26/00303/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. 26/166) Proposal: Erection of gypsy/traveller transit site, 10 hardstanding pitches, amenity block and EV charging point Location: Sites 6-9 and 12 Islay Place, Perth Ref. No: 26/00303/FLL Ward No: P12- Perth City Centre Summary This report recommends refusal of the application as the development is considered to be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no material considerations apparent which justify setting aside the Development Plan. Background and Description of Proposal 1. At a Special Meeting of Perth and Kinross Council held on 1 March 2023, Members considered a report on the Strategic Investment and Capital Budget Update (2023/24 to 2027/28)(Report no. 23/73). As part of that budget, £2m was identified towards a new gypsy/ traveller site. Since then, consideration has been given to identifying suitable locations for the delivery of such a facility, that meets the needs of the Council, and the gypsy/traveller community. 2. The application site is within the north-east part of the Perth Food and Drink Park, which is an area allocated within the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 (LDP2) for Core Employment Use (Opportunity Site: E3) in Perth Settlement. It is also within the Perth Air Quality Management Area, sees a Low Probability of River Flood Risk, a Medium Probability of Future River Flood Risk, is within the River Tay SAC Catchment, and the Transport Full Contributions Zone.
Page 2
3. This proposal seeks to develop an existing undeveloped part of the Food and Drink Park to provide ten hardstanding pitches for temporary placement of overnight accommodation units for the gypsy/traveller community, in addition to the provision of a permanent amenity block to service those pitches. Each pitch would contain sufficient space for a caravan and one other vehicle. An accessible parking bay with EV charging point would be located adjacent to the amenity block. Given the overarching interest in the proposals across the Council, although not specifically required, the application has been referred to the Planning and Placemaking Committee for consideration. Site History 4. 11/00020/PAN Expansion of North Muirton Industrial Estate (comprising of 600m of new road, utilities provision, street lighting, drainage and associated sustainable urban drainage system and earthworks. PAN Notice Sufficient 5. 12/00003/PAN Expansion of North Muirton Industrial Estate: comprising of 600m of new road, utilities provision, street lighting, drainage and associated Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) and earthworks to form development plots for use classes 4 (business) 5 (General Industrial) and 6 (Storage and Distribution). PAN Notice Sufficient 6. 12/01356/FLM Expansion of industrial land including road layout, utilities provision, street lighting, and drainage. Application Approved 7. 13/01368/SCRN Screening opinion for erection of a timber resource recovery centre 9 August 2013 Opinion issued – EIA required for given proposal. Pre-Application Consultation 8. No formal pre-application consultation with the planning authority was undertaken. 9. 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. Development Plan 10. 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.
Page 3
National Planning Framework 4 11. 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 now comprises part of the statutory development plan. 12. 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 6: Forestry, Woodland and Trees • Policy 9: Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings • Policy 12: Zero Waste • Policy 13: Sustainable transport • Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place • Policy 15: Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods • Policy 16: Quality Homes • Policy 18: Infrastructure First • Policy 22: Flood risk and water management • Policy 23: Health and Safety Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 13. 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. 14. The principal relevant policies are, in summary: • Policy 1A: Placemaking • Policy 1B: Placemaking • Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions • Policy 6: Settlement Boundaries • Policy 7A: Employment and Mixed-Use Areas: Business and Industrial • Policy 21B: Gypsy/Travellers' Sites: New Sites • Policy 38A: Environment and Conservation: International Nature Conservation Sites
Page 4
• Policy 40B: Forestry, Woodland and Trees: Trees, Woodland and Development • Policy 41: Biodiversity • Policy 52: New Development and Flooding • Policy 53B: Water Environment and Drainage: Foul Drainage • Policy 53C: Water Environment and Drainage: Surface Water Drainage • Policy 53E: Water Environment and Drainage: Water Supply • Policy 55: Nuisance from Artificial light • Policy 56: Noise Nuisance • Policy 57: Air Quality • Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals Statutory Supplementary Guidance 15. • Supplementary Guidance - Air Quality (adopted in 2020) • Supplementary Guidance - Delivering Zero Waste (adopted in 2020) • Supplementary Guidance - Developer Contributions & Affordable Housing (adopted in 2023) • Supplementary Guidance - Flood Risk and Flood Risk Assessments (adopted in 2021) • Supplementary Guidance - Placemaking (adopted in 2020) Other Material Considerations PKC Non Statutory Guidance 16. • Planning Guidance - Gypsy/Traveller Site Standards - Perth & Kinross Council • Planning Guidance - Delivery of Development Sites • Planning Guidance - Loch Leven SPA, the Dunkeld-Blairgowrie Lochs SAC and the River Tay SAC • Planning Guidance - Planning & Biodiversity • Supplementary Guidance - Renewable & Low Carbon Energy (draft) Other PKC Housing Strategy Documents 17. • Strategic Housing Investment Plan 2026/27 to 2030/31 • Housing Need and Demand Assessment Final Report November 2022 • PKC Local Housing Strategy Action Plan 2022 to 2027
Page 5
National Guidance 18. The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through Planning Notes, 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 19. The following Scottish Government Planning Advice Notes (PANs) and Guidance Documents, and legislation are of relevance to the proposal: • Scottish Government Gypsy Traveller Action Plan 2024-2026 • Biodiversity: Planning Guidance • Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods: Planning Guidance • Improving Gypsy/Traveller sites: guidance on minimum sites standards and site tenants' core rights and responsibilities • Action Plan: Gypsy/Traveller Action Plan 2024-2026 (Scottish Government and COSLA) • SEPA Flood Risk and Land Use Vulnerability guidance (July 2024) • SEPA Position Statement on Development Protected by Formal Flood Protection Schemes (July 2024) • Equality Act 2010 Creating Places 2013 20. 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. Designing Streets 2010 21. Designing Streets is the policy statement in Scotland for street design and changes the emphasis of guidance on street design towards place-making and away from a system focused upon the dominance of motor vehicles. It was created to support the Scottish Government’s place-making agenda, alongside Creating Places. National Roads Development Guide 2014 22. 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.
Page 6
Consultations 23. As part of the planning application process the following bodies were consulted: External 24. Scottish Water - No objection, standard advice provided. 25. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) – Objection in Principle, as the proposed development may put people or property at risk of flooding, which is not supported by Policy 22 of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). In summary their position is: • The FRA submitted shows the site to be at flood risk in a 200 year + Climate Change event, from both the Almond and the Tay, where the formal defences are breached. • The development proposed is not deemed to be a NPF4 Policy 22 exception and as such, full avoidance of the flood risk area must be achieved. 26. SEPA has a shared duty with Scottish Ministers and other responsible authorities under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 to reduce overall flood risk and promote sustainable flood risk management. The cornerstone of sustainable flood risk management is the avoidance of new development resulting in increased flood risk as a first principle, and this is set out in National Planning Framework 4 (Policy 22). Internal Consultees 27. Structures and Flooding - Objection in Principle. The site is at flood risk, and none of the requirements within NPF4 Policy 22 are satisfied by the proposal. Given the proposed use, there is an inherent risk to life. Particularly if people were sleeping within accommodation if the flood embankment overtopped (i.e. rapid inundation from height) or failure, is involved. It is required that development behind existing flood protection schemes satisfies five conditions to be, and the proposals fail to fully meet these criteria, in particular that the proposal would require modification of the existing Perth Flood Prevention Scheme. As it stands, flood colleagues advise it is not possible to confirm the development will remain safe and operational during NPF4 design flood events. 28. Environmental Health (Noise Odour) – No objection subject to standard conditions regarding plant noise, and external lighting to minimise illumination of neighbouring land. A further condition has also been recommended to prevent burning on site including open fires and fire pits.
Page 7
29. Transportation and Development – No objection, subject to conditions regarding vehicular access construction. 30. Development Contributions Officer – No transport infrastructure or education contributions necessary. 31. Development Plan – Advise the proposals are significantly contrary to the Development Plan. The most significant departure in relation to NPF4 Policy 22: Flood Risk, and Policy 2: Climate Mitigation and Adaptation. However, it is also considered to be contrary to the E3 allocation and LDP2 Policy: 7 Employment and Mixed Use Areas, because of the Core employment allocation and the proposals not aligning with that underlying purpose. LDP2 Policy 21B: Gypsy/Travellers’ Sites: New Sites, which details criteria for consideration of Gypsy/Traveller sites has been assessed as meeting all but one of the criteria, which requires that the site is adequately screened and landscaped. 32. Biodiversity – No comments. Representations 33. 1 representation was received in support of the proposal, and is summarised as follows: • Will make a positive contribution to the travelling way of life; • May reduce likelihood of unauthorised campsites on public land and the issues and concerns which arise from these; • Children’s play equipment should be considered, given site’s isolation from nearest parks; • Strict conditions on waste management must be placed on any approval to avoid past issues of flytipping and wind-blown litter. Additional Statements Screening Opinion EIA not required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not applicable Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations Habitats Regulations Appraisal completed AA not required Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Submitted Report on Impact or Potential Impact e.g. Flood Risk Assessment Flood Risk Assessment and Recommendations, Flooding Mitigation Plan, Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, and Site Investigation Report
Page 8
Appraisal 34. 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, as identified elsewhere in this report. Principle 35. The proposal is to develop a Gypsy and Traveller transit site with 10 hardstanding pitches and an amenity block. The land in question is allocated for core employment use (Site E3) in the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2). The site-specific developer requirements, related to that allocation, set out in LDP2 are as follows: “A Flood Risk Assessment will be required. Areas protected by the Flood Protection Schemes should be subject to appropriate mitigation measures including water resistance, and water resilience measures and evacuation procedures. Landscape proposals to reduce the visual impact of development for any neighbouring residential properties.” 36. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment shows the site to be at flood risk in a 1 in 200 year (i.e. 0.5% annual probability) + Climate Change event from both the Rivers Almond and Tay, whereby existing formal flood defences would be breached. The climate change allowance for the Tay basin is +53% and applies to both the Tay and Almond, whose confluence is approximately 135 metres to the north. The Flood Risk Assessment sets out that the indicative worst case scenario flood depth within the application site would be up to 1.39 metres. Flood Risk 37. NPF4 Policy 22: Flood Risk and Water Management is only supportive of development proposals at risk of flooding if they are for: (i) essential infrastructure; (ii) water compatible uses; (iii) redevelopment of an existing building or site for an equal or less vulnerable use; or (iv) redevelopment of previously used site in built up areas where identified by the LDP to bring into positive use, and where it can be demonstrated that long-term safety and resilience can be secured.
Page 9
38. NPF4 Policy 22 additionally notes the protection offered by an existing formal Flood Protection Scheme (FPS) can be considered, with the applicant expected to satisfy five criteria. These criteria include that: • all risks of flooding are understood and addressed; • there is no reduction in floodplain capacity, increased risk for others, or a need for future flood protection schemes; • the development remains safe and operational during floods; • flood resistant and resilient materials and construction methods are used; and • future adaptations can be made to accommodate the effects of climate change. 39. SEPA Guidance “Position Statement on Development Protected by Formal Flood Protection Schemes” (July 2024), states that development in areas protected by an FPS will only be supported if it lies outwith the flood risk area. 40. The proposal fails to meet the exceptions set out in NPF4 Policy 22(a), because it is not for essential infrastructure as defined in Annex F of NPF4; not a water compatible use; it seeks to introduce a use considered to be a “most vulnerable use” under SEPA guidance, and an overall significant increase in vulnerability; the allocated employment use (categorised as “least vulnerable” by SEPA) are supportable in this area through the LDP2 allocation reference E3 and recent planning history. The current proposal is not for an employment use and it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that long-term safety of site occupants could be secured. Indeed, it is not clear if that safety could be achieved. 41. In addition, even if the fourth exception criterion of NPF4 Policy 22(a) as set out in Paragraph 37 of this report had been satisfied, engineering works would be required to raise the ground height above the flood level plus freeboard. Conversely, with no land-raising on surrounding sites, this would result in an island of development which would impede safe access or egress to/from site during a flood event which would also not be supported. Proposals for land- raising would also likely disperse flood water elsewhere. 42. Furthermore, in terms of development sites behind existing Flood Protection Schemes, the Council’s Flooding Team have noted in their objection response that only some of the criteria either have been met (risks understood through hydraulic modelling) or could be addressed through submission of further information (mitigation for loss of floodplain capacity, flood resilient / resistant materials). More fundamentally, the development would require modification of the existing Perth Flood Protection Scheme to comply with NPF4 in terms of removing the property from flood risk. Therefore, this would constitute a need for “future flood protection schemes”, which is to be avoided and no such plans to modify the scheme currently exist.
Page 10
It is also not possible at present to confirm the development will remain safe and operational during NPF4 design flood events, or whether climate change adaptation would be possible in light of the extent of flood risk. 43. SEPA have also advised that the submitted evacuation plan is reliant on SEPA flood warnings. However, they do not consider the provision of flood warnings as a justifiable reason for new development in flood risk areas, and that this approach does not accord with a long-term sustainable flood risk management. The intent of flood warnings is to support existing developed areas, and not to facilitate new development. 44. Whilst NPF4 Policy 22 is the primary flood risk policy, LDP2 Policy 52: New Development and Flooding includes a general presumption against proposals for built development in areas at medium to high risk of flooding from any source. The policy goes on to state that where publicly maintained flood protection measures for an event with a 0.5% annual probability already exist (noting that this does not account for more up to date inclusion of increased risk due to climate change), “Development within the built-up area or any important component of the Development Plan settlement strategy may be acceptable for residential, institutional, commercial and industrial development”, provided seven criteria are met. In this instance, a gypsy/traveller transit site is not specifically mentioned as an exception within the criteria, and in any case the existing flood defences are insufficient to protect the site against a 1 in 200 year (0.5% probability) + climate change flood event. 45. SEPA have also highlighted that under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, all responsible authorities (including SEPA and Local Authorities) have a duty to reduce the adverse consequences of flooding to four key risk receptors - Human Health, Environment, Economy, and Cultural Heritage. It is not clear that this application has satisfied that duty. 46. In addition, the Council’s own Planning Guidance on Gypsy/Traveller Site Standards, which was adopted in March 2023, outlines that Transit Sites should not be located in areas of high flood risk. 47. Therefore, the proposed gypsy/traveller transit site fails to accord with NPF4 Policy 22: Flood Risk and Water Management, LDP2 Policy 52: New Development and Flooding, and the aforementioned guidance on gypsy traveller site standards, as it would result in an inherent risk to life, particularly for people sleeping on site, in the event of the existing flood defence embankment being overtopped or failing during a flood event.
Page 11
Land Use 48. Specifically, NPF4 Policy 16(d): Quality Homes states that "Development proposals for public or private, permanent or temporary, Gypsy/Travellers sites and family yards and Travelling Show people yards, including on land not specifically allocated for this use in the LDP, should be supported where a need is identified and the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies, including human rights and equality". 49. The need for transit sites for the gypsy/traveller community was set out in the Accommodation Needs of Gypsy/Travellers and Travelling Showpeople in the Tayplan Area report of December 2016, and has also been referred to in consecutive Tayside Housing Need and Demand Assessments (HNDAs) in 2016 and 2022. Furthermore, the Council’s current Strategic Housing Investment Plan, also outlines that the Council have undertaken a site appraisal via the Urban Capacity and Brownfield Study to help consider available options. Plans were then developed for the application site in consultation with the gypsy traveller community. The need for a transit site is also expressed through the Local Housing Strategy Action Plan 2022 to 2027. 50. The continued need in Perth for a facility like that proposed is evidenced by regular encampments, particularly in this location which has strong and continued links with the travelling community. As such, there is no question as to whether there is a need for a new transit site to serve the Perth area and this particular locality. However, in land use planning terms the emphasis is upon identifying a site which is fit for purpose, and in the right location. LDP2 Policy 21B: Gypsy/Travellers' Sites generally supports this type of proposal on unallocated land, but this position is effectively t is now superseded by NPF4 and its reference to “land not specifically allocated for this use”. This limiting this type of facility to locations specifically identified in the Development Plan. However, neither NPF4 nor LDP2 explicitly state that sites will be supported on land allocated for other uses, such here where it is part of a larger core employment land allocation. 51. Through LDP2 Policy 7A: Employment and Mixed Use Areas, the site has been identified as prime employment land in the most marketable, attractive sites, in the best strategic locations. Thus, seen as ‘core employment land’ whereas ‘general employment land’ is identified in less attractive locations, or mixed use locations, where more flexibility in the type of uses is seen as appropriate. Core areas are restricted to Class 4 (Office), Class 5 (Industrial) and Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) uses, with limited exceptions for ancillary retail, service facilities or waste management facilities. The current proposal is therefore considered contrary to LDP2 Policy 7A: Employment and Mixed Use Areas.
Page 12
52. With regards to the detailed policy of LDP2 Policy 21B: Gypsy/Travellers' Sites, the application has been considered against each of the seven criteria and the following positions reached: (a) The site is an appropriate size and the 10 pitches a satisfactory number and there are good facilities; (b) the site will not detract from the physical character or appearance of the area, with an industrial estate on one side. However, along the north and east boundaries it is felt landscaping is required to soften visual impacts, while also maintaining privacy from nearby paths; (c) Gypsy/Traveller sites would not normally be considered appropriate in otherwise industrial areas, however the site is positioned at the edge of the identified industrial area and has the flood defences and green space to the north and east. In addition there is a historical, if unauthorised, use of an area nearby as a transit area. The approved neighbouring industrial uses to the south include for screening, noise and lighting conditions. However, landscaping is also required to separate prospective residents of the proposed transit site from the nearby existing and likely future industrial uses. No landscaping plan has been provided, with only minimal planting shown on general plans. This, along with a biodiversity enhancement plan would have been required by planning condition, to address Development Plan requirements, were approval to be recommended; (d), (f), and (g) The needs of the residents including waste, water supply, site security and drainage have been set out in supporting information. In addition, measures to protect residents and surrounding uses from noise impacts will also require to be explored further. All these matters could be controlled via appropriate planning conditions. However as set out elsewhere in this report, there is a severe risk to the safety of future occupants from flooding; (e) Transport Planning have not objected to the proposal, subject to appropriate access construction. In terms of pedestrian safety, the area benefits from adequate public footway provision. 53. NPF4 Policy 2: Climate Mitigation and Adaptation requires that “Development proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change.” In this respect, as set out above the proposals are considered contrary to NPF4 Policy 22: Flood Risk and Water Management, being at flood risk, thus the proposals are also considered contrary to Policy 2. 54. Therefore, the principle of this proposal by virtue of its high vulnerability to flood risk is considered to be significantly contrary to the Development Plan, in particular NPF4 Policies 22: Flood Risk and Water Management, and Policy 2: Climate Mitigation and Adaptation, as well as LDP2 Policy 52: New Development and Flooding.
Page 13
The proposal is also considered contrary to LDP2 Policy 7A: Employment and Mixed Use Areas due to its siting within a Core Employment Allocation E3, and by virtue of this conflict with the Plans Spatial Strategy, is also contrary to NPF4 Policy 16(d): Quality Homes. NPF4 Policy 16(d) relating to development of Gypsy/Traveller sites of this nature, but where there is no inconsistency with the overall spatial strategy or other relevant polices. In this case the significant flood risk and to a lesser extent the identified land uses intended within the core allocation do not see that alignment achieved. Design and Layout, Visual Amenity, Landscape 55. The proposed amenity building would be oriented north-south within the site, and this in addition to security fencing and gates would not appear out of place within the wider industrial and employment context in the vicinity, subject to details of the external cladding of the proposed amenity block being submitted and approved via condition. There is however a need for a comprehensive landscaping scheme to be submitted to ensure appropriate screening, and to introduce natural amenity value for occupants. Whilst this would ideally have been submitted upfront during the assessment of this application, it could have been required by planning condition were the application to be recommended for approval. 56. Clarity has also been sought from Building Standards as to whether a manual override would be required through the Building Warrant process for the proposed security gates in emergency circumstances. It has been confirmed that a building warrant would be required for the proposed amenity block and a manual override of the adjacent security gates for emergency access is likely to be required. Drainage details would also be required by Building Standards. 57. Therefore, had the application been subject to approval, further information would have been sought either upfront or by planning condition in respect of external materials, landscaping and planting to demonstrate accordance with NPF4 Policies 14: Design, Quality and Place, 23 Health and Safety, and LDP2 Placemaking Policies 1A and 1B. Residential Amenity 58. The site is within Perth's Air Quality Management Area which was declared in 2009 for exceedances in annual mean objectives for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Particulate Matter (PM10), mainly from road traffic emissions. 59. The Environmental Health Team have considered that traffic associated to the proposals would not be significant and would have a negligible impact on ambient air quality. Notwithstanding, were the application to be recommended for approval, a planning condition would have prevented any burning, including open fires or fire pits on site.
Page 14
60. In terms of noise, there is a significant distance of approximately 375 metres to the nearest residential properties at Gilsay Place, to the south-east, and given this significant separation the proposal is considered unlikely to adversely impact residential amenity. Were the application to be recommended for approval, a condition would have limited any associated plant noise, with a further condition limiting illumination of neighbouring land by any external lighting. It is also noted that nearby approved employment uses have been subject to similar plant noise and external lighting restrictions, which would protect occupants of the proposed site from such issues. 61. In terms of the privacy of occupants, a comprehensive landscaping and planting scheme is required to ensure that the site is not harmfully overlooked from adjacent land, and in particular from the raised flood defence embankment to the north and east, which is publicly accessible. As set out elsewhere in this report, ideally this information would have been submitted upfront, or, failing that, required by planning condition in the event of an approval recommendation. 62. Therefore, subject to conditional control in respect of plant noise, external lighting, burning, and landscaping and planting, residential amenity concerns are capable of being addressed in accordance with NPF4 Policies 14: Design, Quality and Place, and 23: Health and Safety, and LDP2 Placemaking Policies 1A and 1B. Roads and Access 63. The vehicle access to the public road network would be via Islay Place, with parking for a caravan and vehicle at each pitch, plus an accessible parking space with EV charging adjacent to the amenity building. The site will be entirely enclosed by security fencing and gates, making the site secure in the evenings and overnight. The internal ‘road’ is to remain private and will not be maintained by the Roads Authority. Transport Planning have not objected to the proposal and recommend a planning condition for the vehicular access construction. 64. The nearest bus stop on Dunkeld Road is 1.16km away via a paved route. A less accessible, partly grassed route via the flood defences embankment can be taken to bus stops on Bute Drive some 920m away. Whilst this distance is not ideal and beyond the guideline 400m, the nature of the proposal and transience of its occupants is such that this would not form grounds for refusal. The gypsy traveller community have themselves been consulted upon the site location, which is favoured from their perspective. The site is also recognised as having good pedestrian and cycle facilities within the locality. 65. Therefore, subject to the above conditional control, the proposal accords with the intent of NPF4 Policy 13: Sustainable Transport and LDP2 Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals.
Page 15
Waste Collection 66. Sufficient waste storage and presentation has been proposed at the proposed amenity block, with the circulation route through the site sufficient for the manoeuvring of waste collection vehicles. Therefore, this element of the proposal accords with NPF4 Policy 12: Zero Waste. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity 67. The application site forms part of a serviced industrial estate, and is physically separated from the nearby River Tay SAC and its associated habitats by an existing flood defence embankment. 68. The application site contains self-seeded scrub woodland of beech and willow, and is otherwise grassed. It is considered to be of local value for breeding birds, and the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has recommended compensatory measures and biodiversity enhancement in respect of this. Were approval to be recommended, these matters would have been secured by planning condition to accord with NPF4 Policies 3: Biodiversity and 6: Forestry, Woodland and Trees, and LDP2 Policies 40B: Forestry, Woodland and Trees: Trees, Woodland and Development and 41: Biodiversity. A further planning condition would have required a new ecology survey to be undertaken within two years of the submitted survey in the event that development had not commenced within that time period. 69. Notwithstanding this, and as noted above, the proposal lacks a comprehensive landscaping and planting strategy, and were the application to be approved, this should be secured by planning condition. This would be in liaison with the Council Community Greenspace Team as they would likely be responsible for future maintenance of such spaces. 70. The proposal is not considered to have a likely significant effect on a European site, in this instance the River Tay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) to the north and east, which is separated from this site by the existing flood defences. Therefore, an Appropriate Assessment under The Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations 1994 (i.e. the Habitats Regulations) is not required. In this respect the proposal accords with the intent of NPF4 Policy 4: Natural Places and LDP2 Policy 38A: Environment and Conservation: International Nature Conservation Sites.
Page 16
Low and Zero Carbon Generating Technologies 71. 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. Further, NPF4 Policy 2 ‘Climate Mitigation and Adaptation’ requires that development should be designed to reduce green gas emissions. In this instance, limited information has been provided in respect of this requirement. Therefore, were approval to be recommended, a planning condition would have required a statement setting out compliance with the policy requirements. Conclusion 72. As outlined above, it is accepted that there is considerable evidence to support the urgent need for a gypsy traveller transit site within the Perth and Kinross Council Area. Considerable work has been undertaken by the applicant over a number of years to look at a variety of options for the delivery of this much needed facility. Through consultation with the gypsy traveller community, it resulted in this site being brought forward for consideration, particularly in light of the general area having strong historical linkages with the travelling community. However, from a purely land use planning perspective, the Council as Planning Authority have a responsibility to ensure that development proposals are brought forward in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the site has had historical instances of flooding (hence the implementation of the previous flood defence measures), and in light of climate change, shall see further instances of flooding likely in the future. As such, NPF4 Policy 22 Flooding is very clear in how vulnerability and risk should be considered, with sensitive land uses not being appropriate within areas that are susceptible to flooding. 73. While there is sympathy with the needs of both the applicant to provide a facility, and the desire of the gypsy traveller community to have appropriate provision created for their demonstrated need, that should not come at the cost of potential impacts on risk to life through vulnerable land uses being located in locations with the propensity to flood. Therefore, given these conflicts with policies relating to both flooding, employment land, and quality homes, it renders the site development proposals contrary to the Development Plan. Notwithstanding, it is understood that further consideration shall be given to the potential of considering other sites for allocation as part of the Local Development Plan Review which is ongoing.
Page 17
Equality Act 74. The Council as a public authority is required by Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 to have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between those who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not share it, and to foster good relations between those who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. Notwithstanding the identified need for a gypsy/traveller transit site and the promotion of this application by the Council's Housing Service to help address that need, it is considered that these matters do not outweigh the conflict with the Development Plan, in particular the application site's location within an area of river flooding risk which could lead to a risk to life for occupants during a flood event. Developer Contributions 75. The Developer Contributions Guidance has been applied to this application, and no contributions are required. Economic Impact 76. The economic impact of the proposal is likely to be modest and associated with construction phase, although as set out elsewhere in this report, the proposal seeks to introduce temporary residential use by means of a transit site on an area allocated for employment uses. Variation of Application Under Section 32a 77. 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 drawings to clarify land ownership and update annotations in the interests of accuracy. Planning Obligations and Legal Agreements 78. None required. Direction by Scottish Ministers 79. 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 18
80. Notwithstanding this, SEPA have in their capacity as a statutory consultee objected to this planning application. Therefore, were Planning & Placemaking Committee minded to grant planning permission, the Council as Planning Authority would be required to notify Scottish Ministers prior to the grant of permission under the provisions set out in Planning Circular 3/2009: Notification of Planning Applications. Scottish Ministers would then consider whether to call in the application or clear it back to the Planning authority to decide the matter. Conclusion and Reasons for Recommendation 81. 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 for the following reasons: Reasons for Recommendation 1. The proposed gypsy/traveller transit site is at risk of flooding from a 1 in 200 year (0.5% annual probability) plus climate change flood event and is considered a “most vulnerable use” in SEPA Flood Risk and Land Use Vulnerability Guidance. The proposal fails to accord with NPF4 Policy 22: Flood Risk and Water Management, NPF4 Policy 2: Climate Mitigation and Adaptation, LDP2 Policy 52: New Development and Flooding, and the Council’s Planning Guidance on Gypsy Traveller Site Standards, as it would result in an inherent risk to life, particularly for people sleeping on site during a flood event. 2. The proposed gypsy/traveller transit site, for which a need has been identified, seeks to introduce a non-employment use in an area allocated in the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) for core employment uses, and is therefore contrary to the Spatial Strategy of the Local Development Plan. The proposal fails to accord with LDP2 Policy 7A: Employment and Mixed-Use Areas: Business and Industrial, and NPF4 Policy 16(d): Quality Homes, and the Council’s Planning Guidance on Gypsy Traveller Site Standards.
Page 19
Justification The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. Procedural Notes 1 SEPA have in their capacity as a statutory consultee objected to this planning application. Therefore, were Planning & Placemaking Committee minded to grant planning permission against officer’s recommendation, the application would need to be referred to Scottish Ministers under the provisions set out in Planning Circular 3/2009: Notification of Planning Applications. Informatives There are no informatives. Background Papers Letters of representation 1 Authors Name Designation Contact Details John Cooney Planning Officer 01738 475345 JCooney@pkc.gov.uk Approved Name Designation Date Paul Williamson Team Leader (Local Developments) 28th May 2026