25/01678/Fll
Perth and Kinross Council · 10 June 2026
Back to Planning and Placemaking Committee — 10 June 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 – 10 June 2026 Report of Handling by Development Management and Building Standards Service Manager (Report No. 26/165) Proposal: Erection of 35 dwellinghouses and associated works (allocated site H40 in the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019)) Location: Site East of St Cedd's Road, Ballinluig Ref. No: 25/01678/FLL Ward No: P4- Highland Summary This report recommends approval of a detailed planning application for a remix of a ‘live’ residential site within the Ballinluig settlement boundary, as application as the development is 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. This planning application seeks to amend existing and ‘live’ residential permissions on a site within the Ballinluig settlement boundary. Notwithstanding its planning status, the site remains within the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as a 1.7 hectare residential site (H40) capable of delivering an indicative 14-21 units. 2. Detailed permission was initially granted on this site in 2009 for 15 residential dwellings, and that permission has subsequently been amended over the years, including an extra 4 dwellings being added in 2018. Initial engineering operations have occurred on site, and 3 of the dwellings have been built out at the southern end of the site before further construction stalled. It is therefore the settled position of the Council that the relevant planning permissions have commenced, are no longer time barred and planning permission remains in place for a further 16 units.
Page 2
3. This application looks to increase the number of units from that balance of 16 up to 35 units. This would be delivered by a remix of house types which are mostly two storey. The house types proposed comprise 8 different house types (some variations of the same design), the majority being semi-detached, cottage flats (four units in a block), and a terrace. A single detached unit is proposed. The ‘live’ permission was mostly detached units with several pairs of semi-detached, with accommodation over one level or two levels with the upper levels within the roof spaces. 4. Collectively, the proposal provides a good variance of different bedrooms and occupancy options from small 1 bed/2 persons units up to large family homes comprising 3 bed/6 person offerings. All of the units are to be affordable and the site has been identified with Council’s current Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) as a priority site for affordable housing. The allocation of funding through the SHIP was a response to a demand for modern, affordable homes in Highland Perthshire which was highlighted in a briefing paper to elected members in May 2025 (Affordable Housing Supply Programme 24/25). The paper identified the highland ward as an area where significant demand exists for affordable homes as a result of limited progress in delivery of homes up to 2025, largely due to difficulties in land availability. With the site history of a ‘live’ permission established and a willing land owner, the application site was highlighted as a suitable location for new affordable homes. 5. The Council is looking to take ownership of the properties upon completion to deliver social rented affordable housing. 6. A breakdown of the size and type of units is listed below, • 1 bed, 2 person (8) – Cottage flats over two storeys • 1 bed, 2 person (2) – Cottage flats over two storeys • 2 bed, 3 person (2 units) – Semi-detached dwelling over two storeys • 2 bed, 3 persons (12) – Cottage flat over two storeys • 2 Bed, 4 person (2) – Semi-detached single storey for wheelchair users • 2 bed, 4 person (1) – detached single storey for wheelchair user • 3 bed, 5 person (2) – semi detached over two storeys • 3 bed, 6 person / 5 person (6), terrace over two storeys 7. In terms of the three units which are intended for wheelchair user occupancy, it should be noted that all the 35 units will comply with the Building Standards regulations in relation to accessibility requirements. The three specific wheelchair units are however fully wheelchair accessible throughout by virtue of being single storey in nature. 8. As part of the proposal, a new sustainable urban drainage (SUDS) basin will be formed at the lower part of the site (northwest), and an informal private area of amenity space will be delivered at the highest part (northeast).
Page 3
Discussions remain on going whether the basin will be adopted by either Scottish Water or the Council, but the amenity space area will not be adopted by the Council but will be privately maintained by the applicant and available for public use. 9. In terms of means of vehicular access to the site, a new connection to an existing hammerhead on St Cedd’s Road will formed. The new road serving the development will be made up to an adoptable standard and will ultimately be adopted by the Council and added to its local road network. 10. In terms of renewable technologies, all the units will have access to EV charging stations, PV panels and air source heat pumps. 11. The natural slopes of the site slopes upwards west to east, away from the existing dwellings on St Cedd’s Road and the slope continues past the boundary of the site to the east. The current ground levels have areas of bunds and raised soils which is a result of recent drainage works, archaeological investigations and early site investigation activities. In order to deliver the road and drainage infrastructure in particular, and to help reduce the level of overlooking to existing properties, the ground levels of the road and the floor level of the residential units will be lower than the existing ground levels across the site by up 3.5m. 12. The eastern portion of the site, as well as the north and south will be regraded from the development site back up to existing levels. A number of retaining walls (approx. 0.5m-1.8m in height) and ‘cuts’ are proposed across the principal part of the site to stabilise the ground, and these will replace the formerly approved retaining structure which ran across the site north to south. At the proposed SUDS area, a more substantial engineered retaining structure of approx. 3.4m is required. Site History 13. 09/00590/FUL - Full Planning Permission was approved on the site on 31 July 2009 for Erection of 15 dwellinghouses with integral garages or parking and associated infrastructure 14. 14/00589/FLL - Full Planning Permission was approved on the site 15 July 2014 for the variation of condition 1 of permission 09/00590/FLL (the erection of 15 dwellinghouses) and associated works) to extend the time period for the commencement of development. This permission has commenced by virtue of material operations commencing on site.
Page 4
15. 18/02315/FLL - Full Planning Permission was Approved On part of the site 24 April 2019 for the erection of 7 dwellinghouses, formation of vehicular accesses and associated works (revised site layout, change of house types and addition of 4 plots). This permission has commenced by virtue of three of the units being built. 16. 19/00792/FLL - Full Planning Permission was approved on part of the site on 17 June 2019 for the Formation of Rock Armour Retaining Structure. This permission has expired and is now not the preferred engineering solution to stabilising the soil. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 17. The proposal is a Schedule 2 development under the 2017 EIA regulations by virtue of it being more than 0.5ha in size. It has therefore been screened by the Council as the competent Planning Authority to determine whether or not the proposal should be considered an EIA development needs to go through the EIA progress. The outcome of that screening was that the proposal was not proposal is not EIA development. Pre-Application Consultation 18. The proposed development is not classed as a Major development in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, therefore the applicant was not required to undertake not any formal pre-application consultation with the local community. 19. Notwithstanding this there has been engagement with the local community and the Mid Atholl Community Council both pre-submission and during the submission of the application, as well as pre-submission discussions with the Council. Development Plan 20. The Development Plan for the area comprises National Planning Framework 4, the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and statutory supplementary planning guidance. National Planning Framework 4 21. 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.
Page 5
22. 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 14: Design, Quality and Place • Policy 16: Quality Homes • Policy 17: Rural Homes • Policy 20: Blue and Green Infrastructure • Policy 29: Rural Development Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) 23. 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. 24. The site is located within the settlement boundary of Ballinluig and has been identified as the housing site H40. 25. A number of site-specific developer requirements are listed within the zoning, however it should be borne in mind that there are ‘live’ planning permissions in place for a balance of 16 residential units across the site, and those permissions could be built out as per the approved plans.
Page 6
26. It is noted that LDP2 within its general description for this settlement and within the table for H40, does not refer to these earlier permissions. The material operations which ‘triggered’ the commencements of the permissions occurred at a comparable time when the LDP2 was being produced, and an updated position in terms of the planning status of the site appears not to have been fully captured before the final version of LDP2 was adopted. It should be noted that within LDP3 the site will not be included as a housing site due to the ‘live’ permissions. 27. In addition to the above, as the site is located within the settlement boundary of Ballinluig, the following general policies are applicable to this proposal, • Policy 1A: Placemaking • Policy 1B: Placemaking • Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions • Policy 17: Residential Areas • Policy 20: Affordable Housing • Policy 25: Housing Mix • Policy 32: Embedding Low and Zero Carbon Generating Technology in New Development • Policy 41: Biodiversity • Policy 53A: Water Environment and Drainage • Policy 60A: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements Statutory Supplementary Planning Guidance 28. The following statutory SPGs are applicable to this proposal, • Developer Contributions & Affordable Housing (adopted in 2023) • Flood Risk and Flood Risk Assessments (adopted in 2021) • Open Space Provision for New Developments (adopted in 2021) • Placemaking (adopted in 2020) Other Material Considerations PKC - Corporate Plan Vision and Priorities 29. The proposed raises no conflict with any of the Council’s priorities, and it aligns positively with the following specific priorities, • Tackling climate change and supporting sustainable places
Page 7
PKC - The Strategic Housing Investment Plan 2026/27 – 2030/31 30. The Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) outlines investment priorities for new supply affordable housing over five years, aligning with the outcomes set out in the Local Housing Strategy (LHS) 2022-2027. With the SHIP, the application site was identified as a key priority site for 25 homes for the Council, and 10 homes for a local community housing trust. The trust has since withdrawn their interest, and the Council is now taking on the entire site and all 35 homes. Members will be aware that the committed target for the Council is 210 affordable homes per year. National Planning Guidance 31. The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through Planning Notes, Planning Guidance Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and a series of Circulars in addition to NPF4. Those relevant are listed below. Planning Advice Notes 32. PAN 2/10: Affordable housing and land audits offers guidance on Affordable Housing provision, and type of affordable housing. Planning Guidance 33c. The Scottish Government recent guidance on Biodiversity (2025) highlights the importance of both protection and enhancement of biodiversity in new developments. National Roads Development Guide 2014 34. 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. Other PKC Non-Statutory Planning Guidance 35. The following non-statutory planning guidance are applicable to this proposal, • Loch Leven SPA, the Dunkeld-Blairgowrie Lochs SAC and the River Tay SAC • Planning & Biodiversity
Page 8
Local Place Plans 36. Local Place Plans (LPP) are community-led plans setting out proposals for the development and use of land and set out a community’s aspirations for its future development. There are no existing LPP which affect this proposal. Consultations 37. As part of the planning application process the following bodies were consulted: External 38. Transport Scotland have commented on the proposal in terms of the impact on the A9(T) and have raised no objections. 39. Scottish Water have commented on the proposal in terms of public capacity and have raised no objection at this stage. 40. NHS have been consulted on the proposal in terms of their views on capacity issues with local NHS services but have opted not to make any specific comment. Internal Council Comments 41. Development Contributions Officer has confirmed that there is no requirement for any Transport Infrastructure or Primary Education contributions. 42. Structures and Flooding have commented on the proposal and raised no objection subject to clarification on mitigation measures being agreed and that surface water is managed in accordance with current standards. They also have no objection to the retaining structures but ask that further contact is made direct with the team if any of the structures are proposed for adoption by the Council. 43. Environmental Health have commented on the proposal in terms of noise and construction matters, and have no objections subject to appropriate conditions and informative notes being attached to the permission. 44. Community Greenspace have commented on the proposal and have indicated that the Council would not be looking to maintain the proposed amenity space, but combination of a financial combination towards the upgrade of equipment at the existing LEAP within the village and for the amenity space to be privately maintained and made available for public use would be acceptable.
Page 9
45. Transportation and Development have commented on the proposal and after the submission of further information, they have no objections to the proposal in terms of the impact on the local road network, the acceptability of the new vehicular access and parking provision. Representations 46 Eight letters of representations were received during the initial consultation period, all of which are objecting to the proposal. Further information was submitted by the applicant in response to both the initial consultations and representations, and included improved visuals and minor changes to the layout. After reconsultation, four of the initial eight interested parties opted to make a further comment, all of which were again objecting to the proposal. Across the two sets of consultations, the principal issues raised within the representations are: • Proposal is contrary to the Development Plan • Out of keeping with the area • Excessive numbers / density • Flooding concerns • Overlooking / loss of privacy • Traffic and access concerns • Lack of infrastructure and public services 47 These issues are addressed in the Appraisal section of the report. Additional Statements Screening Opinion Undertaken by PKC. No EIA required. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not required. Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations AA not required Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Planning statement submitted Report on Impact or Potential Impact Ecology and drainage Appraisal 48. 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.
Page 10
49. The Development Plan comprises NPF4, the LDP2 and statutory SPGs. The relevant policy considerations are outlined in the policy section above and are considered in more detail below. 50 In terms of other material considerations, this involves considerations of the Council’s other non-statutory policies and planning guidance - which includes the SHIP, the sites planning history and status, namely it’s a ‘live’ consented residential site. Consideration of national planning guidance and policies are also material considerations and this includes letters from the Scottish Governments Chief Planner about the then emerging housing crisis across the country. Policy 51. There are relevant policies contained in all parts of the Development Plan. 52. In terms of the NPF4, Policies 1 (Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises and 2 (Climate Mitigation and Adaptation) look to ensure that all new developments take into account climate change and its implications. Policy 3 (Biodiversity) seeks to ensure that new developments provide a proportionate level of biodiversity enhancements, Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) promotes a high standard of design for all new development, and Policy 16 (Quality Homes) supports new quality homes across Scotland in suitable locations. Policy 20 (Blue and Green Infrastructure) looks to protect and enhance blue and green infrastructure through suitable designs. 53. Whilst this site is located within the LDP2 settlement boundary of Ballinluig, the site is considered to be in a ‘rural’ area. The Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification 2022 provides guidance on a consistent way of defining urban / rural areas across Scotland, and in broad terms the definition of a rural area is an area which has a local population of under 3000 - which would be the case for Ballinluig, and it’s surrounding area. In light of this, whilst the site is within the settlement of the LDP2, Policies 17 (Rural Homes) and Policy 29 (Rural Development) of the NPF4 therefore become relevant, and both of these policies support rural developments subject to certain criteria being met and fulfilled. 54. In terms of the LDP2, whilst the site has a ‘live’ permission for residential development it has been included within the plan as the housing site H40. In addition to this, there are a number of policies within the LDP2 which are applicable to this remix and increase of numbers including Policies 1 (Placemaking), 17 (Residential Areas), Policy 20 (Affordable Housing), 25 (Housing Mix), 32 (Embedding Low and Zero Carbon Generating Technology in New Development), 41 (Biodiversity), 53A (Water Environment and Drainage) and 60A (Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements).
Page 11
55. Policy 1 seeks to ensure that all new proposals respect the character and amenity of the area concerned, whilst Policy 17 generally encourages new residential developments within settlement providing the proposal is at the right density, and that the development respects the character of the area. Policy 20 looks to ensure that a suitable provision of affordable housing is included within residential developments, with a strong preference for onsite provision for the medium and larger scale developments – which this what development would be considered as. 56. Policy 25 looks to ensure that residential sites have a health balance of house types offering a range of occupancy options, whilst Policy 32 looks to ensure that all new developments take into account climate change and include low and zero carbon generating technologies into the development, and this especially relates to heating systems. 57. Policy 41 looks to ensure that both protected and local wildlife are fully considered as part of the assessment of developments, and Policy 53 looks to ensure that the existing water environment is not affected by new proposals and that drainage measures are fully considered. Policy 60 looks to ensure that all road and parking related matters comply with Council’s own standards, as well as the standards contained within the NRDG. 58. In terms of statutory supplementary planning guidance, the Council policies on Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing, Flooding and Open Space on New Residential Sites are all applicable. Affordable Housing / Housing Emergency Affordable Housing Provision 59. This application is for 100% affordable housing, and the Council is in advance negotiations to take ownership of all the homes and to make them available for social rent tenure. 60. Members will be fully aware that the Council’s SHIP sets out the key investment priorities for affordable housing over a 5 year period within Perth and Kinross with a target of delivering 210 completed homes per year. This specific site has been included in 2026/27 plan, and given prioritisation as a key affordable housing site. Originally, the Council had intended to only take ownership of 25 units, with the remaining 10 units being advanced by a local Community Housing Trust (CHT), but their interest has subsequently been withdrawn. In order to ensure the site is delivered the Council has consequently taken over all of the 35 units which the SHIP makes reference too and which funds have been allocated towards.
Page 12
61. The site is within current year financial programme (26/27), which reflects its status as a key strategic objective in terms of the delivery of affordable housing within the Highland Housing Market Area. Once advanced, the 35 homes will contribute significantly towards Local Housing Strategy 210 target of new affordable homes in rural areas for the period 2027/2028 - which is when it is envisaged that completions will start to take place. National Housing Emergency 62. Across Scotland, there is a national housing emergency, and this is one of the Scottish Government’s key areas for concerns and one which the planning system can contribute to addressing through both the Development Plan process (site allocations) and Development Management (determining applications). Within the NPF4, Policy 17 (b) also relates back to the need for new rural homes and looks for Planning Authorities to take into account identified local housing needs, including the need for affordable housing in the locations concerned when assessing applications. Whilst part f) of Policy 17 relates to unallocated and opportunists sites, the reference to offering support for proposals which involve less than 50 units on unallocated sites which are part of a local authority supported affordable housing plan shows a clear policy commitment to supporting sites which are strategically important to local authorities and which have funds committed. 63. Notwithstanding the above, the national housing emergency and the need for affordable homes does not automatically override all other planning assessments and considerations but it is nevertheless a significant consideration for this development bearing in mind the committed financial investment by the Council for developing this site, as identified with the SHIP. Land Use Acceptability 64. The site benefits from previous planning permissions which have commenced by virtue of a material operations taking place within the prescribed timeframes. 65. The site is also identified within the LDP2 as a residential site. 66. Policy 16 (Quality Homes) of the NPF4 makes it clear that proposals for residential development on sites which are identified for residential uses within LDPs should be supported, and that such proposals should offer a range of house types with a focus on delivering affordable, quality homes in suitable locations. There are some specific criteria for new residential sites which are not allocated for residential uses within the LDP, but this would not be directly applicable for this proposal as the site is allocated within the LDP (and it benefits from a planning permission). It is however relevant that Policy 16 through criteria (f) looks to give weight for affordable housing proposals on unallocated sites if there is support for the proposal through local affordable housing plans.
Page 13
As mentioned previously, this site is included within the Council’s SHIP and has financial support allocated for the coming year. 67. Policy 16 goes on to refers to compliance with Policy 17 (Rural Homes) of the NPF4. 68. Policy 17 reiterates similar position to Policy 16, insofar as implying that proposals on sites which are allocated for residential development in the LDP should generally be supported, providing that they are suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area. 69. In light of this, the principle of a residential development on this site is firmly established and the proposed residential use complies with the principles of both the LDP2 and the NPF4. It is not considered reasonable to revisit the acceptability of a residential use on this site again. 70. The current proposal is however increasing the numbers of units, changing the appearance of the development (by virtue of layout and house types) and would have a different interaction with the existing properties from previous planning permissions. It is also fact that the proposed unit numbers are higher than what is contained within the LDP2. 71. Accordingly, the key considerations for this proposal are therefore focused on these issues, not the principle of a residential use across the site. Density / Numbers 72. The density of a residential development can be considered in two different ways. 73. The most obvious way would be to look at the number of units over a given area. In that regard as the proposal is for 35 units and the LDP2 suggests up to 21 units across the site and the live planning permissions consents for 16 units - the number/density of this development is increasing from these two baselines. 74. Another way of looking at density would not be to focus on the number of units, but to focus on the physical density or built density a development would have. Under the current proposal, the area where development is proposed would be fairly comparable to what already benefits from the two previous planning permissions, especially in terms of the footprint of the proposed units. The combined footprint of the consented 16 units covered approx. 1800sqm whilst the footprint of the buildings accommodating the proposed 35 units is only marginally more at approx. 1850sqm. The areas proposed for new roads and drainage (SUDS) is also broadly the same between the existing permission and this remix.
Page 14
75. A higher number of units have been delivered by offering cottage flats which have 4 units over a comparable footprint to that of a single detached unit, as well as semi-detaches and terraces. The result is a higher number, but not necessarily a higher building density. 76. General good practice planning principles tend to look to ensure that available sites and those which perhaps already have planning permission, have been allocated within LDP or are brownfield to be developed as efficiently as possible to reduce the pressure on greenfield sites, and placing more pressure on sites which are not as well suited for development. 77. There are significant challenges in securing sites within highland Perthshire which are able to deliver quality, modern affordable homes. When sites such as this do become available, it is essential that the development proposed is as efficient has possible in terms of getting the most out of the site, whilst still being mindful of respecting the area concerned and all the relevant planning policies which are applicable. The increase to 35 does this, and whilst there have been some representations, the development does not compromise existing amenity, nor would it be out of character with the area in terms of its appearance or scale. 78. The layout and general appearance of the development is considered to be acceptable (discussed below), and there are no concerns over the ability of the local road network to accommodate the extra traffic. There are no obvious planning issues restricting the increase in numbers. 79. It is noted that some concerns have been raised about the ability of local services to cope with 35 extra homes, and the ability of the NHS to accommodate new patients in relation to GP and dentists. In terms of general amenities such as local shops etc, more footfall would be positive for helping to ensure that local services are maintained, and the same applies to the local school (Logierait) which has a fragile school roll and is currently operating at around 50%. However, whilst the planning system can help to influence and deliver physical infrastructure, issues over staffing levels is a matter for the NHS to address. The NHS were consulted on this planning application, but opted not to make any specific comment. Design / Layout 80. Concerns have been raised within the representations that the proposed house types would be out of keeping with the existing village, and in particular that the two storey nature of a number of the units is not appropriate. It is the case that the majority of Ballinluig contains single storey properties, and whilst some do have accommodation within their roofspace the majority generally remain single storey in their appearance.
Page 15
81. Notwithstanding that, there are two storey properties in the village which are a mix of typical two storeys, and others which have two storey elements such as the properties along Buail Bhan. Equally, there are other properties within the village which offer accommodation within their roofspace via a combination of dormers and rooflights. 82. Ultimately, there is not a specific design approach to Ballinluig, or any specific design restriction on what height (or appearance) new properties should be or a development brief for this site. 83. The key considerations are whether or not the character and appearance of the existing area would be adversely affected by the proposal (essentially the combination of the house types and layout), whether the proposal is of a high standard in terms of its design, and ultimately whether the proposal would result in an incongruous development. 84. The design of the house types are of a high quality, with the use of materials which are both traditional (timber and wet dash) and more modern (metal roof). The use of metal as a roof material is becoming more common, primarily due to costings and low maintenance but in rural areas it does not necessarily look out of character with the area. 85. Additional visuals and sectional details have been produced to help demonstrate how development will look in the context of the existing buildings. The reduction in the ground levels by up to 3.5m will bring the levels of the site lower as to what they are currently (and previously), and whilst the finished development will still be located on higher ground than the existing terraces to the west, the different between the two is considered to be acceptable in terms of both the visual impact and helping to reduce overlooking. It does need to be remembered that the development is within a village and within built up areas, some degree of interaction is to be expected. 86. The broad mix of bedrooms and occupancy options is proposed and this is welcomed as it accords with Policy 16(c) of the NPF4 which looks to support proposals which improve affordability and choice by offering affordable homes and a range of size of homes such as those for larger families. It needs to be borne in mind that if two storey units were not included as part of the proposal, it would be exceptionally challenging to increase the number of units above the 16 already approved and to deliver the range of different accommodation options that the current proposal offers. 87. In terms of the visual amenity impacts, there is no doubt the development will be visible from the west, and from the A9(T) but the presence of the existing terraces in the foreground will help to reduce its prominence to some degree. Single storey or buildings with accommodation within the roofspace would have less of a visual impact, however visibility alone is not a reason for refusal.
Page 16
The question is whether or not there would be an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area, not whether there is a change to it. In this case, the impact is not considered to be an adverse one. 88. In terms of the general layout across the site, as mentioned previously the natural shape of the site strongly influences where the internal road can be located to allow for any development to occur, and there are not too many different options available, especially bearing in mind the gradients and ground levels. The layout which has been brought forward generally reflects the previous designs which have been acceptable to the Council in terms of the road layout, the location of the dwellings and the SUDS area. The arrangement of essentially a linear road, with development at either site does respect the existing pattern of the village with the three principal streets of Ballinluig all being similar in how they are laid out. Residential Amenity 89. In terms of the potential impact on existing properties to the south and west of the site, it is noted that there have been some representations made in terms of loss of privacy and overlooking. The closest interactions would occur with Plots 34/35 with 14/15 St Cedd’s Road, and the block of cottage flats contained Plots 2-5 and 26-29 St Cedd’s Road. 90. In terms of Plots 34/35 and its relationship with the adjacent properties, after a review of the initial representations the applicant opted reorientate the building to avoid placing windows on the southern elevation facing both the ‘Learig’ and 14/15 St Cedd’s Road. A proposed pedestrian link has also removed, after concerns were raised within the representations. After reviewing the amended proposal, the interested parties concerns that the building would restrict daylight to the existing properties by virtue of its two storey nature remained, some overlooking may still occur and that the building would appear overly oppressive. Additional sectional details (Plan 43) were subsequently received which helps to demonstrate levels and relationships better from the initially submitted plans, and other amendments. Between Plots 34/35 and the Learig there will be approx. 21.5m of separation between properties with new banking proposed along the boundary of the site and landscaping which will help to reduce any direct window to window impacts and also reduce the visual impact of the development from this property. 91 The interaction between Plots 34/35 and 14/15 St Cedd’s is closer than the Learig, with approx. 11.5 between properties, and a closer interaction to the side garden of No 15. Unlike the boundary further to the east along the southern section, the levels between Plots 34/35 and 14/15 St Cedd’s is generally flat, so the new building will appear higher. Overlooking and loss of privacy has been addressed by the reorientation of the building, but there would remain some level of varying heights.
Page 17
As units 34/35 is to the north of 14/15 St Cedd’s and is not directly behind the existing property, there is not likely to be a significant impact on sunlight or daylight on the rear windows but it is accepted that the larger building might appear oppressive to come degree, but an approx. 2m height increase between properties not particularly uncommon in build-up areas. In all, the relationship at the southern part of the site is considered to be acceptable but clarification on new planting and boundary treatments will be requested to be clarified before the development comments (Condition 7) 92. In terms of Plots 2-5, these will be higher than the terraces to the west as can be shown on Section C-C on Plan 32. Plots 2-5 is located between 10m and 20m from the mutual boundary and approx. 23m-35m from the back of the existing terraces. At these distances, and bearing in mind the orientation of Plots 2-5 is positioned at an angle away from the back of the existing terraces overlooking or loss of privacy is not likely to occur to an unacceptable level. Similar to the southern part of the development, clarification on landscaping, planting and boundary treatments at this location will be subject to further approval. 93. In terms of being able to provide a suitable level of residential amenity for future occupiers, private rear gardens which are at least 9m in depth is the general standard as set out in the SPG on Placemaking. For flats, there is no specific guidance on amenity standards within the SPG, and these are considered on a case by case basis. 94. Across the development there are a mix of houses and flats, and there are some areas where whilst the curtilages of both may be more than 9m in depth, the area of actual amenity space is less due to steep gradients between the development area, and the existing higher ground levels. This is demonstrated on Plan 32 which provides sectional details across the site. 95. Plots 1, 20 and 21 are smaller dwellings, and whilst it would have been preferable for these to have a depth of garden of 9m all three can still provide around over 100sqm of usable amenity space so the issue with the depth of garden is not considered a significant issue for these plots, especially when there are no existing properties to consider. For Plots 20 and 21 a large proportion would be private, but for Plot 1, the associated amenity space would be more open and exposed due to its corner site position. Some interaction will inevitably occur with the adjacent block of cottage flats, but overlooking will be limited to a vestibule window at first floor level. 96. Plot 10 is a larger dwelling offering 3 beds. The corner nature of this plot means that over 100sqm of usable and private garden space can delivered and whilst the depth does not achieve 9m, with no existing neighbours at this part of the site in direct contact, this arrangement is also considered acceptable.
Page 18
97. In terms of the cottage flats, the three blocks which contain Plots 22-33 do not offer anything near 9m depth of shared amenity space due to the steep gradients. There is however still a reasonable amount of space for expected day to day activities such as drying washing, and individual rotary dryers have been shown as well as grass areas. The smaller gardens and the flatted nature of the units would be reflected in the rentable value, and with other plots having larger amenity areas a good level of variation and choice can be offered to potential occupiers. 98. In all, and on balance on some areas the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of residential amenity issues, and aligns with the general principles of the Placemaking policies contained across the Development Plan. Roads and Access 99. During the course of the assessment of the proposal, further information was submitted to by the applicant’s to address some initial concerns and observations by the Transport Planning team which related to swept paths for larger vehicles to safely enter and leave the site (such as refuge vehicles), dimensions of the parking areas, gradients across the road / parking areas. Minor amendments were made to the layout to address the issues raised, and the final site layout (Plan 31) addressed Transport Planning’s initial concerns, and the resultant proposal is considered to comply with both the Council’s own road standards, the requirement of Policy 60 of the LDP2 and the requirements of the NRDG. In terms of trip generations, some concerns have been raised about potential disturbance which the increase in traffic movements may cause on residential properties and on the local roads, and in particular at the access point from St Cedds. The number of vehicular movements in the area will increase as a result of this development, however this is projected to be an increase of around 1 extra movement every 4 minutes during peak periods which is not considered to be significant and bearing in mind the local network is capable of accommodating this, from both a disturbance and road / pedestrian safety point of view it is accepted. 100. The road will be adopted by PKC, and a separate application for Road Construction Consent (RCC) will be required. Open Space 101. The site benefits from planning permission for a residential development which had no functional areas of open space and included an engineered SUDS basin - which was functional only, and not designed to be multi use or even biodiversity friendly. There was no requirement for any physical upgrades to existing play infrastructure within the village or any financial contributions relating to such upgrades as part of the approved permissions.
Page 19
102. The current proposal proposes to include an informal area of amenity space at the highest part of the site which will be around 400sqm. The area will be a mix of a wildflower meadow, with some grass amenity space and simple benches for the residents of this development and the general public use, but will remain in the ownership of the current applicant (Algo) - unlike the land associated with the principal part of the development where PKC will take ownership of. 103. Notwithstanding the likely split in land ownership, as this area is within the red line site boundary, it is entirely reasonable to use appropriately worded conditions to ensure that the specification of ground works and planting is such that the areas will be hard wearing, and low (self) maintenance, and that a maintenance regime is submitted for the approval of the Council as part of this permission. Outwith the planning process, the legal contacts between the Council, and the applicant will inevitably also reflect this position. 104. It was the initial thoughts that the amenity space could perhaps be adopted by PKC as a new, onsite Local Equipped Area of Plan (LEAP) – which would align with the requirements of the SPG on Open Space and the 400sqm size reflects this. However, on reflection, the location of proposed amenity area would not be suitable for all users (particularly those with mobility issues), and with an existing LEAP already in the village and reasonably close by, it is considered more appropriate to seek a financial contribution to upgrade the existing LEAP in lieu of onsite provision and to keep the onsite area as informal amenity space. This has been discussed and agreed in principle with all the relevant stakeholders. 105. Whilst not having onsite provision perhaps raises some conflict with the terms of the SPG on Open Space, the combination of the financial contribution and the informal space being provided (at no long term cost to the Council) is considered to comply with the spirit of the SPG and it is an acceptable compromise, especially bearing in mind that nothing meaningful would have been delivered as part of the previous planning permissions and that the natural shape of the site could make it challenging to deliver a LEAP within the principal part of the site. Prior to the issuing of the formal decision notice relating to this permission, clarification on the timing of the payment of the requested financial contribution will be secured. Public Access 106. There are a number of core paths in the area with almost a circular route available around the site via MASG/104 and MASG/107. Initially, the proposal looked to provide a connection to existing paths (not part of the core path route) to the south to connect the site to the northern end of Buail Bhan but this has been removed after discussions between existing residents and the applicant.
Page 20
107. Both the Development Plan and the NRDG look to support and encourage new developments to connect with the existing network - both vehicular and pedestrian routes. Alternative routes to pick up both the core paths and other regular paths and footways are not challenging or excessive, and in light of concerns from some of the interested parties over the intended linkage, omitting it from the proposals is not considered to be a significant issue. Whilst it would be unlikely that the construction phase would physically affect the existing core path routes, a precautionary condition is recommended to ensure that these routes are not blocked or damaged during the construction phase or indeed on completion of the development (Condition 10) 108. Subject to this, the proposal raises no compatibility issues with the various public access related policies contained in the Development Plan. Drainage and Flooding 109. In terms of flooding, there are some known flooding issues arising from the higher sloping ground, and there was localised flooding in January of this year which affected some of the existing properties to the west along St Cedds Road. The applicant, and the adjacent landowner reacted to this event and have since delivered flooding mitigation on the area to the east (outwith the planning site) to control water coming of the higher grounds to manage it in a more sustainable matter. Whilst PKC have had sight of engineered drawings for the proposed works, these works have been undertaken through permitted development rights with no formal control through the planning process. In light of this, a condition is recommended that final details of the overland flows, and an exceedance routing takes into account the 1:200 + CC overland flow paths (including flows from the north and south catchments and from the small watercourse), and which shows how these are to be intercepted or routed so as not affect the planning site, cause ponding at the site access or affect existing properties shall be submitted for further approval, in consultation with the Council’s Flooding Team (Condition 11). 110. In terms of regular drainage, surface water from the site itself will be directed to the SUDS basin at the northwestern corner of the site, whilst foul drainage will be directed to the existing system which is in the process of being adopted by Scottish Water. An application will need to be made to Scottish Water for this connection, and the applicant has indicated within their submission that improvements to the system will be required to accommodate this proposal. A separate condition which looks to manage surface water during the construction phase is also recommended, as due to the nature of the site (sloping), the combination of heavy rainfall and exposed soil could result in issues for the properties on the lower slopes, if the site is not managed properly (Conditions 2, 3 and 4).
Page 21
111. In all, the proposal aligns positively with the various drainage and flooding policies of the Development Plan. Waste Collection 112. The adopted road will serve all 35 units. One of the requirements of an adopted road is that it is accessible for service vehicles (such as refuge, emergency service and delivery vehicles). The amended layout delivers this requirement, so all collections would be at the individual properties presentation areas or at the communal areas. Provision for storage of individual bins has been provided where it is practical to do so, with some areas having communal areas serving a number of units. This arrangement is considered to be acceptable, and an informative note is attached to the permission to highlight the chargeable service for the provision of initial bins for new residential sites (Informative 8). Extra comfort is taken from the fact that the entire development will be administered by the Council and solutions to any practicality issues will be fully within the gift of the Council to resolve to its own satisfaction. Conservation Considerations 113 The proposal does not affect any listed building or conservation areas. There was some known archaeology in the area and as part of the previous permissions there was a requirement for a written scheme of investigation (WSI) to firstly be approved by the Council, then to be undertaken, and then further reports to be submitted to the Council to confirm the outcome of those investigations. PKHT are content that the previous WSI and the subsequent reports are all in order, and ultimately nothing of any significance was found in the trial trenches. In light of this, the proposal raises no issues with the relevant cultural heritage policies contained in the Development Plan. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity 114. A comprehensive ecology survey has been undertaken which covers both local and protected species, and addresses the impact on the existing woodland habitat to the east and is considered to accord with the recognised standards. It does not highlight the need for any pre-decision surveys to establish the impact on species, but it does look for a pre-start survey for red squirrels to ensure nothing has changed and to take into account the roaming nature of the species. The recommendation of a buffer area to the woodland area to the east has been provided with the area excluded from private gardens (as recommended within the report), and other bio-diversity mitigation measures and enhancement measures such as bat and bird boxes and new planting which is both native and biodiversity friendly have been included.
Page 22
115. Whilst the majority of the site is clear of any trees, along the western boundary there is a run of overgrown hedges (behind the existing terrace of properties), and other self-seeded trees at the southern end which have become established over the years. These trees have been surveyed for ecology and have low biodiversity value, and also have low visual amenity value. As part of the development a tree replanting scheme will be required which will both enhance the visual and biodiversity qualities of the site, and also help to provide some level of screening between the development and the existing properties. Pre start tree protection measures consistent with BS 5837 will also take place along the eastern boundary is proposed to safeguard the perimeter woodland throughout construction, as contained within the ecology report recommendation (Conditions 8 and 12). 116. Subject to these measures being undertaken, the proposal is considered to comply with the various biodiversity policies of the Development Plan. A condition is recommended to ensure that all recommendations within the ecology report Section 8 are adhered to in full both before and during the construction phase and on completion of the development (Condition 12), as well as specific condition in relation to the proposed final details of both the amenity space area and the SUDS. Impact on the River Tummel / River Tay 117. The River Tummel is part of the River Tay Special Conservation Area (SAC), and the site itself is located within the River Tay Catchment Area. The site is physically separated from the River Tummel by virtue of existing properties, the A9(T) and the Perth to Inverness railway line, so physical impact to the watercourse both during the construction phase and on completion are unlikely. The management of water from the site, both surface water and foul water are to be designed and controlled in accordance with current practices and there will be no impact on the environmental interests and qualities of the River Tummel. Policy 47 of the LDP2 looks to protect the interests of the River Tay Catchment by seeking additional information to help demonstrate the likely impact in certain areas of the catchment. Whilst Ballinluig is not within the areas listed, the principles of Policy 47 have been met as part of the submission in terms of ecological surveys and ensuring that the proposed drainage arrangements have no reduction in the quality of water of the River Tummel/River Tay SAC (Condition 2). 118. The proposal therefore raises no issues with compliance with the various Development Plan policies relating to environmental designations, or water quality.
Page 23
Climate Change / Low and Zero Carbon Generating Technologies 119. Policy 32 of the LDP2 requires all 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. A pre-commencement condition is recommended for a statement of compliance to be submitted prior to the commencement of the development, however with EV charging stations, solar panels and ASHP proposed for all units it is not expected that there would be any issues in compliance with this specific policy (Condition 13). 120. In terms of broader climate change impacts, as mentioned previously there will be a requirement as part of this planning permission for flooding mitigation measures, and these measures will take into account climate change allowances. Overall, the proposal raises no issues with the other climate change polices contained within the Development Plan. Developer Contributions 121. There is a requirement for Developer Contributions in relation to community greenspace. Economic Impact 122. The proposal could have a positive impact on the local economy, through the creation of jobs during construction, and also through local spending in the general vicinity. Variation of Application Under Section 32a 123. During the course of the assessment of the application further information in relation visualisations, removal of footpath link and minor amendment to the layout and Plot 34/35 took place. Affected interested parties were notified and provided an opportunity to make further comment. Planning Obligations and Legal Agreements 124. None required, unless the Developer Contribution for play upgrades is delayed. Direction by Scottish Ministers 125. 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.
Page 24
Conclusion and Reasons for Recommendation 126. 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 comply with NPF4, and the adopted Local Development Plan 2 (2019). 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 approval subject to the following conditions, and to the financial settlement of contributions relating to community greenspace. Recommendation Approve the application subject to the following conditions: 1. This planning permission will last only for three years from the date of this decision notice, unless the development has been lawfully started within that period. (Reason - This is a Planning Permission in terms of Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by Section 32 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019) 2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, precise details of the sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the scheme shall be developed in accordance with the technical guidance contained in The SUDS Manual (C753) and the Council’s Flood Risk and Flood Risk Assessments Developer Guidance, shall incorporate source control and shall incorporate biodiversity enhancement measures. The approved details shall be implemented in full. (Reason – In order to clarify the terms of this planning permission, to ensure the site is adequately drained and to help ensure that a proportionate level of biodiversity enhancements are delivered). 3. Storm water drainage from all paved surfaces, including the vehicular access, shall be disposed of by means of suitable a Sustainable Urban Drainage System to meet the requirements of best management practices. (Reason – In order to ensure the site is adequately drained) 4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme to deal with surface water runoff and soil movement/slippage during the construction phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full at all times. (Reason – In order to ensure that suitable temporary measures are put in place during the construction phase to deal with surface water and / or soil spillage/movements)
Page 25
5. Construction work shall be limited to Monday to Friday 0700 hours to 1900 hours and Saturday 0800 hours to 1300 hours with no noisy works out with these times or at any time on Sundays. These construction times shall be implemented throughout the construction stage of the development unless approval has been obtained in writing by the Council as Planning Authority for alterative arrangements. (Reason – In order to ensure the construction phase is properly managed to avoid unnecessary impacts on existing residential amenity). 6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, precise details of all proposed retaining walls and structures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. The details shall include visual mitigation measures for exposed surfaces. The approved details shall be implemented in full. (Reason – In order to clarify the terms of this planning permission) 7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, precise details of all proposed boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented in full, and be completed progressively as the development processes. (Reason – In order to clarify the terms of this planning permission) 8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a detailed landscaping and tree planting scheme for the site (including a timescale for implementation and ongoing maintenance) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. The details must include the landscaping details of the proposed amenity space area, which shall include biodiversity friendly wildflower edges. All planting shall be undertaken progressively as the development progresses. The approved details shall be implemented in full, with any trees that fails within the first 5 years replaced on a like for like basis within the next available planting season (Reason – In order to clarify the terms of this planning permission) 9. All the approved residential units shall be affordable units, as per the definitions contained within Planning Advice Note 2/2010 (Affordable Housing and Housing Land Audits) (Reason – The development has been approved as affordable housing) 10. Existing core paths in the area must not be obstructed during the construction phase or on completion of the development. Any damage done to the route and/or the associated signage during building phase must be made good prior the development is completed or brought into use, whichever is the earlier. (Reason – In order to protect existing public paths and to ensure no unnecessary damage occurs)
Page 26
11. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a plan which shows the overland flow and exceedance routing of surface water from outwith the site and then on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. The details must include a timeline for implementation, and an exceedance plan showing 1:200 yr + CC overland flow paths (including flows from the north and south catchments and from the small watercourse) and show how they are intercepted or routed so as not to impact the existing terrace or cause ponding at the site access. Cross references to finished levels and road gully locations must be included. The approved details shall thereafter be implemented progressively within the approved timeline, and completed in full prior within the approved timeline. (Reason – In order to ensure the site is adequately drained and does not result ain surface water adversely affected lower properties) 12. All the recommendations contained within Section 8 of the Ecology Assessment (Plan 29) shall be implemented in full. For the avoidance of doubt, this relates to requirements before and during the construction phase and upon completion of the development. (Reason – In order to ensure that a proportionate level of biodiversity enhancement is delivered) 13. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a statement which demonstrates 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 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. The approved principles shall thereafter be implemented in full. (Reason – In order to comply with Policy 32 of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019)) Justification The proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. Procedural Notes 1. The formal decision notice shall not be issued until such time as the required financial contribution for off site play provision upgrades has been secured. This maybe be in the form of a payment ‘up front’, or a legal agreement if the payment is to be delayed.
Page 27
INFORMATIVES 1. Under section 27A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) the person undertaking the development is required to give the planning authority prior written notification of the date on which it is intended to commence the development. A failure to comply with this statutory requirement would constitute a breach of planning control under section 123(1) of that Act, which may result in enforcement action being taken. Please use the form attached herewith. 2. As soon as practicable after the development is complete, the person who completes the development is obliged by section 27B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to give the planning authority written notice of that position. Please use the form attached herewith. 3. No development shall be commenced until an application for building warrant has been submitted and approved. 4. Records indicate that at least part of the proposed development site lies within a radon affected area where the measurement/monitoring of radon gas and the installation of mitigation measures may be required. 5. Further information on radon gas and the associated reports that can be obtained is available at www.ukradon.org and at http://shop.bgs.ac.uk/georeports/. 6. The Air Source Heat Pump’s shall be certificated in accordance with Microgeneration Certification Scheme 007 and installed by an installation company certificated in accordance with Microgeneration Installation Standard 3005 and in compliance with the calculation procedure contained in Table 1 of Microgeneration Certification Scheme Planning Standards (MCS 020(a)), confirming that the permitted development noise limit of 37 dB LAeq, 5 mins will be met. 7. The Air Source Heat Pump’s shall be so enclosed, attenuated and/or maintained such that any noise therefrom shall not exceed Noise Rating 35 between 0700 and 2300 hours daily, or Noise Rating 25 between 2300 and 8. The applicant (or any other person taking on this permissions) is advised that Perth and Kinross Council have a charging scheme for recycling and waste bins for new build properties and newly created dwellings. Further information can be found at: https://www.pkc.gov.uk/binrequests0700 hours daily, within any neighbouring residential property, with all windows slightly open, when measured and/ or calculated and plotted on a rating curve chart.
Page 28
Background Papers Letters of representation 11 Authors Name Designation Contact Details Andrew Baxter Planning Officer 01738 475339 ABaxter@pkc.gov.uk Approved Name Designation Date Paul Williamson Team Leader (Local Developments) 22nd May 2026