26/00122/Flm
Perth and Kinross Council · 12 August 2026
Back to Planning and Placemaking Committee — 12 August 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 - 12 August 2026 Report of Handling by Development Management and Building Standards Service Manager (Report No. 26/211) Proposal: Change of use of holiday cottages to allow holiday use or residential use as staff accommodation for employees of Taymouth Castle Estate Location: Moness Resort, Aberfeldy, PH15 2FS Ref. No: 26/00122/FLM Ward No: P4 - Highland Summary This report recommends approval of the 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 report relates to a planning application seeking the change of use of existing holiday cottages at the Moness Resort on Crieff Road, Aberfeldy. The change will allow flexibility whereby a proportion of the cottages may continue to operate as holiday accommodation or, alternatively, used as staff accommodation for employees of the Taymouth Castle Estate in Kenmore. 2. The Moness Resort is a long-established hotel, leisure and self-catering complex located on the southern edge of Aberfeldy. The overall resort extends to circa (c.) 14 hectares (ha) and contains a Category B listed hotel building, 103 self- catering holiday cottages, leisure facilities, restaurants, bars, and associated parking and landscaped grounds. The resort has historically operated with a mixture of visitor and staff-related facilities, evolving over time in response to changing tourism and economic circumstances. 3. The application relates only to the use and management of 61 of the 103 existing holiday cottages. Importantly no physical alterations to buildings, access arrangements, parking provision, landscaping, or other resort facilities are proposed, as set out in the supporting Design and Access Statement. All cottages would remain in single ownership and under the management of the
Page 2
Moness Resort, with no subdivision of units and no creation of self-contained principal residences. 4. The supporting documentation confirms that the hotel and remaining 42 cottages would continue to operate as already established, and that the 61 cottages for holiday or staff use would be managed flexibly in response to seasonal visitor demand and staffing requirements. The staff accommodation aspect would be restricted to employees of Taymouth Castle Estate and would not operate as general market housing. 5. Other supporting documents include: a Planning Statement, which assesses the proposal against National Planning Framework 4 and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan; and a Socio-Economic Report, which considers the economic, demographic and social implications of the proposal for Aberfeldy, Highland Perthshire and the wider Perth and Kinross area. 6. The applicant advises that the proposal would support the continued viability of Moness Resort, help address a recognised shortage of local workforce accommodation, support delivery of the approved Taymouth Castle Estate, and contribute to a more stable, year-round local economy, while retaining the established tourism role of the site and avoiding adverse impacts on amenity, infrastructure, or the character of the area. 7. This Committee Report considers the planning application in the context of the Development Plan and other material considerations, including representations received, and concludes that the proposed change of use constitutes an acceptable form of development. Site History 8. The site has an extensive planning history associated with the gradual development and expansion of the Moness House Estate as a holiday and leisure resort. Initial permissions in the late 1980s and early 1990s established the leisure complex, timeshare accommodation and supporting infrastructure, including access arrangements and temporary staff accommodation. 9. Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, multiple consents were granted for the continued expansion of timeshare units, including several phases delivering additional accommodation and associated facilities such as car parking and a leisure centre. Further permissions have supported ongoing upgrades and diversification of the resort, including extensions to the hotel and leisure facilities, new staff accommodation, and ancillary infrastructure. 10. More recent planning activity reflects a focus on operational improvements and diversification of uses, including leisure attractions (such as a high ropes course), temporary structures (marquees), and continued investment in buildings and site infrastructure. There is also a notable history of applications relating to staff
Page 3
accommodation and alternative uses of existing units, both approvals and refusals. 11. Overall, the planning history demonstrates the long-established use of the site as a managed holiday resort with supporting staff accommodation and facilities, with adaptation to meet operational requirements. Environmental Impact Assessment 13. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening has been undertaken for the proposed development in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (as amended). Having regard to the nature, scale and location of the proposal, including the fact that it relates to a change of use within an established resort and does not involve significant new built development, it is considered that the proposal would not be likely to give rise to significant environmental effects. As such, the development does not constitute EIA development and the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report is not considered to be required. Pre-Application Consultation 14. Pre application Reference: 24/00112/PREAPL 15. The proposal constitutes major development and is therefore subject to statutory pre-application consultation requirements. The submitted Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report sets out that a Proposal of Application Notice (ref:25/00002/PAN) was approved by the Planning Authority and that two public consultation events were held locally, supported by newspaper advertisements, notification of nearby properties and engagement with the relevant community councils. The Planning Authority is satisfied that the consultation undertaken accords with legislative requirements and that appropriate community engagement has been carried out in advance of the application. Development Plan 16. The Development Plan for the area comprises National Planning Framework 4 and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) along with its associated statutory supplementary guidance. National Planning Framework 4 17. The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) is the Scottish Government’s long- term spatial strategy with a comprehensive set of national planning policies. This strategy sets out how to improve peoples 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 4
18. The Council’s assessment of this application has considered the following policies of NPF4: • Policy 7: Historic Assets and Places • Policy 13: Sustainable Transport • Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place • Policy 15: Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods • Policy 18: Infrastructure First • Policy 22: Flood Risk and Water Management • Policy 23: Health and Safety • Policy 29: Rural Development • Policy 30: Tourism Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 19. The Local Development Plan 2 (2019) (LDP2) sets out a vision statement for the area and states that, “Our vision is of a Perth and Kinross which is dynamic, attractive and effective which protects its assets whilst welcoming population and economic growth.” It is the most recent statement of Council policy and is augmented by Supplementary Guidance. 20. The principal relevant policies are, in summary; • Policy 1A: Placemaking • Policy 1B: Placemaking • Policy 2: Design Statements • Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions • Policy 9C: Caravan Sites, Chalets and Timeshare Developments: Chalets, Timeshare and Fractional Ownership • Policy 17: Residential Areas • Policy 20: Affordable Housing • Policy 27A: Listed Buildings • Policy 52: New Development and Flooding • Policy 53B: Water Environment and Drainage: Foul Drainage • Policy 53C: Water Environment and Drainage: Surface Water Drainage • Policy 56: Noise Pollution • Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals Statutory Supplementary Guidance 21. • Supplementary Guidance - Developer Contributions & Affordable Housing (adopted in 2023) • Supplementary Guidance - Flood Risk and Flood Risk Assessments (adopted in 2021)
Page 5
Other Material Considerations National Guidance 22. 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. National Roads Development Guide 2014 23. 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. Local Place Plans 24. Local Place Plans 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 is no Local Place Plan for this site. Consultations 25. As part of the planning application process the following bodies were consulted: External 26. National Health Service (NHS): No comments. 27. Scottish Water: No comments. 28. Aberfeldy Community Council: No objection. Aberfeldy Community Council express unanimous support for the proposal following consultation with residents and businesses, which generated over 200 individual and 30 business responses. It considers the proposal to be non-contentious, beneficial to the operation of Taymouth Castle Estate, and unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the local economy, noting potential for increased activity at Moness and positive effects for the town. 29. Kenmore Community Council: No comments. Internal 30. Environmental Health (Noise Odour): No objection. Note that planning conditions restricted occupancy of certain timeshare units to holiday use only. No adverse comments are offered on the application. 31. Development Contributions Officer: Advises the development does not trigger any developer contributions, with no requirement for affordable housing or
Page 6
education contributions, and no primary school capacity constraints identified within the Breadalbane Primary School catchment. 32. Transportation and Development: No objection. Advise the existing access, internal road layout and parking arrangements are considered satisfactory, with no increase in traffic generation anticipated. The consultee supports the use of staff shuttle services to reduce car dependency but recommends conditions requiring a Green Travel Plan and the provision of secure cycle parking to further promote sustainable travel. 33. Flooding: No objection. Advise the change of use does not increase land use vulnerability or foul/surface water discharge requirements, and no Drainage Impact Assessment is required. While the site is identified as being at risk of surface water flooding, the proposal is considered policy compliant, with a recommendation that a Flood Evacuation Plan be prepared as a precautionary measure and that drainage improvements be encouraged where possible. 34. Community Waste Advisor - Environment Service: No comments. 35. Affordable Housing Enabler: Advise that given the specific circumstances and mixed-use nature of the proposal and associated occupancy controls, the Council’s affordable housing policy is not considered applicable and no contribution is required. Representations 36. Four representations were received. The Aberfeldy Community Council supports the application, otherwise three object to the application. 37. The support comments from Aberfeldy Community Council are summarised above. 38. The issues raised within the three objections are summarised as follows: • Reduction in dedicated tourism accommodation • Impact on economy/visitor numbers • Alternative sites should be considered. • Contrary to Development Plan • Out of character with area • Impact on housing stock in Aberfeldy • Could exacerbate existing housing pressures in Aberfeldy, with limited affordable housing and high levels of second homes and short‑term lets • Considers that increased demand from staff may further restrict housing availability for local workers and impact businesses’ ability to recruit and retain staff 39. These issues are addressed in the Appraisal section of the report.
Page 7
Additional Statements Screening Opinion EIA not required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not required 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 Drainage Statement Planning Statement Transport Statement Socio-Economic Report PAC Report Appraisal 40. 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 above. Principle 41. The application site lies within the settlement boundary of Aberfeldy and forms part of a long-established tourism and leisure complex. The principle of development must therefore be assessed firstly against Policy 9 of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 (LDP2), which relates to caravan sites, chalets and timeshare developments, and Policy 30 of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), which seeks to support the recovery, growth and long-term resilience of the tourism sector. 42. Both policies recognise the importance of safeguarding tourism accommodation, but also allow for change where this can be justified and where wider community and economic benefits arise. Loss of tourism accommodation and Policy 9 (LDP2) 43. Policy 9 of the LDP2 highlights the importance of established tourism facilities and makes clear that there is no presumption in favour of permanent residential development where land ceases to be used for holiday accommodation. The policy seeks to ensure that tourism assets are not eroded in a manner that would
Page 8
undermine the local visitor economy. 44. In this case, it is important to note that the proposal does not result in the complete and permanent loss of holiday accommodation. All 61 cottages subject to the application would retain the ability to operate as holiday units, and the remaining 42 cottages within the wider resort would continue to operate solely as holiday accommodation. The proposal therefore differs materially from a permanent or wholesale loss of tourism units. 45. The supporting Planning Statement and Design and Access Statement confirm that: • The cottages will remain in single ownership and under unified resort management; • The use of individual units will be flexible, based on seasonal demand; • During peak tourism periods, cottages will prioritise holiday use; • The resort will continue to function primarily as a tourism destination. 46. This approach ensures that Moness Resort continues to contribute to the local visitor economy while allowing greater flexibility during off‑peak periods. Occupancy evidence and availability of accommodation 47. A key concern raised at pre‑application stage related to the potential knock‑on impacts of losing tourism accommodation, particularly in a context where short‑term lets may be seen to place pressure on local housing stock. In response, the applicant has submitted occupancy evidence for Moness and a detailed Socio‑Economic Impact Report. 48. The submitted information demonstrates that: • Occupancy rates for the self‑catering accommodation follow a highly seasonal pattern, with peak demand concentrated in the summer months and significantly lower occupancy during shoulder and winter seasons; • Outside peak periods, a proportion of cottages are regularly under‑occupied, despite continued operational costs; • The proposed flexible use model allows these units to remain occupied year‑round without displacing peak‑season visitors. 49. The evidence indicates that the proposal would not result in a shortfall of tourist accommodation during periods of high demand and would not displace visitors into the wider housing market. On this basis, the concern that the proposal would exacerbate the growth of short‑term lets elsewhere in Aberfeldy and Highland Perthshire is not borne out. 50. It is, however, recognised that peak tourism demand is likely to coincide to some degree with peak staffing requirements associated with Taymouth Castle Estate,
Page 9
particularly during the summer season. This has the potential to create overlap between the periods of highest demand for both tourism and staff accommodation. 51. In this context, it is important to note that the proposal operates as a flexible, centrally managed model rather than allocating a fixed number of units to either tourism or staff use. The cottages would remain in single ownership and under unified resort management, allowing occupation to be actively managed and adjusted throughout the year in response to operational requirements. This approach enables forward planning of both visitor bookings and staff accommodation needs across the wider resort. 52. The prioritisation of holiday use during peak periods does not therefore rely on the ad hoc displacement of existing occupants. Instead, it reflects a managed allocation of units over time, including the expectation that staff accommodation would be focused primarily within periods and units that do not conflict with peak visitor demand, alongside the use of alternative accommodation arrangements where required. 53. From a planning perspective, the key issue under Policy 9 is whether the proposal would result in the loss or effective displacement of tourism accommodation at times of peak demand. The submitted evidence indicates that sufficient capacity is retained to accommodate visitor demand, including through the continued operation of 42 units as dedicated holiday accommodation and the ability to allocate the remaining units flexibly. 54. While the detailed logistics of staff accommodation are an operational matter, the proposal maintains the ability of the site to function as a tourism destination and does not give rise to a demonstrable shortfall in visitor accommodation. Policy 30 of NPF4 – Tourism, community impacts and viability 55. Policy 30 of NPF4 supports tourism development that contributes to the long‑term resilience of the sector, while requiring careful consideration of impacts on local communities, including the provision of homes and services for local people. Policy 30(c) states that proposals involving the change of use of tourism facilities will only be supported where it is demonstrated that: • The existing use is no longer viable in its current form; and • There is no requirement for alternative tourism‑related facilities in the area. 56. The policy does not require the existing tourism use to be demonstrably unviable in absolute terms, but allows for change where evidence shows reduced resilience and a need for adaptation. 57. The submitted Socio‑Economic Report provides detailed evidence on both matters. It demonstrates that:
Page 10
• Moness Resort has experienced fluctuating financial performance, with periods of loss or break‑even over recent years; • Self‑catering accommodation in Highland Perthshire has faced particular challenges arising from increased operating costs, labour shortages and changing visitor patterns; • A purely seasonal business model places constraints on investment, maintenance and long‑term sustainability of the resort. 58. The report concludes that a flexible use model would provide greater financial stability, enabling reinvestment in the resort and safeguarding the hotel, leisure facilities and remaining holiday accommodation. 59. Importantly, the proposal does not remove Moness Resort from the tourism market. Instead, it introduces an adaptive model that allows the resort to respond to both tourism demand and local employment needs, thereby strengthening its long‑term role within the local economy. This approach aligns with the objectives of Policy 30 in supporting resilience rather than rigid preservation of an increasingly fragile operating model. Knock‑on implications for Aberfeldy and the wider area 60. The Socio‑Economic Report assesses the wider impacts of the proposal on Aberfeldy and the surrounding area. Key findings include: • The potential introduction of approximately 140 working‑age residents during periods of staff occupation; • A shift from seasonal to more stable year‑round expenditure in local shops, services and facilities; • Support for local businesses during off‑peak months, helping to counteract seasonal economic fluctuations; • Improved ability for the nearby Taymouth Castle Estate to recruit and retain staff locally, safeguarding and unlocking significant wider investment and employment benefits. 61. These impacts are considered to be material considerations of significant weight. The introduction of staff accommodation within an existing resort environment reduces pressure on the local private rented sector, rather than increasing it, and supports the functioning of two major employers without undermining the tourism role of Moness or Aberfeldy more generally. 62. Concerns are raised that staff accommodated at Moness may subsequently move into the local housing market, increasing competition for housing, and that staff housing should instead be provided at the Taymouth Castle Estate. However, the proposal provides tied staff accommodation, thereby reducing immediate pressure on the local private rented sector rather than adding to it, and does not create Class 9 dwellinghouses or unrestricted residential units capable of contributing to the mainstream housing market. While individual future
Page 11
housing choices are speculative and cannot be assessed through the planning process, this assessment properly focuses on the land-use consequences of the proposal, with occupancy controlled through planning conditions. 63. In respect of alternative locations for staff housing, the planning system does not require applicants to demonstrate that a different site would be preferable, but rather that the proposal before the Council is acceptable. Staff accommodation opportunities have been explored within the Taymouth Castle Estate; however, options are severely constrained by the site’s sloping topography, its designation as an Historic Garden and Designed Landscape, and the close proximity of numerous listed buildings, which significantly limit developable capacity in the context of the already approved estate properties. The proposal has therefore been assessed against the Development Plan on its own merits and is considered to offer sustainability benefits by locating staff within an established, serviced settlement of some scale (compared to Kenmore) with access to facilities and public transport, while supporting the operational viability of both Moness Resort and Taymouth Castle Estate without undermining the established tourism role of Aberfeldy. 64. Other concerns have been raised that the submitted Socio-Economic Report presents only positive impacts, that the proposal may confer an unfair advantage on a single employer, that local infrastructure capacity has not been adequately tested, and that the operational management of units could result in the effective displacement of tourism accommodation. These matters have been considered in the assessment of the application. The assessment set out in this Report does not rely uncritically on the submitted Socio-Economic Report but weighs this evidence alongside the policies of the Development Plan, explicitly considering potential adverse effects including tourism dilution, housing pressure and precedent. It is concluded that the overall benefits outweigh the potential harms. 65. Allegations regarding preferential treatment or labour-market distortion relate to commercial competition and employment practice and are not material planning considerations requiring a view to be taken, with the assessment focused on land use impacts and community-wide effects. 66. Concerns regarding operational logistics of the site and potential displacement of tourists are addressed through the single ownership of the site and management of the resort and, critically, through recommended planning conditions controlling occupancy to prevent permanent residential use. The planning system can rely on enforceable conditions rather than speculative operational scenarios, and these concerns do not outweigh the policy-led support identified elsewhere in this report. Conclusion on the principle of the change of use 67. Having regard to the Development Plan and all material considerations, it is considered that the principle of the proposed change of use is acceptable.
Page 12
68. The proposal does not result in the irreversible loss of tourism accommodation, does not undermine the role of Aberfeldy as a tourist destination, and would not give rise to harmful knock‑on impacts on the local housing market. Instead, it represents a balanced and evidence‑led response to recognised economic and housing challenges, while retaining and strengthening an established tourism asset. 69. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy 9 of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 and Policy 30 of National Planning Framework 4, and the principle of the development can be supported, subject to appropriate conditions controlling occupancy and use. (Condition 2) Occupancy Control 70. The proposed development does not seek to use the cottages as permanent dwellinghouses and would not result in the creation of unrestricted residential units. The cottages have historically been approved and operated as holiday accommodation subject to occupancy restrictions, and the application is properly assessed as a mixed use comprising holiday accommodation and staff accommodation operating as alternative modes of occupation within the same planning units. Conditional control is recommended to ensure appropriate occupancy controls to restrict the use of the units solely to holiday accommodation or to staff accommodation for individuals employed at the Taymouth Castle Estate. Such a condition would prevent occupation as unrestricted residential dwellings or as sole or main residences on the open housing market, ensuring that the long-established tourism-based character of the site is retained while allowing managed operational flexibility consistent with the proposal. Health Care 71. While the proposal represents a more settled population then the previous more transient tourist focus, the accommodation remains tied and managed and does not introduce permanent households or unrestricted residential units in planning terms. 72. This represents a qualitative change in occupancy pattern, albeit within existing buildings. NPF4 recognises that population growth may have implications for infrastructure, including healthcare provision; however, it also requires that such impacts be assessed in an evidence led and proportionate manner. In this case, while the proposal introduces a more permanent population associated with staff occupation, there is no evidence to demonstrate that this would result in a material capacity shortfall in local healthcare provision. The change of use does not constitute new housing development in planning terms and does not introduce a scale of population growth comparable to that arising from new residential estates.
Page 13
73. The NHS was formally consulted on the proposal and has raised no comments or concerns in relation to impacts on healthcare provision. In the absence of identified capacity constraints or requests from the relevant health authorities and having regard to the scale and nature of the proposal, healthcare infrastructure provision is not considered to be a determinative issue and no mitigation requests are justified. Developer Contributions 74. Policy 5 of LDP2 and the associated Supplementary Guidance on Developer Contributions seek to secure contributions towards education infrastructure where development would give rise to additional demand that cannot be accommodated within existing capacity. In this instance, the proposal does not involve the creation of unrestricted dwellinghouses and would not likely materially increase pupil generation within the local school catchment. Consultation with the Council’s Education and Developer Contributions teams has confirmed that Breadalbane Academy has sufficient capacity to accommodate any potential demand arising from the proposal, and no capacity constraints have been identified. On this basis and having regard to the nature of the proposed mixed use and the existing availability of education infrastructure, it is not considered necessary or reasonable to require an education infrastructure contribution in this case, and the proposal is therefore compliant with LDP2 Policy 5 and the relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance. Affordable Housing 75. Policy 20 of LDP2, together with the Council’s Affordable Housing Supplementary Guidance, seeks the provision of affordable housing where new housing units are created, typically requiring a contribution equivalent to 25% of the total number of homes proposed. In this instance, however, the application does not involve the creation of new dwellinghouses nor the establishment of unrestricted residential units. As set out elsewhere in this report, the proposal relates to a change of use of existing holiday accommodation to a mixed use comprising holiday accommodation and staff accommodation, with planning conditions intended to restrict occupation and prevent use as mainstream housing on the open market. Given the nature of the proposed use, the absence of Class 9 dwellinghouses, and the intended occupancy controls, the requirements of Policy 20 and the associated Affordable Housing Supplementary Guidance are not considered applicable. This position has been discussed with and agreed by the Council’s Affordable Housing Enabler, who has confirmed that neither on-site affordable housing provision nor a commuted sum is required. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the Development Plan, which supports proportionate and plan-led application of affordable housing policy having regard to the nature of development proposed. Flood Risk
Page 14
76. SEPA flood maps identify areas of surface water flood risk affecting parts of the application site, this confirmed by the Council’s Flood Team. The Flood Team advise that given the flood risk, the preparation of a flood evacuation or flood action plan could be beneficial as a precautionary measure. Although it is clarified that the proposal does not result in an increase in landuse vulnerability, staff and holiday accommodation both falling within comparable vulnerability categories. In these circumstances, the preparation of a flood action plan is not a mandatory requirement and discretionary. Having regard to LDP2 Policy 52 and NPF4 Policy 22, it is not considered reasonable or proportionate to secure such a measure by planning condition. Instead, it is intended that the applicant be advised of the Flood Risk team’s recommendation through an informative, thereby ensuring awareness of potential flood risk and appropriate preparedness without imposing unnecessary regulatory controls. Drainage 77. Consideration has been given to drainage and water management, having regard to the submitted Drainage Statement (Millard Consulting, February 2026). The statement confirms existing private foul and surface water drainage systems and that the proposal involves no physical works, no additional hardstanding and no increase in bedroom numbers. As such, there would be no theoretical increase in foul water discharge or surface water runoff, and no changes are thus required to the existing drainage infrastructure. The information provided confirms that the proposed change of use would not increase flood risk or land-use vulnerability. Accordingly, the proposal raises no drainage concerns and is considered to comply with Policies 53B and 53C of the LDP2 and Policy 22 of NPF4. Access and Parking 78. The Council’s Transportation and Development team raise no objection. The site benefits from an established vehicular access from the A826 (Crieff Road), with visibility splays that comply with the National Roads Development Guide, and no changes to the access arrangement are proposed. The resort is served by an existing internal road network designed for low-speed vehicle movements and service access, which is considered appropriate for the proposals. Parking provision meets current standards, with adequate individual and communal parking available for both ‘staff’ and tourists, and no increase in traffic generation is anticipated. The submitted Transport Statement confirms that historic peak holiday use traffic levels would not be exceeded and use as staff accommodation is expected to see fewer daily vehicle movements, this view supported by a staff shuttle service to Taymouth Castle Estate. 79. Notwithstanding the above, a condition (Condition 4) is recommended requiring the submission and approval of a Green Travel Plan (GTP) prior to occupation for staff accommodation purposes. This will build upon the draft submitted with the application and will include a comprehensive package of measures to encourage sustainable travel, including provision for walking, cycling and public transport, new cycle storage and path links, and robust mechanisms for
Page 15
management, monitoring, review and reporting. The GTP must also set measurable targets, including reductions in single-occupancy car use, increased shuttle service uptake, and enhanced car-sharing, alongside clear commitments on shuttle service provision and travel demand management measures such as coordinated shift patterns, parking management and incentive structures. A monitoring period commensurate with the scale of the development will be required, and the approved GTP will remain in place for the lifetime of the development, with any amendments subject to further written approval. 80. Subject to this condition, the proposal is considered to accord with the National Roads Development Guide, LDP2 Policy 60, and the sustainable transport objectives of NPF4 Policy 13, and is acceptable in terms of access, parking and servicing arrangements. Ecology/Trees 81. The proposal involves a change of use only and does not include any physical works, site clearance, tree removal or alterations to the built form or landscape. As such, there would be no direct or indirect impacts on existing trees, habitats, or ecological features within or adjacent to the site. In the absence of any physical development, the proposal is not considered to raise issues in relation to trees or ecology, and no further assessment or mitigation is required in this regard. Planning Obligations and Legal Agreements 82. None required. Direction By Scottish Ministers 83. Under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, regulations 30 – 33 there have been no directions by the Scottish Government in respect of an Environmental Impact Assessment screening opinion, call in or notification relating to this application. Conclusion and Reasons for Recommendation 84. Having regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is considered that the proposed change of use of 61 holiday cottages at Moness Resort to allow a flexible dual use for holiday accommodation or staff accommodation is acceptable in principle. In particular, the proposal has been assessed against Policy 9 of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019, which seeks to safeguard tourism accommodation, and Policy 30 of National Planning Framework 4, which supports the resilience and adaptability of the tourism sector. 85. The proposal represents a managed and flexible change in occupancy, rather than a permanent or irreversible loss of tourism accommodation. The cottages
Page 16
would remain in single ownership and under unified management, with the ability to operate as holiday accommodation retained and prioritised during peak periods. As such, the proposal does not introduce Class 9 residential units nor does it undermine the tourism function of the resort, and it is consistent with the requirements of Policy 9 in maintaining the role of established tourism assets. 86. The supporting occupancy evidence and Socio-Economic Assessment demonstrate that the proposal responds to seasonal fluctuations in demand and enables more efficient year-round use of the accommodation stock, without displacing tourist provision during peak periods. This approach aligns with Policy 30 of NPF4, which supports proposals that secure the long-term resilience and viability of tourism facilities, including through adaptation where appropriate. 87. The assessment further demonstrates that the proposal would support the continued operation of Moness Resort while also addressing recognised workforce accommodation needs associated with the nearby Taymouth Castle Estate. By providing managed, tied staff accommodation within an existing resort setting, the development contributes to staff recruitment and retention and reduces pressure on the local private rented sector, without giving rise to unacceptable impacts on infrastructure, amenity, access or the environment. 88. Concerns raised through representations have been carefully considered in the context of the above policy framework and the submitted evidence. These matters can be appropriately addressed through planning conditions, particularly in relation to occupancy control, ensuring that units are not used as unrestricted permanent housing. 89. On balance, the proposal represents a proportionate and policy compliant form of development, which maintains the tourism function of the site in accordance with Policy 9 of the LDP2 while supporting its continued viability and adaptability in line with Policy 30 of NPF4, and can therefore be supported subject to appropriate conditions. Recommendation Approve the application subject to the following conditions: Conditions and Reasons for Recommendation 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.
Page 17
2. The units hereby approved shall be used solely for holiday accommodation or for staff accommodation in connection with the Taymouth Castle Estate only. For the avoidance of doubt, occupation for staff accommodation shall be limited to employees (and, where applicable, their immediate families) of the Taymouth Castle Estate only. The operator shall maintain an up-to-date register of occupants, including details of employment (where relevant) and duration of stay, which shall be made available to the Planning Authority on request. Reason - To ensure that the accommodation can be utilised for both tourism accommodation or for staff accommodation does not give rise to unrestricted residential use, in the interests of proper planning and in accordance with the approved use of the site. 3. Prior to any of the units being utilised for staff accommodation, a detailed design for the proposed secure covered cycle parking facility for a minimum of 20 cycles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority. The design shall also show the location of the cycle parking which shall take account of the visual amenity of the area and setting of nearby listed buildings. The cycle parking, as approved in writing, shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority prior to the development being brought into use. Reason - To encourage active travel and meet advice within Scottish Planning Policy on transport. 4. Prior to any of the units being utilised for staff accommodation a Green Travel Plan (GTP), aimed to encourage more sustainable means of travel, shall be submitted to and subsequently approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Transport Planning. The GTP will have particular regard to provision for walking, cycling and public transport access to and within the site and will identify the measures to be provided (including the provision of new cycle storage, path links), the system of management, monitoring, review, reporting and the duration of the plan. This can be based upon the Draft Green Travel Plan submitted with the application (doc ref:19). The GTP shall include measurable targets for a percentage reduction in single-occupancy car use, a percentage target for shuttle service use and a percentage target for car-share uptake. The GTP shall also include the following: • What are the targeted modal splits/expected outcomes for shuttle vs car etc • Shuttle service commitments (minimum service levels/manage over subscription/future demand)
Page 18
• Reducing car use (how will this be done, incentives for shuttle use, disincentives for unnecessary single vehicle trips (e.g parking management, priority for car share) • Travel Demand Management - Co-ordination of shift times to ensure car sharing/car parking allocations/encouraging staff without car to use Moness accommodation. • The monitoring period for the travel plan for this scale of site would probably need to be longer than 18 months. The GTP as approved in writing shall be adhered to for the lifetime of the development and shall be a fluid document. Any changes proposed should be submitted to the Planning Authority for written approval. Reason - To promote sustainable transport options and to meet advice within Scottish Planning Policy on transport. 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 None 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. The proposal does not involve an increase in the vulnerability of the land use and therefore the submission of a Flood Action Plan has not been required as a condition of this permission. However, it is recommended that the applicant gives consideration to the preparation and implementation of a Flood Action Plan as a precautionary measure. This would assist in enhancing resilience to potential flood events and support the safety of occupants and the continued operation of the development.
Page 19
4. The internal site is to remain private and as such will not be maintained by Perth & Kinross Council, nor will it be suitable for future adoption. The Waste Services team have requested that if the developer would like the Waste Collection Vehicle to enter the site to collect waste, then the developer will be required to indemnify the Council through a signed waiver. 5. The applicant can seek guidance on the detailed design and positioning of the cycle storage from Transport Scotland's Cycling by Design 2021 or similar design guide. Background Papers Letters of representation 4 Authors Name Designation Contact Details John Williamson Planning Officer developmentmanagement@pkc.gov.uk Approved Name Designation Date Sean Panton Team Leader (Major Applications and Enforcement) 17 July 2026