development proposals that would have an adverse impact upon the integrity of any (including proposed) core path, disused railway line, asserted right of way or other well-used route and connectivity proposals identified in the Regional Transport Strategy and Delivery Plan will not be permitted. 86. Battery energy storage should have at least two access points and road networks that Support emergency vehicles. A safe access route for fire appliances to manoeuvre within the site should also be clearly demonstrated. Any street or private drive forming part of a fire access way must be no less than 3.7m wide. In this instance, the submitted Transport Statement shows emergency vehicle access at least two separate access points into the battery station area of the site. However, the internal roads layout and turning area would require to be amended. This could however be controlled via condition if an approval had been recommended. 87. Along the Kinnon Farm access, there are recognised core paths (METH/122, METH/126). The potential for conflict between path users and construction traffic is proposed to be mitigated through the installation of signage outlined in the framework CTMP. It is noted that since a contractor is yet to be appointed to deliver the works, the strategy is subject to refinement in consultation with PKC. While there are existing verges, it is recommended that suitable opportunities for passing are formalised along the core path at 100m intervals. It is recommended that any consent issued shall include a condition to this effect. 88. LDP2 Policy 60A: Existing Infrastructure, sees existing transport infrastructure identified, and encouragement given to the retention and improvement of these facilities provided the improvements are compatible with adjoining land uses 89. In this instance, a Transport Statement has been submitted with the application. The proposed operation will generate a minimal number of vehicle movements, mainly associated with maintenance activities. Therefore, the area that has the potential for most impact is during the construction phase is where HGVs will access the site. However, no abnormal loads are associated with the construction
Page 17
and installation activity, given that all loads are expected to be able to be delivered by standard sized HGVs. 90. The Transport Statement notes that construction activities are estimated to generate an average of 6 two-way HGV movements over a working day. In addition, there will be a number of car and van movements during this period that are attributed to the 10 to 20 members of staff on site. Final numbers could be controlled in a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to determine traffic management arrangements that are required. 91. All generated traffic will access the site from the north via the U47 (Tibbermore Loan), A85(T), and A9 over the construction period of approximately 20 weeks. All HGVs are to access the site from the north, and the route will be enforced through the CTMP. On the local road network, construction traffic will be routed via the U47. The CTMP will identify mitigating measures along this stretch of the U47 to minimise the risk of conflict. 92. Furthermore, Kinnon Park Farm access currently accessed via a priority junction with the U47 road. In order for this junction to accommodate construction traffic, it must be brought up to the standards of the Road Authority. This being the case, any consent issued shall include a condition to this effect. 93. Therefore, in light of the above, and subject to conditions, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with LDP2 Policies 15 and 60A. Drainage and Flooding 94. NPF4 Policy 22: Flood Risk and Water Management states that development proposals must have regard to the water environment, and drainage, including floodwater management, within any proposal. 95. In this instance a Flood Risk Assessment and a Drainage Impact Assessment have been submitted with the application, with both documents having been revised throughout the determination process. 96. The site is bound to the south by East Pow, which flows in an easterly direction. A series of field drains and minor tributaries flow into the East Pow. There is an un-named tributary which flows southernly along the western boundary of the stie and one un-named tributary which flows southernly into the East Pow through the centre of the site (immediately east of the Kinnon Park Cottages). 97. The area of site to be drained via the proposed SuDS is approximately 2.62ha. The impermeable area to be drained is made up of access tracks (2.55ha), substation (0.04ha), battery (0.02ha) and storage area (0.01ha). A Drainage Impact Assessment report has been provided with outline design drawings. The proposed surface water mitigation includes swales and discharge, which will be through outfalls, located across the site. However, no detailed design drawings of the proposed surface water drainage scheme have been submitted and therefore, any
Page 18
consent issued would require a condition to ensure that such details are submitted for written approval. 98. LDP2 Policy 52: New Development and Flooding, states that the Council supports the actions and objectives to avoid increased, reduce overall, and more generally manage flood risk in alignment with SEPA Strategies and Plans. 99. In this instance, SEPA Flood Maps show a high likelihood of fluvial flooding predicted in the southern area of the site in proximity to the East Pow and the central un-named tributary which flows through the site. The SEPA Flood Maps also predict a high likelihood of surface water flooding, particularly in the central area of the site. However, a survey to review site levels was undertaken in the areas which are shown to be at high risk of surface water flooding on the SEPA Flood Maps. The report concluded that all critical infrastructure should be raised above the maximum flood levels. 100. Furthermore, SEPA Flood Maps predict part of the area where the Battery Station is to be located as a high likelihood of surface water flooding. However, it has been confirmed that the Battery Station is to be located on higher ground and so surface water in isolation is not considered a specific risk in this area. 101. However, a condition would be required on any consent issued to ensure that the proposed infrastructure is built to the levels specified in the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) to ensure it is above the 200+CC flood level, i.e. 36.51m AOD for Batteries and 36.28m AOD for the substation. 102. A further condition would also be required in any consent issued, to ensure that details on fire water safety for the battery site, including water tank and intake locations, shall be submitted for written approval. 103. In light of the above, it is considered that, subject to conditions, the proposed development is in accordance with NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 56 Conservation Considerations 104. Polices 26A, 26B and 27A of the LDP2 and Policy 7 of the NPF4 are applicable to the application. NPF4 Policy 7: Historic Assets and Places states that development proposals with a potentially significant impact on historic assets or places will be accompanied by an assessment which is based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the historic asset and/or place. The assessment should identify the likely visual or physical impact of any proposals for change, including cumulative effects and provide a sound basis for managing the impacts of change. Furthermore, development proposals affecting nationally important Historic Battlefields will only be supported where they protect and, where appropriate, enhance their cultural significance, key landscape characteristics, physical remains and special qualities. 105. The site is not located within or within proximity to a Conservation Area, neither is the site located within or in proximity to any nationally or locally designated
Page 19
landscapes. Methven Castle Garden and Designed Landscape is located 0.6km north of the site, separated by the A85. Historic Environment Scotland were consulted as part of this application and have no objection to offer. In terms of archaeology, Perth & Kinross Heritiage Trust additionally objected to the proposal. Further information was submitted to address this objection and PKHT now have no objection to the proposed development. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity 106. NPF4 Policy 3: Biodiversity states that development proposals will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, including where relevant, restoring degraded habitats and building and strengthening nature networks and the connections between them. Proposals should also integrate nature-based solutions, wherever possible. Furthermore, development proposals for national or major development, or for development that requires an Environmental Impact Assessment will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal will conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity, including nature networks so they are in a demonstrably better state than without intervention. This will include future management. To inform this, best practice assessment methods should be used. 107. In October 2024, a Site Biodiversity Action Plan was requested outlining quantity, locations, techniques, timescales and monitoring arrangements. However, clarification is still required regarding the full extent of the compensation planting. Further information is also outstanding in relation to quantity, locations, techniques, timescales and monitoring arrangements remains for: Bird boxes Bat boxes Living roofs or green walls Installation of ponds 108. In light of the above, any consent issued would require relevant conditions to address any outstanding issues in terms of panting and biodiversity enhancements. However, on the whole, PKC Biodiversity Officer is satisfied that the submitted information is in accordance with legislation, policy and guidance. 109. NPF4 Policy 4: Natural Places states that development proposals that are likely to have an adverse effect on species protected by legislation will only be supported where the proposal meets the relevant statutory tests. If there is reasonable evidence to suggest that a protected species is present on a site or may be affected by a proposed development, steps must be taken to establish its presence. The level of protection required by legislation must be factored into the planning and design of development, and potential impacts must be fully considered prior to the determination of any application. 110. In October 2024, it was requested bat surveys be undertaken on the trees with bat roost potential. This has now been completed, and the submitted Bat Tree Survey and Assessment Report follows published best practice but not the most recently
Page 20
published. The Bat Survey Guidelines (Collins, 2016, 3rd edition) was updated in September 2023 (4th edition) and contains a new way of categorising trees with bat roost potential using PRF-1 or PRF-M. Trees were not categorised using this new system, but the Report is acceptable. Buffer zones will be erected 30m around trees with bat roost potential to avoid the risk of disturbance to bats. The Report states that tape, and canes will be used but the PKC Biodiversity Officer has recommended that more robust measures will be required, such as Heras fencing. In light of this, any consent issued will include a condition that Heras fencing, or a similarly robust material, is used to protect trees with bat roost potential. Furthermore, an informative relating to the correct procedure to be followed in the event of the discovery of any bats during construction works. 111. LDP2 Policy 40: Forestry, Woodland, and Trees states that Tree Surveys, undertaken by a suitably qualified professional, should accompany all applications for planning permission where their sites contain trees and that there is a presumption in favour of protecting woodland resources. 112. LDP2 Policy 41: Biodiversity states that the Council will seek to protect and enhance all wildlife and wildlife habitats, whether formally designated/protected or not. All whilst taking into account the ecosystems and natural processes in the area. In accordance with NPF4, development proposals for major development will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal will conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity, including nature networks so they are in a demonstrably better state than without intervention. This will include future management. 113. The tree report has stated that the proposal will require the removal of a small section of lapsed and overgrown hedgerow, comprised of approximately two small hawthorn trees and up to 12m² of gorse thicket. Additionally, the reduction of a large dead beech situated adjacent to the access road to a safe size with the introduction of habitat cuts to provide greater habitat improvement; and the crown-lifting of a limited number of secondary limbs of approximately sixteen trees along the site access road to the east of the site may be necessary to facilitate access. Furthermore, it is noted that any ash trees affected with ash dieback will be removed. In light of the above, PKC Tree Officer has no issues with the proposed tree works. Therefore, it is considered that, subject to conditions, the proposed development is in accordance with NPF4 Policies 3,4 and LDP2 Policies 40, 41. 114. Furthermore, the submitted Landscape Plan indicates the planting of 249 trees, and 7951 metres of linear hedge planting. Furthermore the Tree Report has recommended species for restocking of field margins and hedgerows include flowering varieties such as hazel, willow, apple, crab apple, hawthorn, cherry, lime, horse chestnut, rowan, alder, field maple, gorse and broom, however, no further landscape details, namely stock size, plant protection methods, etc, and the location of the proposed species, seem to have been submitted. This being the case, any consent issued would require a condition that a detailed Landscape Plan is submitted. 115. At present, there are 31 existing trees, located at the field boundaries which are within or outwith the red line, and could still be affected by development. Many of
Page 21
the trees are over 25m in height with extensive crown spreads. In light of this, it is important that any sub surface cable installations required to facilitate the development take account of the root protection areas of trees at the site. All proposed development whether above or below ground should be designed to avoid impacting the root protection areas of all trees, within or out with the site. It is noted that there is a 30m buffer zone proposed from the existing trees to the solar arrays, which is welcomed. It is important that the siting of plant and equipment (solar array mounts & battery storage units) do not impact on the above ground parts of any trees that exist at the site. This being the case, any consent issued would require a condition that a Tree Protection Plan is submitted that shows all trees that could potentially be affected, together with the proposed infrastructure, including all cable routes. 116. Furthermore, several of the fields are bounded hedgerows, which offer beneficial screening, biodiversity benefits, and significant contribution to the landscape character of this rural area, which should not be underestimated. Their subsequent protection during construction works is essential. This being the case, any consent issued will include a condition that a Hedgerow Protection Plan is submitted for written approval. In light of the above, and subject to conditions, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with NPF4 Policy 6 and LDP2 Policy 40. Low and Zero Carbon Generating Technologies 117. LDP2 Policy 32 ‘Embedding Low and Zero Carbon Generating Technology in New Development’ states that proposals for all new buildings will be required to demonstrate that at least 10% of the current carbon emissions reduction set by Scottish Building Standards will be met through the installation and operation of low and zero-carbon generating technologies. As this proposal includes the erection of a new building, consideration must be given to this requirement. In this instance, and given that the proposed ancillary buildings will stand alone, cover an area of less than 50 square metres and will not be heated, or cooled, there is no requirement for the applicant to submit a statement to demonstrate compliance with current carbon emissions reduction standards. Developer Contributions 118. The Developer Contributions Officer was consulted as part of this application and confirmed that no contributions are required. Economic Impact 119. In the short term, construction will create jobs with scope for local employment. However, the development is not supported by any economic information to further assess this impact. It is however predicted that once construction work is complete, further employment opportunities will be limited. However, and notwithstanding the significant visual and landscape impacts raised by the Planning Authority, the development is a clear fit for the Scottish Governments policy direction set out within the Scottish Energy Strategy and NPF4 of transitioning to a low carbon
Page 22
economy with renewable energy generation. It also represents a significant inward investment in rural Perthshire, assisting in the creation of a national grid asset of regional significance for the Perth and Kinross area. Grid Connection 120. The grid connection from the proposed solar farm and BESS is a material consideration. This is following the recent court case of Raeshaw Farms Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2026], in this case, the Inner House of the Court of Session quashed planning permission for the Wull Muir wind farm because the decision-maker failed properly to consider the role of the off-site grid connection. The court held that the Reporter had erred by not carrying out a fact-specific assessment of whether the wind farm and its grid connection could together constitute a single “project” for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) purposes. Crucially, the Reporter placed too much weight on the way the application was framed, rather than examining the real-world position that the wind farm could not operate, and its claimed benefits could not arise, without a grid connection. The court also found that it was irrational to rely on the benefits of renewable electricity generation while ignoring the environmental effects of the works necessary to realise those benefits. 121. The judgment does not require grid connections to be included in the same planning application as generation infrastructure, nor does it require full engineering detail at an early stage. However, it makes clear that, when assessing planning applications in Scotland, decision-makers must now explicitly address whether grid connections form part of the wider project and assess their potentially significant cumulative environmental effects to the extent reasonably possible. Simply deferring grid impacts to a future consent, without clear reasoning is no longer sufficient. The case strengthens scrutiny of phased or split consents and has implications beyond wind farms, affecting any development whose operation depends on later infrastructure such as grid, network or transport connections. In light of this, and in order for the Council to assess whether the grid connections form part of the wider project, the grid connection arrangements have been submitted. This will ensure that the Council’s decision is robust and that environmental impacts are appropriately Considered. In this instance, it is proposed to connect to the grid via the Burghmuir substation, through approximately 5.6km of underground cabling, which follow the national highways from the development site. This connection not considered to result in excessive impacts and would not alter the opinion of the Council as Planning Authority, as discussed in paragraph 11 of this report, that it would require an Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken. Variation of Application Under Section 32A 122. This application was varied prior to determination, in accordance with the terms of section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended. The variations incorporate changes to the layout, landscaping scheme, roads and transportation information and details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme.
Page 23
Planning Obligations and Legal Agreements 123. None required. Direction By Scottish Ministers 124. Under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, regulations 30 – 33 there have been no directions by the Scottish Government in respect of an Environmental Impact Assessment screening opinion, call in or notification relating to this application. Conclusion and Reasons for Recommendation 125. To conclude, the application must be determined in accordance with the 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 account of the relevant material considerations, and none has been found that would justify overriding the Development Plan. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal on the grounds identified below. . Recommendation Refuse the application: 1. The development, owing to its size, scale, appearance and location, raises significant landscape character and visual impact concerns, failing to contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment. The development is therefore considered contrary to Policies 1A, 1B ‘Placemaking’, and Policy 39 ‘Landscape’ of the adopted Perth & Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and Policy 4(a) ‘Natural Places’, of National Planning Framework 4 (2023), as well as the Council’s Placemaking Supplementary Guidance (2020). 2. The development, owing to inadequate mitigation in seeking to offset landscape concerns raised, fails to comply with Policy 11(e)(ii) ‘Energy’, of the National Planning Framework 4 (2023). 3. The development negatively impacts upon soils and the loss of prime agricultural land has not been suitably justified. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policy 50 ‘Prime Agricultural Land’ of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019), and Policy 5(b)(i) ‘Soils’ of National Planning Framework 4 (2023). Procedural Notes Not applicable to this application. Background Papers Letters of representation 320
Page 24
Authors Name Designation Contact Details Alan Atkins Planning Officer (Majors) 01738 475300 developmentmanagement@pkc.gov.uk Approved Name Designation Date Sean Panton Team Leader (Major Applications and Enforcement) 29 April 2026