24/01616/Flm
Perth and Kinross Council · 9 September 2026
Back to Planning and Placemaking Committee — 9 September 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 - 9 September 2026 Report of Handling by Development Management and Building Standards Service Manager (Report No. 26/240) Proposal: Formation of operations complex comprising erection of welfare buildings, office building, laundry facilities, workshop, alterations to existing access, formation of roads, parking areas and associated works Location: Land 600 Metres North East Of Sealtainn, Bolfracks, Aberfeldy, PH15 2EY Ref. No: 24/01616/FLM Ward No: P4 - Highland Summary The proposed Back of House Operations Village is recommended for approval as essential permanent operational infrastructure required to support the management and operation of Taymouth Castle Estate, an established rural business and tourism destination of economic significance. It replaces temporary facilities in a more sensitive part of the estate. The development principle is supported by Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan (LDP2) Policy 8 and National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) Policy 29, which encourage the growth and diversification of existing rural businesses. Supporting information shows that alternative estate locations are constrained by heritage, landscape, flood risk and operational considerations, the proposal representing the most suitable option. While there will be localised landscape change within the Taymouth Castle Garden and Designed Landscape, the proposal is carefully designed (as amended) to minimise impacts via siting, scale, materials, landscaping and screening. Technical assessments and consultation responses confirm that impacts on landscape, ecology, the River Tay SAC, trees, noise, lighting, air quality, drainage, flood risk, transport and archaeology can be satisfactorily mitigated through planning conditions. The proposal will also support the continued investment, employment and economic benefits associated with the wider Taymouth Estate. The operational need, policy support, lack of suitable alternatives, and acceptable environmental impacts weigh significantly in favour of the development and overall the positives significantly outweigh the negatives. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to accord with the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan and NPF4 and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
Page 2
Background and Description of Proposal 1 This proposal is the erection of a “Back of House” Operations Village some 600 metres (m) north-east of Sealtainn, Bolfracks, Aberfeldy. This part of the wider ongoing redevelopment and restoration of the Taymouth Castle Estate, a nationally important heritage asset including a Category A listed building and designated Designed Garden and Landscape. 2 Comprising a purpose-built operations village and provide essential infrastructure for the management, maintenance and operation of the estate. This includes a range of facilities such as administration offices, staff welfare and service buildings, a commissary (staff restaurant/food store) and associated infrastructure including access improvements, internal roads, parking, and supporting development comprising a greenhouse and link road. 3 The development is required to replace existing temporary ‘back of house’ facilities currently located just north of the A listed Taymouth Castle and not providing a sustainable long-term solution, reflected by the time-limited consent expiring in 2029 (ref: 23/02148/FLL). This area eventually proposed as a formal landscaped garden. The relocation of facilities site reflects the needs of the estate while reducing operational pressures within the sensitive core of the designed landscape. 4 The location is set within Newhall Woods, in the far east of the main estate. This area characterised by woodland, former plantation forestry and overhead powerline infrastructure corridors. Thus whilst within nationally and locally designated landscapes, it is considered a less sensitive part of the wider designed landscape. The proposals taking this into account and resulting in a design responding to the constraints, topography, and landscape context. 5 The proposals include: • Upgrade of an existing vehicular access from the A827 adjacent to East Lodge • Formation of a road, parallel to A827 • Security parking and kiosk • Roundabout and turning area • Two lane loop around buildings • Internal bus stops for shuttle service to remainder of estate • Access road connecting west into the Taymouth Estate • Commissary building – delivery hub with kitchen, bakery, canteen, lockers and support services • Administration offices – offices, meeting rooms and estate management functions • Laundry building – processing estate laundry (relocated from temporary location north of castle, ref:23/02148/FLL) • Staff gym and lounge – welfare facilities • Security/management kiosk – controlling site access • Vehicle wash bay – for cleaning estate vehicles • Refuse and recycling area
Page 3
• Greenhouse – growing food and flowers for estate use (subject to separate application currently under consideration 24/01618/FLL) • Car Park (subject to separate application also currently under consideration 24/01617/FLL) • SSE Substation (subject to separate applications – 26/00740/FLL under consideration and 26/01016/FLL - currently awaiting validation) 6 The proposal is designed sustainability and with efficient use of existing resources, reusing some of the operational buildings currently closer to Taymouth Castle within the proposed Operations Village. These include existing delivery, laundry and storage facilities, to be adapted for staff welfare, maintenance and estate management uses. 7 The supporting documents accompanying the application (Design and Access Statement, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Transport Assessment, Flood Risk Assessment, and other technical reports) set out the design rationale, environmental considerations, and policy context. Site History • 24/01617/FLL – Formation of Car Park – Under consideration. • 24/01618/FLL - Erection of greenhouse and formation of access road – Under Consideration. • 26/00740/FLL - Land engineering operations to form platform for future works – Under Consideration • 26/01016/FLL - Installation of switchroom, statcom unit and 2 transformers, formation of access track and associated works – Awaiting validation/registration Environmental Impact Assessment 8 A screening exercise was undertaken by the Planning Authority in August 2024 (ref:24/01282/SCRN) in accordance with the EIA (Scotland) Regulations 2017 which concluded that this development, whilst falling under Schedule 2 (10) and (12) of the above regulations relating to Urban Development Projects and Tourism and Leisure, was unlikely to result in significant environmental effects. It was therefore concluded that the proposal was not EIA development. Pre-Application Consultation 9 The proposed development is classed as a Major development in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009. Therefore, the applicant was required to undertake formal pre application consultation with the local community. The content of the Proposal of Application Notice (PoAN) (ref. 23/00007/PAN) was approved by Perth and Kinross Council in April 2023 and two public consultation events were subsequently held at the
Page 4
Kenmore Hotel on 17 May and 21 June 2023, alongside supporting engagement including a dedicated project website, neighbour notification and press advertisements. 10 Public comment during the PAC process, as outlined in the submitted PAC Report, identified a range of matters including the scale and visual impact of the development within the rural landscape, potential ecological impacts, effects on access and road safety, and the implications of specific elements such as the originally proposed biomass plant. There was a mixed overall response, with support noting economic benefits, job creation and the role of the development in supporting the Taymouth Estate, while concerns focused on environmental and landscape impacts. The applicant has confirmed that feedback has informed the evolution of the proposals, including the removal of the biomass plant and incorporation of mitigation measures. 11 The PoAN was considered by the Planning and Development Management Committee on 14 June 2023 with Members noting the proposed consultation approach. Development Plan 12 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 13 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. 14 The Council’s assessment of this application has considered the following policies of NPF4: • Policy 2: Climate Mitigation and Adaptation • Policy 3: Biodiversity • Policy 4: Natural Places • Policy 6: Forestry, Woodland and Trees • Policy 7: Historic Assets and Places • Policy 13: Sustainable Transport • Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place • Policy 18: Infrastructure First • Policy 22: Flood Risk and Water Management • Policy 23: Health and Safety • Policy 29: Rural Development • Policy 30: Tourism
Page 5
Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 15 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. 16 The principal relevant policies are, in summary; • Policy 1A: Placemaking • Policy 1B: Placemaking • Policy 2: Design Statements • Policy 6: Settlement Boundaries • Policy 8: Rural Business and Diversification • Policy 15: Public Access • Policy 26A: Scheduled Monuments and Archaeology: Scheduled Monuments • Policy 29: Gardens and Designed Landscapes • Policy 32: Embedding Low & Zero Carbon Generating Technologies in New Development • Policy 38A: Environment and Conservation: International Nature Conservation Sites • Policy 39: Landscape • 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 55: Nuisance from Artificial Light and Light Pollution • Policy 56: Noise Pollution • Policy 57: Air Quality • Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals Statutory Supplementary Guidance 17 • 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 - Forest & Woodland Strategy (adopted in 2020) • Supplementary Guidance - Green & Blue Infrastructure (adopted in 2020) • Supplementary Guidance - Landscape (adopted in 2020) • Supplementary Guidance - Placemaking (adopted in 2020)
Page 6
Other Material Considerations PKC Non Statutory Guidance 18 • 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) National Guidance 19 The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through various documents including the National Roads Development Guide and a series of Circulars in addition to NPF4. Those relevant are listed below. National Roads Development Guide 2014 20 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 21 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 in place covering this area. Consultations 22 As part of the planning application process the following bodies were consulted: External 23 Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust - No objection, but advise the site is archaeologically sensitive, with potential for prehistoric remains and features associated with Taymouth Castle and its designed landscape. PKHT supports the submitted assessment and recommends that archaeological evaluation and recording works be secured through a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) via planning condition. 24 Historic Environment Scotland - The principle of the development is considered acceptable, being located within a less sensitive part of the Taymouth Castle Designed Garden and Landscape. The western parts of the development would be visible from the A827 where there are open views west across the designed landscape and down to Kenmore. The assessment of potential setting and landscape impacts submitted with the application are welcomed as are the proposed mitigation measures.
Page 7
25 Kenmore Community Council - No comments 26 Scottish Water - No objection 27 Scottish Environment Protection Agency - No objection, but highlight there may be surface water run-off from drain B. Advising this is for the local authority to take a view on. 28 NatureScot - No objection, subject to mitigation. Advise that the development is likely to have a significant effect on the River Tay SAC and therefore requires an Appropriate Assessment. But conclude that there will be no adverse effect on site integrity provided a Construction Method Statement (CMS) is implemented to control pollution and sediment run-off during construction. Also advise that impacts on protected freshwater pearl mussels can be avoided through the proposed mitigation measures, including an appropriate sewage treatment plant and implementation of the CMS. Internal 29 Conservation Team - No objection in principle, notes that, although the site lies within a less sensitive part of the Taymouth Castle Garden and Designed Landscape, the scale of the development will result in a significant change to the rural landscape character. Recommend that buildings remain single storey, that natural and sympathetic materials are used, hard landscaping is minimised, and landscaping and tree protection measures are secured by condition to reduce visual impacts. 30 Flooding - No objection, subject to conditions requiring the submission of a detailed Drainage Strategy and SUDS scheme. Advise the site lies outwith the River Tay floodplain and recommends a CMS to avoid impacts on the River Tay SAC. 31 Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) - No objection 32 Environmental Health (Noise Odour) - No objection. Advise the submitted Noise Impact Assessment and Air Quality Impact Assessment are accepted and conclude that operational noise, traffic and air quality impacts would not be significant. Recommend conditions relating to operating hours for the workshop and vehicle wash bay, noise limits for plant and equipment, external lighting, construction hours, dust management and controls on vehicle idling. 33 Transportation and Development - No objection, subject to conditions. Advise satisfaction with the proposed access arrangements, parking provision, internal road layout and transport assessment, but recommend conditions relating to access construction, visibility splays, a Construction Traffic Management Plan, bus stop infrastructure, covered cycle parking, a Green Travel Plan, and servicing arrangements for the wastewater treatment plant. 34 Development Contributions Officer - Advise no contributions are required.
Page 8
35 Commercial Waste Team - Advise the proposed waste storage facilities are acceptable. 36 Enterprise Team - No comments 37 Biodiversity Officer - No objection, subject to conditions. Advise the submitted ecological assessments are in accordance with best practice, with all mitigation measures required to be implemented. Conditions are recommended to secure a revised Biodiversity Enhancement Plan, an Invasive Non-Native Species Control Plan, updated ecological surveys where necessary, and species protection measures during construction. Also note the presence of bat roosts requiring licensing from NatureScot and highlights concerns regarding the loss of trees within an area of ancient woodland, requiring appropriate mitigation and compensation. Representations 38 5 objections have been received, a summary of the issues are: • Traffic generation and impact • Road Safety • Contrary to Development Plan • Alternative sites preferable • Timing ang and hours of operation • Noise and residential amenity impact • “Salami” slicing of site • Impact on tourism • Waste management • Impact on River Tay Special Area of Conservation • Lighting impact • Out of character with area • Over intensive development • Lack of Environmental Impact Assessment • Flood Risk • Loss of trees • Loss of open space • Impact on ecology 39 These concerns are addressed in the Appraisal section below. 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 completed
Page 9
Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Submitted Report on Impact or Potential Impact e.g. Flood Risk Assessment Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) Drainage Report (DR) Transport Statement (TS) and Draft Green Travel Plan (DGTP) Draft Construction Method Statement (DCMS) Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) Energy Statement (ES) Ecological Appraisal (EA) Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) Planning Statement (PS) Air Quality Report (AQR) PAC Report Economic Impact Assessment (EcIA) Archaeology Report (AR) 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 principle of developing the site for a Back of House Operations Village falls to be assessed against Policy 8 (Rural Business and Diversification) of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 (LDP2) and NPF4 Policy 29 (Rural Development), taking account of both the operational requirements of the Taymouth Castle Estate and the environmental sensitivities of the site and its surroundings. 42 The proposal is fundamentally linked to the ongoing redevelopment and operation of Taymouth Castle Estate, which is an established and consented development of considerable scale. Planning permissions across the estate include the refurbishment of the castle, numerous listed buildings, development of the golf course and the delivery of around 150 estate properties alongside associated tourism and leisure uses, reflecting a significant long-term investment in the site and its economic role within the area. The scale and complexity of this operation
Page 10
inevitably generates a requirement for a coordinated and properly designed back of house facility to support estate management, servicing and staff functions. 43 At present, these operational needs are being met through temporary facilities located within the estate adjacent to Taymouth Castle, providing key services including laundry, storage and staff welfare. However, these are approved on a temporary basis and are not suitable as a permanent solution, particularly given their location in proximity to the Category A listed castle and within a sensitive part of the designed landscape. The application therefore seeks to replace this interim arrangement with a permanent, consolidated facility designed to meet the long-term operational needs of the estate. 44 In this context, the proposal aligns positively with Policy 8 of the LDP, which supports the expansion and diversification of existing rural businesses where development is directly related to an established activity or site-specific opportunity. The operations village is clearly not a standalone or speculative development; rather, it represents essential supporting infrastructure required for the continued and longer-term functioning and management of the developing Taymouth Estate. This direct functional relationship is a key material consideration weighing in favour of the principle of development. 45 Similarly, the proposal accords with the intent of NPF4 Policy 29, which promotes rural economic activity, diversification and investment where these contribute to the sustainability of rural businesses and communities. The development forms part of a wider programme of investment that will support tourism, employment and estate management functions, thereby contributing to the local economy and helping to secure the long-term future of the estate as a significant rural enterprise. 46 Notwithstanding this support in principle, the assessment must also recognise that the site lies within a highly sensitive landscape context, including designation as part of the Taymouth Castle Garden and Designed Landscape. Development therein being inherently constrained and must be carefully justified, particularly where it introduces new built form into an undeveloped area. The scale of the proposal is c.11.9 hectares, emphasising the need to carefully balance operational requirements against potential impacts on landscape character. 47 The Planning Statement (PS) acknowledges these constraints and explains that the ability to accommodate development of this scale/nature within the wider estate is limited. Large areas being constrained by their proximity to listed buildings, their role within the designed landscape, existing land uses such as the golf course, and issues such as flood risk, particularly in areas closer to the castle. While the estate itself is extensive, the realistic opportunities for locating the proposed development without unacceptable environmental or heritage impacts are restricted. 48 In response, the applicant has undertaken an assessment of alternative sites within their ownership and concluded that the proposed ‘Newhall’ location represents the least sensitive and most suitable option available. The site is removed from the core of the designed landscape and principal listed buildings, thereby limiting impacts on the most sensitive heritage assets, while still maintaining a functional connection to
Page 11
the estate through existing access routes through Newhall Woods. The sites selection reflects a balance between operational necessity and environmental constraints, although it does result in the introduction of development into a currently undeveloped area. 49 The scale and form of the proposal also reflects the operational requirements of the estate. The range of facilities proposed—including administrative buildings, staff welfare facilities, servicing areas and associated infrastructure—corresponds with the needs of a large, actively managed rural estate and is supported by detailed justification within the submitted documents. While the overall footprint is substantial, it is clear that the scale is driven by functional necessity. Nevertheless, it is recognised that it will represent a significant change to the immediate character of the surroundings, and its location outwith any defined settlement boundary reinforces the need for robust justification. The separation of the operations village from the core estate, while beneficial in reducing impacts on heritage assets, also introduces built development into a new part of the landscape, which must be carefully weighed in the overall planning balance. 50 Taking all of these factors into account, the principle of development is considered to be supported by the strong operational need for the facility, its clear functional relationship to the Taymouth Castle Estate, and the broader policy support for rural diversification and economic development. These considerations are balanced against the sensitivity of the site and the scale of the proposal. However, the evidence demonstrates that alternative locations within the estate are either constrained or unsuitable, and that the chosen site represents the most appropriate option available. 51 On this basis, and subject to detailed consideration of landscape, visual and environmental impacts, the principle of the development is considered to accord with Policy 8 of the Perth and Kinross LDP2 and NPF4 Policy 29. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 52 The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LDP2, in particular Policies 1A and B: Placemaking and Policy 39 (Landscape), together with NPF4 policies relating to design, placemaking and the protection of valued landscapes (including Policies 14, 20 and 29). Collectively these seek to ensure that development responds sensitively to landscape character, safeguards important views and designed landscapes, and achieves a high standard of design, informed by site context. 53 In this regard, the proposal incorporates an appropriate palette of materials, including timber cladding and dark, non-reflective corrugated finishes, reflecting a contemporary rural aesthetic and ensuring the development integrates with its landscape setting. The buildings are predominantly single storey, reinforcing a low- profile and subservient/appropriate form within the landscape. 54 Particular attention has been given to the design and scale of the estate administration building (Building 2). The initial design considered to be of a scale
Page 12
and massing not appropriate for this sensitive setting, with its design dominating the overall composition of what is otherwise a grouping of small-scale rural structures. Following a meeting with the project architect, amended plans were submitted significantly reducing its scale and prominence. The revised design now allows the proposal to be read as a cohesive grouping of related buildings rather than being dominated by a single structure. This through a reduced overall massing, simplified form, reduced gable heights, and a lowering of the roof pitch. In addition, associated plant and solar panels have been repositioned and are now discreetly accommodated at upper level, limiting their visibility in the wider landscape. The updated material palette, including corrugated metal roofing and black wall cladding, further reinforces the appearance of a cluster of ‘agricultural’ buildings, ensuring a more sympathetic relationship with its rural context. 55 In tandem, the originally proposed workshop building has been removed. This has created space for the introduction of an SSEN substation at the western end of the site. Two separate planning applications have been submitted: one by the current applicant, relating to the formation of a concrete platform on which the substation will be located (ref: 26/00740/FLL), and a second application submitted by SSEN for the substation equipment and associated infrastructure (ref: 26/01016/FLL). These applications are programmed to be determined following this committee meeting. 56 The Planning Authority’s preference was for the substation to be incorporated within the current application for the operations village as a single, comprehensive proposal. However, due to operational and legal constraints between the developer and SSEN, this has not been possible. While this presents more complex procedural work, the principle of the substation’s location remains unchanged. 57 Following pre-application discussions, it was agreed that the substation would be most appropriately located as part of the grouping of buildings within the operations village. This approach avoids the need to site such infrastructure elsewhere within the designed landscape, where its landscape and visual impact could be more pronounced. A detailed assessment of the landscape and visual effects of the substation will be set out within the planning report for the relevant applications, which concludes that the impacts are acceptable when considered within the context of the wider operations village. 58 As said the site lies within the Taymouth Castle Garden and Designed Landscape (GDL), a designation of national importance, and within the wider Lower Upland Glens Landscape Character Type. The submitted LVIA, together with subsequent addendum, states that the development will result in localised, significant landscape effects within the site itself and its immediate surroundings, reflecting the scale of the proposal and the introduction of built form into a currently semi-natural area. The addendum to the LVIA have been prepared to reflect the design amendments to Building 2 and the proposed siting of the SSEN substation; however, the overall conclusions of the assessment remain unchanged. The findings indicate that the proposed substation would be viewed in the context of the wider Operations Village and associated built development, with the effects of existing vegetation, buildings and proposed planting providing a degree of screening. The updated assessment does not identify any materially different landscape or visual effects from those
Page 13
previously assessed and concludes that the inclusion of the substation does not alter the overall landscape and visual impact of the scheme to a significant extent. An independent assessment of the substation will be undertaken as part of the consideration of applications 26/00740/FLL and 26/01016/FLL. 59 The overall impacts are largely localised, with the LVIA concluding that effects on the wider landscape character area and more distant receptors are negligible due to the containment. The use of recessive colours and naturally weathering materials further assists in limiting visual prominence. 60 In this regard, it is an important material consideration that the development is sited within a less sensitive part of the wider HGDL, which is already influenced by existing infrastructure, most notably the Beauly–Denny overhead transmission line. The presence of large-scale pylons and associated infrastructure introduces a strong man-made component to the landscape and reduces the relative sensitivity of this part of the HGDL compared to its core designed areas. The LVIA identifies these pylons as prominent features within views, with the proposed development typically read in this existing context rather than as an isolated or incongruous addition. The proposed agricultural-style building forms and subdued material palette reinforce this relationship with existing land uses and infrastructure. 61 Furthermore, the development is physically and visually removed from the principal listed buildings and key designed components of the estate, thereby limiting any impact on the setting of the most sensitive heritage assets within the GDL. While some tree loss and change within the immediate site will occur, the broader integrity and appreciation of the HGDL is largely preserved, consistent with the aims of LDP2 Policy 39 and NPF4 Policy 7(i). The simple, rural materiality and modest detailing of buildings ensure that the development does not compete visually with the historic architectural character of the estate. 62 The topography is also a key moderating factor. The land slopes from the A827 southwards down towards the River Tay, with the developable area positioned below the level of the A827. This landform, combined with existing woodland and boundary features, limits outward visibility, particularly from the A827 and wider receptors to the south. The LVIA confirms that visibility is largely restricted to the immediate vicinity and a limited number of receptors due to this combination of topography and vegetation. As such, while the development is of a relatively large scale (c.11.7ha), its perceived scale in the landscape is partly addressed by containment and screening, further mitigated by the materials used. 63 In addition, the siting reflects environmental constraints, with the layout influenced by flood risk associated with the River Tay and its floodplain to the south. This has necessitated positioning the development on higher ground. The compact arrangement of buildings, combined with the proposed materials, ensures that the visual effects of built form are appropriate. 64 In visual terms, the LVIA identifies significant effects primarily for receptors in close proximity, including sections of the River Tay Way and the immediate HGDL, particularly during construction. However, for the majority—including nearby
Page 14
settlements, road users and recreational routes—effects are assessed as moderate or negligible and not significant, largely due to distance, screening and the presence of existing built and infrastructural elements. Importantly, proposed mitigation, including structural planting and woodland restocking, together with materials that weather naturally and blend into the landscape, will further reduce visibility over time, with residual effects diminishing to negligible in many instances by year 10. 65 As mentioned above, separate applications have been submitted for additional car parking (ref: 24/01617/FLL), located immediately to the south of the proposed building group, and for a greenhouse and associated access track (ref: 24/01618/FLL), to the west of the operations village. The submission of these proposals as separate applications is a consequence of the evolution of the wider development proposals following the pre-application consultation process. The original Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) site extended northwards to the River Tay and included a significantly larger development area. However, subsequent site investigations identified that much of the land in the northern part of the site, adjacent to the River Tay, is affected by flood risk, thereby limiting its development potential. As a result, elements originally envisaged, namely the greenhouse and additional parking area, required to be relocated to land lying outwith the site area that was subject to the PAN process. Consequently, these components have had to be submitted as separate planning applications. 66 Notwithstanding their separate submission, both applications have been assessed in conjunction with the operations village proposal and are considered to be acceptable in the context of the wider operations village development. A detailed assessment of each proposal will be provided within the respective reports for those applications; however, reference is made to them here for completeness given their functional relationship with the operations village. These applications will be determined following a decision on this committee item. 67 Overall, while the development results in a degree of localised landscape change, it is considered that the proposal responds appropriately to its context, making use of a less sensitive part of the HGDL, taking advantage of existing screening and topography and the presence of the existing OHL and incorporating mitigation measures to reduce visual effects. The careful selection of timber, corrugated cladding and muted colours contributes positively to this approach. On balance, the proposal is considered to accord with the relevant provisions of LDP2 and NPF4 relating to landscape, visual impact, and placemaking, with no unacceptable impacts on the wider landscape character, key views, or the integrity of the designed landscape. Noise Impact and Residential Amenity 68 The potential impact of the proposed development on residential amenity, with particular regard to noise, has been assessed through the submitted Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) and the consultation response from Environmental Health (EH). This matter is primarily considered against Policy 56 (Noise Pollution) of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019, which seeks to prevent unacceptable noise impacts on existing or proposed sensitive receptors, and NPF4 Policy 23
Page 15
(Health and Safety), which requires that new development does not result in unacceptable risks to health, safety or amenity. 69 The NIA identifies three principal noise sensitive receptors, including nearby residential properties at Styx Cottage, Carse Farm and the Gatehouse, and assesses the impact of operational noise sources associated with the development, including plant, ventilation systems, workshop activities and the vehicle wash bay. The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with BS4142:2014, comparing predicted operational noise levels against measured background noise levels, which are derived from a site-specific baseline survey. 70 The results of the assessment indicate that, at all identified receptors, the predicted noise levels associated with the development are well below existing background levels, both during daytime and night-time periods. For example, rating levels are shown to be between 2 dB and 25 dB below background levels, depending on receptor and time of day, which equates to a low or negligible impact with a low likelihood of noise being perceptible. As such no specific mitigation measures are required in order to achieve acceptable levels. 71 These findings are supported by the consultation response from EH, who raise no objection. EH accepts the methodology and conclusions of the NIA and confirms that the development can be accommodated without adverse effects on nearby residential properties, subject to the imposition of planning conditions. These include restrictions on the hours of operation for the workshop and vehicle wash bay, and a requirement that all plant and equipment be controlled to specified noise rating limits at neighbouring properties (Conditions 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9). Such conditions provide additional safeguards to ensure that noise levels remain within acceptable thresholds over the lifetime of the development. 72 It is also relevant that the site is located approximately 300 metres or more from the nearest third-party residential receptors, within a predominantly rural environment where background noise is already influenced by traffic along the A827 and other factors. This separation distance alone, combined with the relatively low predicted noise levels, limits the potential for adverse amenity impacts. 73 Notwithstanding the positive findings, it is recognised that the development introduces new operational activity, including plant that may operate on a 24-hour basis. While the modelling demonstrates that noise levels remain below background levels, the introduction of continuous low-level noise in a rural setting has the potential to be perceptible in certain circumstances. However, the conservative assumptions applied in the modelling, alongside the recommended planning conditions, provide confidence that any such effects would be limited and would not rise to a level that would be considered unacceptable. 74 Overall, the evidence demonstrates that the proposal would not give rise to significant adverse impacts on residential amenity in terms of noise. Subject to the recommended conditions, the development is considered to comply with Policy 56 of the LDP2, in that it would not generate noise at a level that would adversely affect
Page 16
neighbouring receptors, and with NPF4 Policy 23, as it would not give rise to unacceptable impacts on health, safety or amenity. Lighting 75 The application is supported by a Lighting Technical Note (LTN) which sets out a strategy based on minimising light spill, glare and sky glow through the use of low- level, directional and dark-sky compliant lighting. This includes the use of low colour temperature (c.1750K) luminaires, zero upward tilt, shielding and controls such as timers and Passive Infrared (PIR) or ‘motion’ sensors to ensure lighting is only used when required. 76 It is acknowledged that the introduction of an operations village in this ‘dark’, rural location will inevitably result in a discernible change to the existing lighting environment. However, the level and extent of lighting has been carefully limited to essential operational areas, with boundary levels kept low (generally below 0.4 lux) to protect surrounding dark areas and ecological interests. 77 In assessing this impact, it is important to consider the findings of the wider siting and design assessment, which concludes that the chosen location reflects operational requirements and limited site availability within the Estate. In that context, the lighting is considered to be an anticipated and necessary consequence of the development, but one that has been appropriately mitigated through design. A condition is recommended to ensure limits on light spill beyond the site boundaries (Condition 7). 78 Overall, the proposal is considered to accord with LDP2 Policy 55 and NPF4 Policy 23, as the lighting strategy minimises adverse impacts on amenity, ecology and the night sky as far as reasonably possible. Subject to the submission and approval of an updated lighting plan and the implementation of the proposed mitigation and controls, the level of impact is considered acceptable. Air Quality 79 Th supporting Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) considers the effects of operational and construction traffic, emissions from the laundry facility and construction dust. It follows recognised guidance and identifies that, while the development exceeds initial Stage 1 screening criteria, due to the scale of parking provision and combustion sources, it does not exceed Stage 2. As such, the overall effect of operational traffic and emissions is concluded to be not significant. 80 During the construction phase, the assessment identifies a medium risk of dust impacts on a nearby ecological receptor, with low risk associated with track out onto the A827. However, this is subject to the implementation of standard and site- specific mitigation measures, which are set out in the AQIA and are considered to appropriately manage these effects.
Page 17
81 The findings of the AQIA have been reviewed and accepted by EH, subject to conditions securing the recommended mitigation, particularly in regard to construction dust mitigation (Condition 9). 82 Having regard to LDP2 air quality policy requirements and NPF4 Policy 23, the proposal is considered acceptable in that it would not result in significant adverse impacts on air quality. The assessment demonstrates that both operational and construction effects can be effectively controlled, and the development is therefore considered to comply with the relevant policy framework. Flood Risk 83 The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), which considers the potential for flooding from nearby watercourses, including the River Tay, the Croftmoraig Burn and the Tullichuil Burn, as well as smaller drainage channels. This is assessed against NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 52, which aim to avoid development in areas at risk of flooding and ensure risks are properly managed. 84 The FRA shows that while the site sits relatively close to the River Tay and is influenced by the Croftmoraig Burn and Tullichuil Burn, the buildings themselves are located on higher ground that is not at risk from predicted flooding, even during a very rare and severe event (a 1 in 200 year flood including climate change). Areas of lower ground closer to the River Tay could flood in such circumstances, but these are free from built development. The assessment also looks at smaller burns and drainage routes within the site, where water can flow during heavy rain. It notes there may be some localised surface water and minor ponding, particularly along these drainage channels, but this is not unusual and can be managed through standard drainage design approaches. 85 Consultation responses support these findings. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) confirms that the site is outwith areas at risk of flooding from the River Tay and the nearby burns, raising no objection. SEPA does note a small potential issue with surface water from one drain, but this is a detailed design matter rather than a constraint to development. 86 In addition, the Council’s flooding team has been consulted and has raised no objection, indicating that the approach taken is acceptable. 87 Overall, the development has been designed to avoid flood risk from the River Tay, Croftmoraig Burn and Tullichuil Burn, with any minor surface water issues capable of being managed through standard measures. On that basis, the proposal complies with NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 52, and would not result in unacceptable flood risk either on the site or elsewhere. Drainage 88 The application is supported by a Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) which sets out how both foul and surface water will be managed. This has been assessed against Policy 53 (B and C) of LDP2 and NPF4 Policy 23, which seek to ensure that
Page 18
developments are properly drained, incorporate sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), and avoid harm to the water environment. Foul Drainage 89 Given the site is not connected to the public sewer network, a private foul drainage system is proposed. This will collect and direct wastewater to a specialist treatment plant, before controlled discharge to the River Tay, subject to the necessary SEPA authorisation and EASR Permit (formerly CAR license). 90 The system includes standard drainage arrangements, together with additional safeguards such as a grease separator for the kitchen facilities, a cooling tank for the laundry building, and covered washbay and refuse areas to prevent unnecessary contamination. These measures ensure that wastewater is appropriately treated prior to discharge and that risks of pollution are minimised. 91 This approach reflects the requirements of LDP2 Policy 53B and NPF4 Policy 23 by providing a suitable and controlled means of foul water treatment where a public sewer connection is not available. Surface Water and SuDS 92 Surface water from the development will be managed through a comprehensive SuDS strategy, designed to mimic natural drainage as far as possible. The proposals include a combination of: • Permeable paving for access roads, parking areas and yards • Roadside filter trenches to collect, treat and convey runoff • Underground storage and attenuation, ensuring flows are restricted • Rainwater harvesting within the greenhouse. 93 The Council’s Flooding and Drainage Team have accepted the principle of the proposed drainage system subject to a condition which requires the fully detailed design to be submitted for approval which can be secured by condition (Condition 25). 94 Overall, the proposed drainage strategy demonstrates that the development can be satisfactorily drained without adverse impact on the surrounding area or water environment. It incorporates appropriate foul treatment, a robust SuDS network, and effective pollution control measures, in accordance with Policy 53B and 53C of LDP2 and NPF4 Policy 23. 95 Accordingly, the drainage arrangements are considered acceptable. 96 A separate assessment of potential effects on the River Tay SAC is provided elsewhere within this report.
Page 19
Ecology 97 The application is supported by a comprehensive Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA), which has been undertaken in accordance with recognised guidance and informed by detailed desk study and field survey work. The EcIA identifies a range of ecological receptors within and adjacent to the site, including the River Tay SAC, areas of ancient woodland, and a number of protected species such as bats, otter, freshwater pearl mussel and breeding birds. 98 The assessment concludes that, in the absence of mitigation, construction activities have potential for temporary significant effects on certain receptors, particularly in relation to water quality, habitat disturbance and protected species. However, the EcIA contains mitigation measures, including a Construction Environmental Management Plan, Ecological Clerk of Works supervision, pre-construction surveys, species protection plans and habitat management measures. Subject to these measures, the EcIA concludes that there would be no significant residual effects during either the construction or operational phases. 99 The Biodiversity Officer has reviewed the EcIA and confirms that it conforms with best practice and was undertaken at an appropriate time of year. Thus has no objection subject to conditions securing: mitigation, species licensing (in relation to bat roosts), and a revised Biodiversity Enhancement Plan (BEP). (Conditions 10- 16). They highlights the importance of fully implementing mitigation measures, strengthening enhancement proposals, and addressing invasive species. 100 Having regard to LDP2 Policy 41 and NPF4 Policy 3, the proposal demonstrates compliance with the mitigation hierarchy and ensures that impacts on protected species, habitats and designated sites are avoided, minimised and appropriately mitigated. Furthermore, subject to the refinement of the BEP through condition, the development has scope to deliver biodiversity enhancement in line with policy objectives (Condition 12). 101 A Fresh Water Pearl Mussel Survey was undertaken and accepted by Nature Scot, subject to submission and agreement on a Construction Method Statement and by installing an appropriately specified sewage treatment plant (Condition 27). 102 Overall, taking account of the EcIA findings and consultation responses, and subject to conditions securing mitigation, enhancement and ongoing management, the proposal is considered to accord with Policy 41 of LDP2 and Policy 3 of NPF4, as it will not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on biodiversity and provides an appropriate framework for ecological protection and enhancement. River Tay Special Area of Conservation 103 The EcIA identifies the River Tay SAC as an internationally designated site of high sensitivity, designated for qualifying features including Atlantic Salmon, brook, river and sea lamprey, otter and clear-water lochs with aquatic vegetation. An Appropriate Assessment has been undertaken, which considers the potential for likely significant effects on the integrity of the SAC.
Page 20
104 While construction activities have the potential to give rise to adverse indirect effects, particularly through impacts on water quality, such as sedimentation, pollution and hydrological change, the assessment confirms that these risks can be effectively mitigated. In particular, the implementation of a robust Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and detailed Construction Method Statements (CMS) would ensure appropriate controls are in place, including pollution prevention measures, buffer zones to watercourses and ecological supervision. Such measures reflect established approaches that have been successfully applied elsewhere within the wider Taymouth Estate. (Condition 16). 105 Subject to the implementation of these measures, the EcIA concludes that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the River Tay SAC, and no significant residual effects on its qualifying interests. As confirmed via the Appropriate Assessment. Accordingly, the impact on the SAC is considered to be appropriately addressed and acceptable in policy terms. Trees 106 The application is supported by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and Tree Management and Mitigation Plan (TMMP) prepared in accordance with BS5837. The AIA identifies 21 significant trees within and adjacent to the site, comprising a mix of high (Category A), moderate (Category B) and lower quality specimens, together with areas of mixed woodland and self-set planting. 107 The proposed development will require the removal of a number of trees, including 12 identified significant trees in addition to 2 Category U trees which are recommended for removal on arboricultural and safety grounds. This includes the loss of some higher value Category A and B trees, and it is acknowledged that this represents an impact on the existing tree resource and local landscape character. However, the wider assessment notes that much of the surrounding woodland is of limited quality, including commercial forestry with a higher risk of windthrow, and that some removal is necessary to facilitate safe access and development. 108 The proposal seeks to retain trees where feasible, the implementation of root protection areas during construction, and the provision of compensatory planting as mitigation. The TMMP demonstrates that substantial areas of woodland will be retained and supplemented by new planting, resulting in a longer-term enhancement of tree cover and habitat value. In addition, detailed measures including protective fencing, no dig construction techniques and arboricultural supervision are proposed to ensure the safeguarding of retained trees throughout the construction process. These measures are secured by condition (Condition 4 109 Having regard to LDP2 Policy 40B and NPF4 Policy 6, it is recognised that the proposal will result in some loss of trees and woodland, including individual trees of higher value. However, this must be considered in the context of the site’s characteristics and the operational requirements of the development. The submitted assessment demonstrates that tree loss has been minimised as far as reasonably practicable, that poorer quality and unsafe trees are prioritised for removal, and that mitigation and compensatory planting will secure a net improvement in arboricultural
Page 21
amenity over time. The compensatory planting will be secured by condition (Conditions 2 and 3). 110 Overall, subject to conditions securing the implementation of the Tree Management Plan, protective measures and replacement planting, the proposal is considered to comply with the aims of LDP2 Policy 40B and NPF4 Policy 6, in that impacts on trees are appropriately managed and mitigated, and the long-term woodland resource is safeguarded and enhanced. Landscaping and Tree Planting/Compensatory Planting 111 The proposals see retention of trees where feasible, the protection of root protection areas during construction, and the provision of compensatory planting. The submitted landscape proposals demonstrate a substantial level of replanting, including approximately 261 new trees (based on a 3:1 replacement ratio), comprising a mix of native and characteristic estate species such as oak, beech, lime, birch, rowan and cherry. These are supplemented by extensive structural planting, including over 300 linear metres of hedgerow, areas of shrub planting, and significant groundcover including circa 5,600m² of meadow and 900m² of lawn. The planting is focused on reinforcing and extending the riverside woodland corridor, strengthening landscape structure along the northern boundary, and providing screening and integration of the development, with particular emphasis on creating a continuous tree belt along the River Tay and enhancing ecological connectivity. All secured by condition (Conditions 2 and 3). 112 Having regard to LDP2 Policy 40B and NPF4 Policy 6, it is recognised that the proposal will result in some loss of trees and woodland, including individual trees of higher value. However, this must be considered in the context of the site’s characteristics and the operational requirements of the development. The submitted assessment demonstrates that tree loss has been minimised as far as reasonably practicable, that poorer quality and unsafe trees are prioritised for removal, and that mitigation and compensatory planting will secure a net improvement in arboricultural amenity over time. 113 Overall, subject to conditions securing the implementation of the Tree Management Plan, protective measures and replacement planting, the proposal is considered to comply with the aims of Policy 40B and NPF4 Policy 6 in that impacts on trees are appropriately managed and mitigated, and the long-term woodland resource is safeguarded and enhanced. Traffic and Access 114 The application is supported by a Transport Statement (TS) and Draft Green Travel Plan (DGTP), and PKC Transport Planning raise no objection subject to conditions. The site lies in a rural location within Taymouth Estate, the immediate surroundings see opportunities for walking and cycling limited due to distance and infrastructure constraints. While there are some core paths in the wider area and limited bus services connecting Kenmore and Aberfeldy, these options are not well aligned with staff travel patterns and are unlikely to serve as primary modes of access.
Page 22
115 In transport terms, the development is expected to generate approximately 139 two‑way trips per day; however, a substantial proportion of these trips already occur within the Estate and would simply be relocated. The net increase is therefore considered relatively small and anticipated as the development progresses to completion, and the assessment demonstrates that the A827 has sufficient capacity to accommodate this uplift without adverse impact. Transport Planning agree, and it is considered that the proposal complies with LDP2 Policy 60B in that it would not prejudice the safe and efficient operation of the local road network. 116 The proposed access arrangements involve upgrading the existing East Lodge junction onto the A827, including the provision of visibility splays to a 2.4m x 215m standard through removal or relocation of vegetation, fencing and other obstructions. Swept path analysis demonstrates that the junction can accommodate all likely vehicle movements, including service and emergency vehicles. Transport Planning recommend conditions to secure the construction of the access, visibility splays and a Construction Traffic Management Plan, subject to this the proposals are considered acceptable in road safety terms (Conditions 17, 18 and 19). 117 A key component is the emphasis on sustainable travel, particularly the provision of a staff shuttle bus. Information confirms that this already operates, serving locations such as Aberfeldy, Pitlochry and Perth, with an existing uptake of around 60% of operational staff. Th applicant (River Tay Development Ltd) is to continue this service as part of the Green Travel Plan, with a Travel Plan Co‑ordinator responsible for monitoring and reporting. This is a significant mitigation measure which will reduce reliance on private car use and is central to compliance with NPF4 Policy 13. A fully detailed Green Travel Plan and its implementation for the lifetime of the development is secured by Condition 22. 118 In terms of public transport infrastructure, Transport Planning have require a bus boarder be provided on the north (development) side of the A827, provision on the opposite side being constrained by visibility, safety considerations and third‑party land ownership. This approach also consistent with the previously approved West Gate access, where provision was similarly limited to one side of the road. A condition securing the delivery of the bus boarder on the development side is considered appropriate (Condition 21). Arrangements for west bound bus users associated to the applicant’s business should be set out in the GTP. (Condition 22). This may be a shuttle bus collection at the nearest suitable stop. 119 The development also incorporates supporting measures for sustainable travel, including covered cycle parking (Condition 23), shower and changing facilities, electric vehicle charging points and internal pedestrian connections. While the rural context limits the likely uptake of walking and cycling, these measures ensure that opportunities for alternative modes are provided where feasible. In addition, a GTP will be secured by condition 22, requiring ongoing monitoring, promotion of sustainable transport options and the long‑term operation of the shuttle bus service. 120 With regard to parking provision, the application includes a dedicated car park comprising 53 spaces, including 6 electric vehicle charging spaces and 11
Page 23
accessible/disabled spaces. In addition, a separate car park providing a further 43 spaces is proposed under the associated planning application 24/01617/FLL. A total of 113 parking spaces would be available to support the proposed use. This level of provision is considered sufficient to accommodate staff and visitor demand, while also recognising the role of the staff shuttle service and other sustainable travel measures in reducing reliance on private vehicle travel. It should also be noted that a significant portion of staff who currently park at the temporary operations buildings immediately adjacent to Taymouth Castle will be relocated to the new operations village. 121 Overall, the proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of NPF4 Policy 13 and LDP2 Policy 60B. The level of traffic generated is modest and can be accommodated within the existing network, safe access can be achieved, and a comprehensive package of sustainable transport measures is proposed. Subject to conditions, including the provision of the bus boarder and the implementation of the Green Travel Plan with ongoing shuttle service provision, the transport impacts of the development are considered acceptable. Archaeology 122 The application is supported by an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment and Walkover Survey reflective of the location within the Taymouth Castle Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape and the potential for previously unrecorded buried archaeology. While no significant remains were identified within the site, the wider area is known to be archaeologically rich, and ground disturbance could affect unknown subsurface features. 123 Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust raise no objection but confirms the archaeological sensitivity and recommends a programme of archaeological works secured through a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) to ensure any remains are appropriately recorded (Condition 26). 124 Having regard to LDP2 Policy 26B and NPF4 Policy 7, the potential impacts are considered acceptable as they can be mitigated through evaluation, excavation and recording secured by condition. Subject to these measures, the proposal would safeguard archaeological interests and comply with policy. Economic Impact 125 The submitted Economic Impact Assessment identifies a range of economic benefits arising from the construction and operation of the proposed development, which weigh in favour of the proposal. In the short term, the construction phase is expected to support c.35 net additional jobs within Perth and Kinross, alongside £1.1 million in wages and £2.5 million in Gross Value Added (GVA), providing a temporary but positive boost to the local economy. 126 More notably, the longer-term operational impacts are more substantial. The development, as part of the wider Taymouth Estate, is estimated to support around 200 FTE jobs, with annual impacts of £8 million in wages and £14 million in GVA,
Page 24
equating to approximately £120 million in GVA and £60 million in wages over a 25- year period. These figures indicate a meaningful contribution to the rural economy, particularly in supporting employment and reinforcing the viability of the estate as a significant tourism and economic asset. The proposal also functions as enabling infrastructure, helping to facilitate and sustain these wider economic benefits. 127 However, the weight afforded to these impacts should be moderated. The figures represent modelled estimates rather than guaranteed outcomes, and are subject to assumptions around delivery, market conditions and operational performance. In addition, some benefits will be affected by leakage and displacement, and the scale of the economic impact largely reflects the performance of the wider estate rather than the operations village in isolation. 128 Overall, while there is some uncertainty around the precise scale of benefits, the proposal is likely to generate moderate to significant positive economic effects, and this carries material weight in support of the development, albeit not determinative on its own. Energy 129 The proposal has been assessed against LDP2 Policy 32 and NPF4 Policy 2, which require developments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and incorporate low and zero-carbon technologies. The submitted Energy Statement confirms that the scheme adopts a fabric-first approach to minimise energy demand and will incorporate renewable technologies, including air source heat pumps and photovoltaic panels. Together with energy-efficient systems such as LED lighting and heat recovery ventilation, these measures demonstrate that the development is capable of meeting policy requirements and supporting climate mitigation objectives. SSE Substation and Phasing 130 The supporting information confirms that the delivery of a new electrical substation forms a key element of the wider Taymouth Estate infrastructure, required to provide a reliable energy supply to support the approved and emerging associated development. The substation, comprising transformers, a switch room and associated infrastructure, has been progressed in consultation with SSE and is proposed within the operations village site following an assessment of alternative locations and is subject to applications 26/00740/FLL and 26/01016/FLL. 131 In this regard, the Council has indicated that the substation should be integrated within the layout of the operations village, rather than located separately within the wider Historic Garden and Designed Landscape (HGDL), in order to minimise impacts on more sensitive parts of the designation. It is therefore considered that the substation would only be acceptable where it is visually and functionally associated with the operations village, forming part of a coherent built grouping. When viewed in this context, the substation would also be read alongside existing energy infrastructure, notably the Beauly–Denny overhead transmission line, thereby limiting its perceived impact on the landscape.
Page 25
132 Amended plans support this application, identifying the proposed location of the substation at the western end of the building cluster, ensuring it is physically and visually integrated with the operations village rather than being isolated. It is noted that the substation itself remains subject to separate planning applications (26/00740/FLL and 26/01016/FLL). 133 To ensure that the substation remains appropriately integrated and does not come forward in isolation, it is recommended that a condition is attached requiring the submission and approval of a Phasing and Implementation Plan for the wider operations village (Condition 28) in association with the substation, greenhouse and car park. This will secure the coordinated delivery of the substation alongside the wider development, including clear timing of works, provision of structural landscaping and boundary treatments, and defined trigger points for subsequent phases. The condition will also ensure that the substation cannot remain as a standalone feature in the longer term, with requirements for the timely commencement of the wider operations village and implementation of landscaping, thereby safeguarding the character and integrity of the HGDL. Variation of Application Under Section 32A 134 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 design of Building 2 and amendments to accommodate the proposed SSEN substation. Planning Obligations and Legal Agreements 135 None required. Direction By Scottish Ministers 136 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 137 The proposed Back of House Operations Village is considered to constitute essential operational infrastructure required to support the long-term management and operation of the evolving Taymouth Castle Estate. The development has a clear functional relationship with an established rural enterprise and is supported in principle by LDP Policy 8 and NPF4 Policy 29. 138 While the proposal will introduce substantial new development within the Taymouth Castle Garden and Designed Landscape and result in localised landscape change and tree loss, the evidence demonstrates that alternative locations are constrained and that the application site represents the most suitable and least sensitive option available. Design revisions, the use of appropriate materials, structural landscaping,
Page 26
and significant compensatory planting have reduced the scale and visual impact of the proposal, with effects largely confined to the immediate area. 139 Technical assessments and consultation responses confirm that impacts relating to landscape, residential amenity, lighting, air quality, flood risk, drainage, ecology, the River Tay SAC, trees, transport and archaeology can be satisfactorily mitigated and managed through planning conditions. 140 The proposal will also deliver economic benefits through supporting the ongoing operation of the estate, employment opportunities and wider rural investment. 141 On balance, it is considered that the operational and economic benefits of the development outweigh the identified localised impacts, which can be appropriately mitigated. Subject to the recommended conditions, the proposal is considered to accord with the relevant policies of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 and National Planning Framework 4. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval. 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. 2. The detailed landscaping and planting scheme hereby approved shall be implemented on a phased basis. Prior to the commencement of any development details of the phasing and timetable for the implementation of the landscaping and planting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The phasing and timetable shall accord with the Phasing and Implementation Plan required by Condition 27 of this permission. Each phase of landscaping and planting shall be implemented in accordance with the approved phasing and timetable. Thereafter, the approved scheme shall be maintained, with any planting which fails to become established within five years being replaced during the next planting season with others of a size and species previously approved. Reason - In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure the satisfactory implementation of the proposed planting scheme. 3. Prior to the commencement of each phase of development identified in the Phasing and Implementation Plan approved pursuant to Condition 27 of this permission, a Landscape Management Plan for that phase, including long-term design objectives,
Page 27
management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas within the phase, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. The Plan shall provide for the management and maintenance of the landscaping and planting approved under Condition 2 and shall accord with the approved landscaping phasing and implementation timetable. Thereafter, the approved Landscape Management Plan shall be implemented and adhered to in full. Reason - In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure the satisfactory implementation of the proposed planting scheme. 4. Prior to the commencement of any hereby approved works, all trees on site (other than those marked for felling on the approved plans) and those which have Root Protection Areas which fall within the site shall be retained and protected. Protection methods shall be strictly in accordance with BS 5837 2012: Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction and the mitigation contained within the approved Tree Management Plan (doc ref: 80). Protection measures, once in place, shall remain in place for the duration of construction. Reason - To ensure the protection of retained trees on site. 5. The hours of operation of the hereby approved vehicle wash bay shall be restricted to between 0900 hours and 1700 hours daily. Reason - In the interests of residential amenity; to ensure a satisfactory standard of local environmental quality. 6. All hereby approved plant or equipment 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 0700 hours daily, within any neighbouring residential property, with all windows slightly open, when measured and/ or calculated and plotted on a rating curve chart. Reason - In the interests of residential amenity; to ensure a satisfactory standard of local environmental quality. 7. All hereby approved external lighting shall be sufficiently screened and aligned so as to ensure that there is no direct illumination of neighbouring land and that light spillage beyond the boundaries of the site is minimised to a degree that it does not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbouring land. Reason - In the interests of residential amenity; to ensure a satisfactory standard of local environmental quality. 8. 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 or bank holidays (as identified by Scottish Government).
Page 28
Reason - In the interests of residential amenity; to ensure a satisfactory standard of local environmental quality. 9. Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Dust Management Plan (CDMP) shall be submitted to and subsequently agreed in writing by the council as Planning Authority and in consultation with Environmental Health. The approved CDMP shall be strictly adhered to for the duration of the construction of the development. Reason - In the interests of residential amenity; to ensure a satisfactory standard of local environmental quality. 10. The conclusions and recommended action points within the supporting biodiversity survey submitted and hereby approved (documents 69-75 inclusive) shall be fully adhered to, respected and undertaken as part of the construction phase of development. Reason - In the interests of protecting environmental quality and of biodiversity. 11. An updated ecology survey will be required prior to the commencement of development, if development has not commenced within 24 months of the date of the ecology survey approved as part of this permission. The updated survey shall be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority for written agreement and development shall not commence until after such written agreement has been issued by the Council. Reason - In the interests of protecting environmental quality and of biodiversity. 12. Prior to the commencement of development, a revised Biodiversity Enhancement Plan/Action Plan, including the location, quantity, specification and maintenance requirements for all biodiversity enhancement measures, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the biodiversity enhancement measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plan and retained and maintained in accordance with its provisions for the lifetime of the development. Reason - In the interests of protecting environmental quality and of biodiversity. 13. Prior to the commencement of development, an Invasive Non-Native Species Control Plan shall be submitted to and subsequently approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The plan shall contain measures to eradicate and control invasive non-native species. Thereafter, the agreed measures shall be implemented in full. Reason - In the interests of protecting environmental quality and of biodiversity. 14. Prior to the occupation of each phase of development identified in the Phasing and Implementation Plan approved pursuant to Condition 27 of this permission, wildlife kerbs shall be installed adjacent to all road gullies within that phase located within
Page 29
500 metres of a SUDS pond or watercourse. Thereafter, the wildlife kerbs shall be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development. Reason - In the interests of protecting environmental quality and of biodiversity. 15. Measures to protect animals from being trapped in open excavations and/or pipe and culverts shall be implemented for the duration of the construction works of the development hereby approved. The measures may include creation of sloping escape ramps for animals, which may be achieved by edge profiling of trenches/excavations or by using planks placed into them at the end of each working day and open pipework greater than 150 mm outside diameter being blanked off at the end of each working day. Reason - In the interests of protecting environmental quality and of biodiversity. 16. Development shall not commence until a detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) detailing environmental mitigation measures and construction method statements, including specific measures for environmental monitoring during construction, shall be submitted to and subsequently agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details shall be submitted not less than two months prior to the agreed scheduled commencement date and shall incorporate detailed pollution avoidance and mitigation measures for all construction elements and how the proposed development will be constructed to avoid conflict with the 400kV overhead transmission line running through the site. The CEMP must include measures to prevent harmful materials entering the River Tay SAC, which could reduce water quality and lead to a damaging impact on salmon, otter and lamprey interests. The CMS should include the following: a) pollution prevention safeguards including drainage arrangements and the possible use of siltation traps, settlement tanks and bunds b) storage and disposal of materials including the siting of stock piles, use of buffer strips and disposal methods c) construction site facilities including extent and location of construction site huts, vehicles, equipment, fuel, chemicals and materials compound d) timing, duration and phasing of construction particularly in relation to salmon and lamprey migration/spawning. e) how construction will proceed to avoid conflict with the overhead line. The CEMP and mitigations as agreed shall be fully implemented as part of the development of the site. Thereafter the development shall be fully undertaken in accordance with the agreed CEMP. Reason - To protect the River Tay Special Area of Conservation and the overhead transmission line. 17. Prior to any construction on site hereby approved, the vehicle access shown of approved Drawing 47 Appendix G, shall be constructed (using the Construction
Page 30
Type B from the Construction Details for Access Types, C, D and E) to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority. The Type B Road construction detail shall continue to the entrance for a minimum of 30 metres from the boundary of the public road surface. Reason - In the interests of road safety; to ensure an acceptable standard of construction within the public road boundary. 18. Prior to the commencement of any development, full visibility splays of 215 metres along the channel line shall be provided to the left and right of the access, at a set- back of 2.4 metres measured 1.05m above the road level to the standard and specification required by the Council as Roads Authority to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. The visibility splays shall be physically formed on the ground and any existing fences, walls, hedges or other means of enclosure or obstructions within the splays shall be removed and relocated outwith the splays. Once formed, the visibility splays shall be permanently retained thereafter, and no visual obstruction of any kind shall be permitted within the visibility splays so formed. Reason - In the interests of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate visibility of the vehicular access. 19. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the developer shall submit for the written agreement of the Council as Planning Authority, in consultation with the Roads Authority (Structures), a Construction Traffic Management Scheme (TMS) which shall include the following: a) restriction of construction traffic to approved routes and the measures to be put in place to avoid other routes being used; b) timing of construction traffic to minimise impact on local communities particularly at school start and finishing times, on days when refuse collection is undertaken, on Sundays and during local events; c) a code of conduct for HGV drivers to allow for queuing traffic to pass; d) arrangements for liaison with the Roads Authority regarding winter maintenance; e) emergency arrangements detailing communication and contingency arrangements in the event of vehicle breakdown; f) arrangements for the cleaning of wheels and chassis of vehicles to prevent material from construction sites associated with the development being deposited on the road; g) arrangements for cleaning of roads affected by material deposited from construction sites associated with the development; h) arrangements for signage at site accesses and crossovers and on roads to be used by construction traffic in order to provide safe access for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians; i) details of information signs to inform other road users of construction traffic; j) arrangements to ensure that access for emergency service vehicles are not impeded; k) co-ordination with other significant developments known to use roads affected by construction traffic;
Page 31
l) traffic arrangements in the immediate vicinity of temporary construction compounds; m) the provision and installation of traffic counters at the developer 's expense at locations to be agreed prior to the commencement of construction; n) monitoring, reporting and implementation arrangements; o) arrangements for dealing with non-compliance; and p) details of HGV movements to and from the site. The TMS as approved shall be strictly adhered to during the entire site construction programme. Reason - In the interest of proper site management. 20. All heavy commercial vehicles carrying materials to or from the site during the construction and operational phases of the development shall ensure that any loads liable to generate dust, debris, litter or other material capable of being deposited on the public road network are securely covered, contained or otherwise enclosed during transit, except where loads require inspection upon arrival at the site. Thereafter, all such vehicles shall operate in accordance with these requirements. Reason - To prevent the escape of dust, debris and litter from vehicles in the interests of road safety, residential amenity and environmental protection. 21. Prior to the commencement of any development on site, a detailed design for a bus stop facility comprising a bus boarder and flagpole on the north (development) side of the A827 shall be submitted to and subsequently approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Public Transport Unit. The bus stop facility, as approved in writing, shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the development being brought into use and shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development. Reason - To encourage the use of public transport and in the interests of road safety and sustainable travel. 22. No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied until a Green Travel Plan (GTP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Transport Planning. The GTP shall include: - Details of the client funded shuttle bus service, including routes, frequency, capacity and hours of operation. - A commitment to the ongoing operation of the shuttle bus service for the lifetime of the development. - Appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator. - Measures to promote sustainable travel choice for staff, including walking, cycling and public transport. Including arrangements for staff arriving via public transport via all available routes (noting that a bus boarder/stop is not available nearby on the south side of the A827). - Monitoring, review and reporting arrangements, with survey results submitted to the Planning Authority at agreed intervals.
Page 32
The approved Green Travel Plan shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of the development. Reason - To promote sustainable transport choices, reduce reliance on private car travel and accord with national and local transport policy. 23. Prior to the commencement of development, details of a secure covered cycle parking facility providing a minimum of 20 cycle spaces, including its location, design and the phase of development in which it is to be delivered in accordance with the Phasing and Implementation Plan approved pursuant to Condition 27 of this permission, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority. The cycle parking facility shall thereafter be provided in accordance with the approved details and retained for that purpose. Reason - To encourage active travel and meet advice within NPF4. 24. Development shall not commence until a detailed Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) scheme, including details of the phase or phases of development it is intended to serve in accordance with the Phasing and Implementation Plan approved pursuant to Condition 27 of this permission, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority, in consultation with SEPA where necessary. 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 and shall incorporate source control. The approved SUDS infrastructure for each phase shall be fully implemented and operational prior to the occupation or bringing into use of that phase. Thereafter, the approved scheme shall be retained and maintained. Reason - To ensure the provision of effective drainage for the site. 25. Development shall not commence until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation (WSI) which has been submitted by the developer and agreed in writing by the Council as Planning Authority, in consultation with Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust (PKHT). Thereafter, the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented including that all excavation, preservation, recording, recovery, analysis, publication and archiving of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken. Should the archaeological works, as required by the WSI, identify a requirement for post-excavation analysis, the development as approved shall not be occupied or brought into use until a Post-Excavation Research Design (PERD) has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Council as Planning Authority, in consultation with PKHT. The PERD shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details. Furthermore, the developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to PKHT or a nominated representative and shall allow them to observe work in progress.
Page 33
Reason - The site lies adjacent to an area of archaeological interest. 26. Prior to the commencement of any development a detailed specification of the proposed sewage treatment plant and associated discharge arrangements shall be submitted to and subsequently approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The submitted details shall demonstrate that the system will not adversely affect the water environment, including freshwater pearl mussel populations or their habitat. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To protect the water environment and freshwater pearl mussels from pollution arising from foul drainage and to address comments from Nature Scot. 27. No development shall commence until a Phasing and Implementation Plan for the Operations Village, including the approved substation subject to planning applications ref. 26/00740/FLL and 26/01617/FLL, greenhouse (ref: 24/01618/FLL) and car park (ref:24/01617/FLL) or any future amendments or follow up applications, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Phasing and Implementation Plan shall include: i. the sequencing and timing of construction of all elements of the Operations Village, including the substation, car park and greenhouse. ii. full details of all structural landscaping, planting and boundary treatments associated with the substation and its integration within the wider Operations Village, together with a timetable for implementation; iii. trigger points and programme milestones for the delivery of subsequent phases of the Operations Village following completion of the substation. Thereafter, development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Phasing and Implementation Plan. All structural landscaping associated with the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Phasing and Implementation Plan and landscaping timetable. Landscaping for each phase shall be completed no later than the first planting season (October to March) following the completion or bringing into use of that phase, whichever is the earlier. In the event that the next phase of the Operations Village has not substantially commenced within the period specified in the Phasing and Implementation Plan, following completion of the substation, a revised Phasing and Implementation Plan, including additional landscaping and planting mitigation measures for the substation and its setting, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority within 6 months of that date. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved revised details. Reason - To secure the coordinated delivery of the Operations Village and associated substation, and to ensure that appropriate landscaping and mitigation
Page 34
measures are delivered at an early stage in the interests of visual amenity and integration with the surrounding landscape. 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 N/A 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 work shall be commenced until an application for building warrant has been submitted and approved. 4. Trees and scrub are likely to contain nesting birds between 1st March and 31st August inclusive. Trees and scrub are present on the application site and are to be assumed to contain nesting birds between the above dates. The applicant is reminded that, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended (section 1), it is an offence to remove, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built. Planning permission for a development does not provide a defence against prosecution under this Act. 5. The developer should engage with the Council's Structures Team to confirm the scope of technical approval required for the retaining wall adjacent to the A827 and the need for Roads Construction Consent. 6. The applicant is advised to refer to Perth & Kinross Council's Supplementary Guidance on Flood Risk and Flood Risk Assessments 2021 as it contains advice relevant to your development. https://www.pkc.gov.uk/ldp2floodrisk 7. The developer is advised to contact Sophie Nicol, Historic Environment Manager (tel 01738 477027) Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust, to discuss terms of reference for work required.
Page 35
8. For the purposes of condition 28, "substantially commenced" shall mean the completion of foundations and works above ground level. 9. SSEN Transmission recommend the applicant/developer adheres to HSE (Health and Safety Executive) GS6: Avoiding Danger from Overhead Powerlines guidance for any work planned to take place within 15m of their overhead line. Additional advice can be sought from the following weblink: Helping you work safely near our network - SSEN Transmission 10. The applicant/developer shall contact SSEN Transmission at least 30 days in advance of commencing development at transmission.asset.management@sse.com to obtain safe working practises recommendations for working near and underneath the overhead transmission line. Background Papers Letters of representation 5 Authors Name Designation Contact Details John Williamson Planning Officer 01738 475300 developmentmanagement@pkc.gov.uk Approved Name Designation Date Sean Panton Team Leader (Major Applications and Enforcement) 18 August 2026 Kristian Smith Service Manager 26 August 2026