23/02025/Fll
Perth and Kinross Council · 12 March 2025
Back to Planning and Placemaking Committee — 12 March 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Perth and Kinross Council Planning and Placemaking Committee – 12 March 2025 Report of Handling by Strategic Lead: Economy, Development and Planning (Report No. 25/55) PROPOSAL: Erection of retail unit (Class 1A), formation of vehicular access, parking area, landscaping and associated works LOCATION: Land 75 Metres North of 288 Strathtay Road, Perth, PH1 2JU, Crieff Road, Perth Ref. No: 23/02025/FLL Ward No: P11- Perth City North Summary This report recommends refusal of the application as the development is considered to be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no material planning considerations apparent which justify setting aside the Development Plan. Background and Description of Proposal 1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a Class 1A retail unit, comprising 1,949sqm of gross internal area (GIA) with a net sales area of 1,331sqm, 103 car parking spaces, an associated access and landscaping. The site is located on the north side of the A85 (Crieff Road) at ‘Newton Farm’, to the south-east of McDiarmid Park football stadium and next to the Crieff Road/A85 junction. The site extends to around 0.95 hectares. 2 Currently comprising greenfield land, the site relates to a former area of ‘Newton Farm’, where farming operations have been discontinued. Other areas, of what was Newton Farm, borders the site to the north and west. The site and the adjacent former areas of Newton Farm are part of a wider allocation (H71) within Local Development Plan 2 for some 72-110 homes. 3 The immediate areas adjacent to the site primarily comprises a mix of residential, retail, employment and the St Johnstone football stadium and its associated infrastructure. The north of the site comprises a greenfield site, with McDiarmid Park and its training pitches located further northwest; to the east and south, beyond the Crieff Road, is a mix of residential dwellings and employment sites;
Page 2
whilst to the west is where the Newton Park Farm complex of buildings were located, with a Tesco Extra being located further west beyond the football related areas, near the A85 Roundabout. Proposal 4 The proposed single-storey foodstore will be orientated roughly east-westwards; occupying the northern section of the site; as mentioned above the GIA is 1,949 sqm and the net sales area 1,331 sqm; this will incorporate an 80:20 split between convenience and comparison goods. This means that approximately 1,065 sqm will be dedicated to convenience goods; and the remaining 266 sqm comparison goods on a rotating basis. 5 The building will also include a warehouse measuring 405 sqm; and 213 sqm of ancillary floorspace. The warehouse will comprise a chiller; a freezer; the delivery area; and various storage spaces. The ancillary floorspace is made up of staff welfare facilities; an in-store bakery; a cash office; an I.T. room; a meeting room; customer toilets; and the entrance pod. 6 The vehicular access to the site will be via a new road from the Crieff Road to the west. Whilst a new pedestrian access is proposed along the southern boundary. Delivery vehicles will share the same vehicular access, driving into the site and crossing the car park before turning left and reversing into the delivery bay. 7 103 parking spaces are proposed, comprising: 86 'standard' customer bays; Six accessible spaces; Nine ‘parent & child’ bays; and Two electric vehicle charging point (EVCP) bays. 8 The car park area will extend from the building into the western area. Accessible and parent & child spaces will be located close to the trolley bay and store entrance, with the accessible spaces to the west of the store entrance, beyond the car park aisle; and the parent & child spaces along the western elevation of the store. Cycle parking is also proposed. 9 A dedicated delivery bay will be provided along the eastern elevation of the store. This will enable delivery vehicles drive onto the site, before reversing into the bay to unload stock directly into the warehouse area before diving forward and away. 10 The store is proposed to be atypical of the operator, single storey with a monopitch roof extending to a height of 7.1m. The east elevation, facing onto the A85 is proposed to be finished with high level glazing along the entire length and a brick effect cladding. To the south onto Crieff Road the elevation is to be glazed with associated signage, which will require advertisement consent. The north and west elevations comprise of insulated composite cladding panels in
Page 3
pure white with the entrance curtain graphite grey. The access into the store is proposed on the west elevation. To the north of the site a retention structure to address a change in levels. This proposes to use a "green bag" solution to allow the retention structure to "green". 11 This application is a re-submission following the withdrawal of application 22/00816/FLL. This after the Planning Authority identified significant policy concerns regarding the erection of a supermarket in this location. Despite it being made clear that the principle of developing the site was contrary to the Development Plan, the applicant has chosen to make a further application. There were also pre-application discussions undertaken in July 2023 where the Planning Authority stated that the principle of a foodstore was considered contrary to planning policy. Site History 12 10/00004/PAN A Proposal of Application Notice was submitted on 7 May 2010 for the erection of a foodstore (Class 1) and petrol filling station with associated car parking, landscaping and access (in principle). The Council accepted the consultation proposed. 13 12/00001/PAN A further Proposal of Application Notice was submitted on 15 February 2012 for a retail foodstore, petrol filling station and associated works including landscaping, formation of new access road and road improvements. The Council accepted the consultation proposed. 14 12/00964/IPM A Planning Permission in Principle application was withdrawn on 3 September 2012. This related to the demolition of buildings, erection of a retail store (Class 1) with associated petrol filling station, car parking, access road, landscaping and link road and new junction. 15 15/00014/PAN A further Proposal of Application Notice was submitted on 25 August 2015 for a residential and retail development with associated access roads, infrastructure and landscaping. 16 15/01840/SCRN An Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Opinion Request was submitted on 16 November 2015 for a residential and retail development with associated access roads, infrastructure and landscaping. The Council issued a Screening Opinion. 17 19/00009/PAN A final Proposal of Application Notice was submitted on 30 October 2019 for a residential development, landscaping and associated works (allocated site H71). The Council accepted the consultation proposed. 18 21/02024/FLL An application seeking Full Planning Permission for the excavation of soil and other material was withdrawn on 21 April 2022.
Page 4
19 22/00816/FLL A further application seeking Full Planning Permission for the erection of a retail unit (Class 1), formation of vehicular access, parking area, landscaping and associated works was withdrawn on 13 December 2022. 20 22/01174/FLL Full Planning Permission was approved on 24 August 2022 for the excavation of soil and other material. Environmental Impact Assessment 21 The proposal is not considered to be EIA development and a PKC Screening Opinion confirms this. Pre-Application Consultation 22 Pre application Reference: 23/00063/PREAPL 23 The proposed development is not classed as a Major development in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, therefore the applicant was not required to undertake formal pre-application consultation with the local community. Development Plan 24 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 25 The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) is the Scottish Government’s long- term spatial strategy with a comprehensive set of national planning policies. This strategy sets out how to improve people’s lives by making sustainable, liveable and productive spaces. NPF4 has an increased status over previous NPFs and comprises part of the statutory development plan. 26 The Council’s assessment of this application has considered the following policies of NPF4: Policy 2: Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policy 3: Biodiversity Policy 6: Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 13: Sustainable Transport Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place Policy 15: Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods Policy 16: Quality Homes Policy 18: Infrastructure First Policy 20: Blue and Green Infrastructure
Page 5
Policy 22: Flood Risk and Water Management Policy 23: Health and Safety Policy 27: City, Town, Local And Commercial Centres Policy 28: Retail Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 27 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. 28 The application site forms part of the H71 Newton Farm allocation for between 72 -110 homes. The site-specific developer requirements for the allocation are: A masterplan will be required for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site setting out the phased release of housing areas. It should be informed by a Flood Risk Assessment. Cycle paths and connections to core paths should be incorporated into the masterplan and designed to improve active travel links to Perth. Enhancement of biodiversity Energy Statement including details of an investigation into the potential of, and/or extension of a heat network to serve the development. 29 The principal relevant policies of the LDP2 are, in summary; Policy 1A: Placemaking Policy 1B: Placemaking Policy 2: Design Statements Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions Policy 6: Settlement Boundaries Policy 13: Retail and Commercial Leisure Proposals Policy 15: Public Access Policy 17: Residential Areas Policy 25: Housing Mix Policy 32: Embedding Low & Zero Carbon Generating Technologies in New Development 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
Page 6
Policy 57: Air Quality Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals Statutory Supplementary Guidance 30 Supplementary Guidance - Air Quality (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) PKC Non Statutory Guidance 31 Planning Guidance - Delivery of Development Sites Planning Guidance - Planning & Biodiversity Supplementary Guidance - Renewable & Low Carbon Energy (draft) National Guidance 32 The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through Planning Advise Notes, Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and a series of Circulars in addition to NPF4. Planning Advice Notes 33 The following Scottish Government Planning Advice Notes (PANs) and Guidance Documents are of relevance to the proposal: PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PAN 68 Design Statements PAN 69 Planning and Building Standards Advice on Flooding PAN 75 Planning for Transport PAN 77 Designing Safer Places Creating Places 2013 34 Creating Places is the Scottish Government’s policy statement on architecture and place. It sets out the comprehensive value good design can deliver. It notes that successful places can unlock opportunities, build vibrant communities and
Page 7
contribute to a flourishing economy and set out actions that can achieve positive changes in our places. National Roads Development Guide 2014 35 This document supports Designing Streets and expands on its principles and is the technical advice that should be followed in designing and approving of all streets including parking provision. Other Material Considerations 36 Perth and Kinross Retail Study February 2023 37 This study provides an evidence base to assist PKC with its work on the Development Plan and to assist in assessment of retail applications and review related economic development framework Consultations 38 As part of the planning application process the following bodies were consulted: External 39 Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust - No archaeological mitigation required 40 Transport Scotland - No objection 41 Scottish Environment Protection Agency - The site is not at risk from flooding and the Flood Risk Assessment confirms this. 42 Scottish Water - No objection Internal 43 Environmental Health (Noise Odour) - No objections, subject to conditions relating to: dust management during construction, control of plant and equipment noise, control of noise from deliveries during both daytime and nighttime, a noise complaint procedure and alignment of lighting. 44 Transportation and Development - The access and parking arrangements are considered acceptable, with an appropriate number of parking spaces provided for cars, EVs and cycles. Following the submission of additional information the existing road network (with the proposed signalised junction) is considered capable of accommodating the proposed development. 45 Development Contributions Officer - A Developer Contribution of £213,626 towards transportation infrastructure is required.
Page 8
46 Development Plan - Proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policy 28 - Retail and LDP2 Policy 13 - Retail. This is explained in more detail in the “Principle” paragraphs below. 47 Community Greenspace - No objection, as there is no impact on the existing core path network. 48 Biodiversity/Tree Officer - The submitted ecology report recommends a further two aerial inspections are undertaken on PRF-M (Potential Bat Roost Features). These aerial inspections should take place between May-September with at least three weeks between inspections in order to determine presence/likely absence of roosting bats. These inspections have not been undertaken and are required before any planning permission can be granted. Approval of the application without this information would be contrary to local and national guidance and policy. 49 Structures and Flooding - No objection, subject to conditions relating to surface water drainage provision. 50 Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) - A condition is recommended to ensure the provision of a Preliminary Risk Assessment to address any potential contamination. 51 Environmental Health (Private Water) – No objection. Representations 52 10 representations were received, all in support. The points are: Employment provision and salary benefits Supports economic development Provides discount retail Complies with the Development Plan Environmental benefits Sustainable travel benefits 53 It should be noted that a petition with 8 signatures in support of the application was received after the closure of the statutory advertisement period which highlights the same issues outlined above. 54 These issues are addressed in the Appraisal section of the report.
Page 9
Additional Statements 55 Screening Opinion EIA not required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not required Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations Habitats Regulations Appraisal completed AA not required Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Submitted Report on Impact or Potential Impact e.g. Flood Risk Assessment Submitted Appraisal 56 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 2 (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 consideration of the Council’s other approved policies and supplementary guidance as outlined above. Principle National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) Policy 28 - Retail 57 Policy 28(a) of NPF4 states that retail proposals require to be consistent with the town centre first principle. This means that retail proposals will be supported in: (i) Existing city, town and local centres (ii) Will be supported in edge of centre areas or in commercial centres if they are allocated sites suitable for new retail development in the LDP (iii) Will not be supported in out of centre locations (other than meeting Policy 28(c) or 28(d). 58 The application site is in an out of centre location and therefore does not meet criteria (i) or (ii) above. Otherwise Policy 28(c) relates to small scale neighbourhood retail development and 28(d) relates to island and rural areas. Neither of these are applicable in this case. 59 In terms of 28(c) this proposal involves a 1,949 square metre store with 103 parking spaces. This is considered to be substantially beyond a “small scale neighbourhood facility” to support local day to day shopping needs, as intended to meet the requirements of Policy 15 of NPF4: 20 Minute Neighbourhoods.
Page 10
60 It is important to highlight the recent outcome of a judicial review (JR) by Tesco which overturned the Council's decision to grant planning permission to Aldi for a supermarket at Pitheavlis, Cherrybank (ref: 21/00248/FLL). This decision from the Court of Session is reflected in the reasoning and approach taken in this assessment, in that this proposal is not a “small scale neighbourhood” retail development. The outcome of the JR seeing the position of the judgement being that it was agreed “that, looked at objectively, there is no way in which a proposal for an 1800 square metre development, with 100 car parking spaces, having a catchment area of half of the city could be said to be a "small scale neighbourhood retail development" as envisaged by paragraph (c) of Policy 28.' 61 In relation to NPF4 Policy 28 and exception (c) the JR concludes the size of the store proposed is not neighbourhood scale. Furthermore the 2023 Perth and Kinross Retail Study recommends the next LDP defines such development as comprising no more than 500 sqm of gross floorspace, with individual retail units measuring no more than 200 sqm gross. These controls seeking to ensure that such retail development principally serves local retail needs and is consistent with the principles of 20-minute neighbourhoods as outlined in Policy 15. 62 In summary the JR decision confirms that in order to be considered as an acceptably scaled neighbourhood level foodstore in an out of centre location the size would have to be significantly smaller than was proposed and is proposed in this application. The Council’s own Retail Study indicating that the proposed store is almost 10x the individual unit size and 4x the total multiple unit scale envisioned. As such the proposed supermarket is not considered a small scale neighbourhood retail development and therefore does not meet the terms of Policy 28(c). 63 Policy 28 directs planning authorities to sites allocated in the Development Plan when considering new retail need. In the case where there are no existing sites that are suitable it will be for the Development Plan review to bring forward new sites, if there is identified need. However, the Council’s 2023 Retail Study, referenced above, has concluded that there is no capacity/need for additional convenience retail floorspace within Perth (and more widely Perth and Kinross as a whole). The projections for physical retail space are not positive due to a contraction and a number of factors like the increase in online shopping and click and collect. Based on the study findings the Council is not likely to identify further commercial centres/or expand existing ones in Perth via the current LDP review. 64 The applicant's view is that there is an inherent need for discount foodstore provision on the application site, however, this is not considered to be a relevant test or consideration in relation to the determination of this planning application. Retail policy does not allow for a differentiation between retail offerings or operators, rather it is the use class which is considered and the assessment required to be made without reference to a specific operators business model/offering. The applicant has carried out a public consultation exercise, which indicates a level of support for the proposal and there have also been
Page 11
letters of support received, albeit these were submitted after the closure of the public consultation period. Whilst these views are noted, they are not significant considerations and there remains a fundamental issue with compliance with NPF4 Policy 28. The presence of supporting representations is not considered to outweigh the above policy concerns. Policy 15: 20 Minute Neighbourhoods 65 In terms of other relevant NPF4 policies, Policy 15 relates to local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods. It seeks to create compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home. The submission argues that the proposal meets the requirements of Policy 15. However, it is again important to consider the outcome of the JR which states: 66 “I agree with the petitioner that, looked at objectively, there is no way in which a proposal for an 1800 square metre development, with 100 car parking spaces, having a catchment area of half of the city could be said to be a “small scale neighbourhood retail development” as envisaged by paragraph (c) of Policy 28.” 67 The intent of Policy 15 is to encourage, promote and facilitate the application of place principles and create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, preferably by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options. 68 The proposed store which would have a large catchment is, as has been set out above, not a small scale neighbourhood retail development. Rather it is clear that the store would serve both local and a wider car-based catchment, indeed this is identified within the submission. 69 There is no specific definition of what Policy 15 is seeking to secure, in terms of shopping, it is important to note that the policy states ‘daily’ and that the retail study indicates stores of 200sqm are the maximum size of what the Council consider as a ‘neighbourhood store’. Although it is appreciated that a much larger store, such as of the scale proposed, may cater for daily needs, its function is to provide a facility to meet all food shopping needs in one trip and is most likely to be accessed by private car and used as a weekly shopping destination. It is therefore considered that Policy 15 is not the appropriate policy to consider the principle of a significantly scaled supermarket, which serves much more than a local catchment accessed primarily by sustainable modes. Although the proposal may meet a daily need as people close to the shop may walk there and back for top up items, the proposal cannot gain the appropriate level of support from this policy to outweigh Policy 28. 70 Policy 27 of NPF4 relates to town, local and commercial centres. It must be noted that it is designed to deal with proposals for other significant footfall uses beyond retail. In any case, the policy approach for retail development in an out of
Page 12
centre location is clearly set out in NPF4 Policy 28 Retail, and Policy 27 would not outweigh this. Furthermore, this site is not within a designated centre which Policy 27 relates to. Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) – Policy 13 - Retail 71 The application site along with the surrounding land to the north and west is identified as a housing/residential site (H71 Newton Farm) within the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) (LDP2). Identifying the site for retail was resisted at LDP2 examination, and the Scottish Government Reporter supported the Council's position. Therefore, this retail proposal is also contrary to the Development Plan in that it proposes a retail use on an allocated housing site. 72 NPF4 supersedes the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 where there are conflicts. Policy 13 Retail and Commercial Leisure is therefore no longer fully applicable. In particular Criteria 2 is superseded, as it is no longer sufficient for a proposal to be supported by a favourable sequential assessment, as this conflicts with the NPF4 Policy 28. Particularly when it comes to out of centre proposals as they are only supported if Policy 28 criteria (c) or (d) apply. 73 The applicable parts of Policy 13 which can be considered are criteria 1 (helps meet quantitative or qualitative deficiencies), 4 (provides improved distribution and accessibility) and 7 (no significant impact individual or cumulative on any of the centres). These criteria do not directly conflict NPF4 and remain part of the Development Plan. 74 The Perth catchment is shown as being well served by its existing convenience and comparison retail offerings. With these conclusions supported by the Council's commissioned Retail Study, which indicates substantial projected over- supply of convenience and comparison goods floorspace in the Perth and Kinross area from 2027 onwards. Criteria 1 and 4 Quantitative and Qualitative Deficiencies and Improved Distribution and Accessibility 75 The PKC commissioned retail study forecasts oversupply of convenience retail space (and comparison). There is no distinction between one retail offering and another, such as whether there are differences in price point or target market. Thus, it is not appropriate for the planning system to treat one operator or offering as different from another. It is also the case that many supermarkets have ranges which suit various segments of the population. Even if overtrading is an issue, meaning that some existing stores expect more spend than may be expected and as is indicated by the applicant’s agent, this is marginal and even if included it wouldn’t change the overall negative projections. 76 It is also the case that, within very close proximity of this site on Crieff Road there is a Tesco superstore. In addition to Coops in both Tulloch and Letham local
Page 13
centres, and a discount store ‘Farmfoods’ on Crieff Road. When considering the planning application's 7-minute drive range catchment, there are also a range of additional stores, including further ‘discount’ provision, with a M&S and Aldi at Inveralmond, Asda on Dunkeld Road, Morrisons on Caledonian Road, and the Food Warehouse at St Catherine's Retail Park. 77 In this context there is no identified or obvious locational requirement for an additional food store at the site, nor is a perceived need for additional ‘discount’ provision to provide wider choice a relevant planning consideration. It is however the case that there are a wide range of choices for shoppers, with various different offerings to serve different segments of the population. Overall the Perth catchment is considered to be well served by its retail (convenience and comparison) offer and these conclusions are supported by the Council's Retail Study. That Study indicates substantial projected over-supply of convenience and comparison goods floorspace in the Perth and Kinross area from 2027 onwards. More locally the northern part of the city is also well catered for with a good range of existing options available. 78 Furthermore, the Retail Study forecasts oversupply of convenience retail space and with the projections and taking account the current economic climate it is considered that it will be difficult to sustain the viability of the existing retail provision let alone the provision of a new store of 1,949sqm. 79 The applicant disputes the outcome of the Retail Study, although it should be noted that the Study is impartial and given more weight than the retail assessments prepared by applicants. 80 The proposal would therefore not satisfy criteria 1 (helps meet quantitative or qualitative deficiencies) or 4 (provides improved distribution and accessibility). Impact on Centres - Criteria 7 81 As outlined above there is considered to be sufficient availability and choice available in this part of Perth and to an extent more widely. In addition to the local centres in Tulloch and Letham, there is important convenience retail provision within the city centre, and some good edge of centre/commercial centre provision (the Morrisons, B&Ms, and the Foodstore at St Catherine's Retail Park each of which encourages linked trips with the city centre and thus have enhanced economic impact). In terms of the impact on the city centre there is a need to consider the St Catherine’s commercial centre because it is edge of the city centre and has this key role for linked trips. 82 The local centres near the site already compete with Tesco, and their viability and impact from large food stores was a significant concern when considering the review of neighbourhood centres in the Retail Study. Particularly important is that the Tulloch local centre is not identified in LDP2 and thus not significantly protected, although the intention will be to include it in LDP3. This based on a review of neighbourhood centres in the Retail Study. There is a requirement to
Page 14
ensure that new development does not encourage diversion of existing footfall and spend away from the edge of centre (in its role supporting the city centre), city centre, and existing local neighbourhood centres. This will help to support existing centres and help sustain retail function in the best locations. 83 The retail study’s neighbourhood centre reviews have identified that Perth’s stronger neighbourhood centres are those with a reasonable convenience offer (as an anchor), supported by a hair and beauty offer, a selection of services providers (as daytime footfall generators), and a take-away offer (for both day and night-time business). Centres closer to major foodstores, particularly those that don’t have the offer outlined above, are struggling to maintain vitality. 84 In this context it is considered likely that the proposal will divert trade from existing neighbourhood centres and particularly their anchor convenience stores. The proposal also would encourage diversion of existing footfall and spend away from the city centre and therefore would impact significantly on the viability and vitality of the city centre, as well as local centres, contrary to criteria 7 and with adverse economic impacts. Conclusion 85 Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policy 28: Retail of NPF4 which is the most up to date position on retail policy in Scotland and therefore the key factor in determining this application. 86 An assessment of other relevant policies of NPF4 and LDP2 is provided below. But the outcome of the assessment below is not considered to have significant enough weight to override NPF4 Policy 28. 87 The proposal is therefore considered contrary to National Planning Framework 4, Policy 28, as the proposal is for a significantly sized supermarket in an out of centre location which does not meet either of the policy exceptions: (c) for small scale neighbourhood facilities, or (d) for small scale rural facilities. It also is contrary to LDP2, Policy 13: Retail and Commercial Leisure as it does not address any qualitative or quantitative deficiencies as demonstrated in the Retail Study and is likely to be of detriment to existing commercial/local centres and the city centre. Material Considerations 88 The submission intimates that the level of public support for the proposal should outweigh the policy concerns identified above. Section 25 of The Town and Country Planning Act (Scotland) 1997, as amended, requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This proposal is clearly contrary to the Development Plan as outlined above and the presence of some support in late letters of representation is not considered to be a significant material consideration which would merit departure from the Development Plan.
Page 15
89 The proposal involves the formation of a new signalised junction into the site which is proposed to serve the supermarket and the remainder of the H71 housing allocation. The submission claims that this is a key material consideration in the assessment of this application and that the provision of this junction should be considered as part of the planning balance in assessing this proposal. 90 However, the delivery of an appropriate junction to serve the allocated site would be a requirement for any housing delivery on this site. Thus its delivery as part of this application is not considered to have any significant weighting in the planning balance given the fundamental policy concerns which are highlighted above. 91 The applicant has also highlighted the recent approval of a new store in Livingston which was assessed under NPF4. That decision appearing to conclude that the proposal was a small-scale neighbourhood development. As is discussed above, this proposal is not considered to be small-scale and this view is supported by the recent JR outcome for Aldi at Cherrybank which is referenced in detail above. In addition, and as also set out above, the Council’s Retail Study recommends the new LDP defines that scale of development as comprising no more than 500 sqm gross in total, with individual retail units measuring no more than 200 sqm. The JR decision confirms that position. This proposal is therefore clearly not a local neighbourhood facility and therefore is clearly contrary to NPF4 Policy 28 Retail and the outcome of the Judicial Review helps to confirm this. Site Layout, Placemaking and Visual Amenity- H71 Housing Allocation 92 The following are the site-specific developer requirements related to the H71 allocated housing site: A Masterplan will be required for the comprehensive development of the site setting out the phased release of the housing areas. The Masterplan should be informed by a Flood Risk Assessment, which will identify which areas of the site are suitable for development. Cycle paths, and connections to core paths incorporated into Masterplan and designed to improve active transport links to Perth. Enhancement of biodiversity. This proposal is for a retail development on a site allocated for housing. The proposal is therefore contrary to the H71 allocation in the LDP2. 93 The proposal as submitted gives limited consideration to the adjacent housing site and the remainder of the allocation. It is located in the southeast corner of the allocation on an elevated part at the junction between Crieff Road and the A85 link road. An indicative masterplan layout for the housing site has been provided, but no information has been provided as to how and when this will be delivered.
Page 16
94 Whilst the proposed vehicular access could likely serve the remainder of the housing site, the proposed store and related parking, etc. sits in the corner of the wider allocation with no other connections to the remainder of the site by means of cycle paths/pedestrian linkages, which is a specific requirement of this allocation. The elevated nature of the site and the introduction of large scale retaining structures means that the supermarket effectively backs onto the remainder of the housing land allocation rather than being an integral part of it. 95 Whilst a housing layout has been provided which shows how housing could be accommodated within the remainder of the allocation, in addition to the proposed supermarket, the H71 allocation requires a masterplan to be submitted, informed by a flood risk assessment, which sets out the phased release of the site. This has not been provided and there is no indication of when the housing development is to come forward. The applicant does not own the remainder of the allocation so there is no guarantee of delivery of the housing land allocation. The submission of an indicative housing layout achieves very little and does not meet the requirements of the allocation as set out in LDP2. The proposal effectively carves off a portion of the site for another purpose, so there is no way of considering how this development will relate to the remainder of the housing site and there is no demonstration on how these two elements will be intrinsically linked, particularly given that the applicant has no control over or obvious interest in the delivery of housing on the remainder of the allocation. It is not agreed that this proposal results in an efficient use of the site and that it allows the housing allocation to be developed in a consistent and holistic way, in fact it is considered that the opposite is the case. 96 The Council's Placemaking Policies 1A and B state that development must contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment. They state that design, density and siting of the development must respect the character and amenity of the place and should create and improve links within and beyond the site. They go on to state that development requires to consider and respect site topography and that the design should complement its surroundings in terms of appearance, height, scale, massing, materials and finishes. The Supplementary Guidance (SG) emphasises the importance of considering pedestrian/cyclist desire lines, access points and linkages to wider routes and introducing permeability through a site. The SG references sloping land and details methods to best cater for sloping sites and states that extensive alteration of topography should be avoided. The SG also emphasises the importance of producing a masterplan for larger sites. NPF4 Policy 14 supports development that is consistent with the six qualities of successful places, including health and wellbeing, and safe and pleasant places for people to meet. 97 The application site has two frontages onto the public road, Crieff Road to the south and Crematorium Road to the east. This results in the site being very prominent on a busy and important thoroughfare/junction within the city. The developments design therefore requires to reflect it’s positioning and the importance of this junction, its visual prominence and elevated nature when compared with the land to the north. Following concerns expressed during the
Page 17
pre-application stage and during assessment of the previous application, amendments have been made to the design of the store. These include the introduction of high-level glazing on the east elevation, along with brick cladding and additional landscaping. These design approaches seek to reduce the impact which a blank "rear" elevation would as an interface onto the new A85. The changes have gone some way to addressing these concerns and are certainly an improvement over the original which proposed a blank elevation with little landscaping or planting. The revisions introduce a degree of visual interest on this elevation and new tree planting including native species and hedging. On balance, the changes introduced to the east elevation are considered to be acceptable and have addressed the concerns previously expressed regarding this part of the site. Retention Structures 98 Due to the sloping topography from south to north the supermarket is proposed to be built on a platform raised above the existing ground level, so that it sits level with Crieff Road. This results in the requirement for retaining structures to be provided along the north boundary. 99 Whilst it is noted that these retaining structures are proposed to contain planting, to attempt to reduce their visual impact, they are still large in scale, prominent and situated in close proximity to the public road. They also have the potential to significantly dominate the environment and any future housing development to the north, given their scale. This is one of the reasons the site requires to be subject to a masterplan to ensure the relationship across the site, such as in terms of levels, is fully addressed. This proposal seeks a solution for the proposed store only but pays little consideration for the needs of the wider site. It would result in a large scale, oppressive retaining structure, which is clearly visible from the public road and could have implications on the future delivery of housing on the remainder of the allocation, in terms of overshadowing and visual impact. The introduction of a "green bag" solution is certainly an improvement over the originally proposed engineered approach to the retaining structure but ultimately the overall H71 allocation should be masterplanned and considered holistically to ensure levels are properly considered across the entire site. The only reason this scale of retaining structure is required is because the overall allocation has been partly looked at and in isolation and considered largely independently, only considering the needs of the proposed supermarket. These structures will not provide an attractive approach to the store and the extent of landscaping proposed does not change this. The design approach is thus considered contrary to Policy 1 of the LDP2 and the associated Supplementary Guidance and is also contrary to NPF4 Policy 14. 100 If the principle of development was accepted here, which it is not, the proposal requires to be brought forward whilst considering the wider land allocation and should be part of a deliverable masterplan for the whole site so the development can be considered in conjunction with the rest of the site.
Page 18
Service Yard 101 The position of the service yard on the north side of the site and the potential implications this could have on the future allocated housing site, in terms of noise and disturbance, is also a concern. This could potentially severely limit the ability to develop housing adjacent due to noise generation. This issue is not considered within the submitted NIA, which only considers existing housing. Policy 56 of the LDP2 and Policy 23 of NPF4 is applicable here which state that there is a presumption against the siting of development proposal which will generate high levels of noise in the locality of existing or proposed noise sensitive land uses. The allocation of the overall site for housing means that this issue should be addressed. 102 Again, given the lack of any consideration of the site as a whole as part of a detailed masterplan this cannot be fully assessed. If the supermarket is approved in this location it would put an unreasonable onus on a future housing developer to mitigate this issue in the layout and design of the housing site. Therefore, the proposal is considered contrary to Policy 56 and the H71 allocation of the LDP2 and Policy 23(e) of NPF4. Biodiversity 103 Policy 41 of the LDP2 states that the Council will seek to protect and enhance all wildlife and habitats, whether formally designated or not, considering natural processes in the area. Policy 3 of NPF4 contains similar requirements. In essence planning permission will not be granted for development likely to have an adverse effect on protected species unless clear evidence can be provided that the ecological impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated. 104 An Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) Report has been submitted in August 2024 which includes associated appendices for protected species, including bats. Bats 105 A PRF (Potential Roost Features) aerial inspection survey was undertaken on 15th May 2024. 106 The Bat Survey Report (Appendix B of EcIA) states "As per best practice guidance (Collins, 2023) it is recommended a further two aerial inspections are undertaken on PRF-M features (high roost suitability). These aerial inspections should take place between May-September with at least three weeks between inspections in order to determine presence/likely absence of roosting bats. For features categorised as PRF-I, it is recommended that a PRF inspection is undertaken to confirm absence of roosting bats prior to felling/management". This further survey work has not been undertaken and in accordance with national and local guidance it is not appropriate to condition receipt of this information, as the full impact on protected species must be known prior to issuing consent. The Planning Authority needs to fully understand the impact of
Page 19
the development on protected species and to be satisfied that a licence would likely be issued. This application cannot be assessed further without the survey requested. This information was requested from the applicant's agent and has not been submitted. This is therefore contrary to Policy 41 of the LDP2 and Policy 3 of NPF4, due to lack of information to enable an assessment of bats. Invasive Non Native Species 107 The EcIA Report states that to prevent the spread of an invasive non-native species as a result of the Development, it is recommended an invasive species management plan is produced detailing the appropriate removal and management of the invasive species present onsite. This has not been submitted and is required. It also isn't referred to in the Biodiversity Enhancement Plan. However, this could be delivered via condition, should planning permission be granted. Biodiversity Enhancement 108 NPF4 requires local planning applications to include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity, in accordance with national and local guidance. 109 The initial Biodiversity Enhancement Plan (doc ref 18) is of limited value as it didn't differentiate between measures for compensation and enhancement. To count as enhancement, the measures must be over and above those required for compensation. 110 The PKC Planning for Nature Supplementary Guidance clearly sets out the information required to inform a planning application and during an initial consultation response, the Council's Biodiversity Officer highlighted the need for further information. 111 Given the updated landscaping and planting plan which has been provided, the required enhancement can be delivered on site. Trees 112 Policy NPF4 Policy 6 (c) states that development proposals involving woodland removal will only be supported where they will achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits, in accordance with relevant Scottish Government policy on woodland removal. Where woodland is removed, compensatory planting will most likely be expected to be delivered. The mitigation hierarchy in the form of avoid, reduce, compensate, and enhance requires to be demonstrated. This is clearly explained in the PKC Planning for Nature Guidance Planning Guidance - Planning & Biodiversity - Perth & Kinross Council (pkc.gov.uk).
Page 20
113 The submitted Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) Report states that 100% of all three habitats will be removed to allow this development to proceed: - 0.33ha A1.3.2 mixed woodland plantation (27.69% of site) - 82m of intact hedgerow - 0.74ha scattered scrub (61.37% of site) 114 The report notes the value of urban woodland as listed as a priority habitat in the Tayside LBAP and is considered of local nature conservation value. The value of hedgerows is also acknowledged. 115 Removing 100% all of three habitats represents clearing of the site and no evidence of trying to avoid and/or reduce the impact of this development on trees, woodland and hedgerows has been provided. The applicant was asked to provide evidence of application of the mitigation hierarchy in the form of avoid, reduce, compensate via the submitted EcIA. However, no evidence of the use of the mitigation hierarchy is evident. 116 A landscape plan was submitted in December 2023, and it was requested this be revised to indicate compensatory planting details once the impact of this development on trees was known. A further landscaping plan was received in October 2024. 117 16 trees, mainly large mature specimens, are to be felled, plus a tree group G002 (comprising 12 trees), H001 (hedge containing 22 trees), H002 (hedge containing x14 trees). 118 The amended proposed landscaping plan proposes planting 48 extra heavy standard trees which is considered to be sufficient compensation and mitigation for the felling. There is limited planting proposed on the southern boundary of the site and therefore insufficient landscape relief compared with the other sides of the site. It is appreciated that this may be party due to the retention of sight lines at the access, but there would appear to be scope for additional planting along this boundary. 119 The provision of additional trees along the southern boundary could be secured by an appropriately worded condition should planning permission be granted. Traffic and Transport Access and Parking 120 Access to the development site will be from the public road network on A85 Crieff Road. Motor vehicle access would see a signalised junction on Crieff Road, creating a four-arm signalised crossroads. This would encompass the south arm of Crieff Road, which provides access to a number of dwellings. Pedestrian access will be incorporated into the proposed signalised junction. The applicant is also proposing to provide a path link from the store to the signalised crossing at Crieff Road/ B9993.
Page 21
121 The proposed access will serve both the retail unit and the wider H71 allocation. As a result, the proposals state the internal access road will be designed to adoptable standards and promoted for adoption in due course. Road Construction Consent will be required, with the road privately maintained until future development comes forward. A condition is recommended to ensure this should planning permission be granted. 122 Delivery vehicles will share the same vehicular access, driving into the site and crossing the car park before turning left and reversing into the delivery bay. 123 Pedestrian and cycle access will be provided via the access junction and a separate direct link to the northern footway on Crieff Road. The site is also accessible via public transport, with two bus stops located within 100m, with the Crematorium bus stop located to the northeast and the McDiarmid Park bus stop located to the west. 124 The proposal includes 10 cycle parking spaces and 103 car parking spaces, which will consist of: o 86 standard car parking spaces o 2 standard car parking spaces with EV charger o 6 car parking spaces for disabled customers o 9 car parking spaces for parent/care providers with children 125 The car park is proposed to be future proofed by providing an additional 9 passive EV spaces, with ducting put in place to connect additional chargers should demand increase over time. The level of car parking is acceptable and falls within requirements of the National Roads Development Guide. 126 The cycle parking will be located under the canopy on the south elevation of the store, providing a covered parking location for anyone cycling to the store. 127 The submission demonstrates that HGV vehicles will be able to manoeuvre within the site to carry out deliveries. Therefore, the layout in terms of access and parking is considered to be acceptable. Impact on Road Network 128 Through the Scoping Exercise from 2022 as shown in Appendix A of the Transport Assessment, Perth & Kinross Council's Transport Planning Team requested that the applicant undertake testing in Perth & Kinross Council's Microsimulation model of Perth to better understand the impact of the development on the local road network. The methodology used for the modelling in the submission is considered to be acceptable. The modelling also includes the residential development of the wider masterplan site. 129 The modelling shows that, on the local road network, the impact in terms of traffic flows is greatest in the vicinity of the store. With the installation of a set of
Page 22
signals, the queue from the A85 West arm looks to be held in advance of the signalised junction for the newly proposed Lidl/Housing proposal, with queue lengths of up to 22 vehicles. The journey times along the corridor have shown that there is not a significant impact on the corridor with average changes of journey times estimated to be small. 130 Perth & Kinross Council's Urban Traffic Control team had requested standalone modelling of the signals at Tulloch Terrace, A85/B9993 and the new junction into Lidl and the housing site, as they have concerns with the stacking capacity between the junctions. The Urban Traffic Control team have requested that the developer undertakes testing to identify how best to incorporate the junction into the existing SCOOT network (adaptive traffic management system that adjusts timings of traffic lights depending on current traffic conditions) and identify what impact it will have. 131 This information has now been submitted and reviewed. There were some queries regarding the modelling results and how this relates to the traffic signals. If the application is approved the detailed design and operation of the signalised junction should be secured by condition. The information, subject to conditions, is considered to be sufficient to demonstrate that the development can be accommodated on the local road network with an appropriately designed signalised junction being provided. Sustainable Transport 132 The applicant has provided a walking isochrone for the store showing a 20 minute walked route to the store for a distance of up to 1.6km. This shows that large areas of Letham, Hillyland and Tulloch are within this area. Areas such as Burghmuir and the under construction homes adjacent to Dobbies would be included within the a 20 minute walking distance of the store. As outlined above cycle parking is catered for in the proposal and should be secured via condition. The site is also served by numerous bus services and frequencies. The Public Transport Unit have advised that improvements to bus stop provision are provided which could be secured by condition if planning permission is granted. 133 There are also recommended conditions from PKC Transportation and Development regarding street lighting, the vehicles access, provision of a construction traffic management plan, a travel plan and relocation of existing infrastructure. These should all be applied should planning permission be granted.
Page 23
Drainage and Flood Risk 134 Policy 53B of the LDP2 and Policy 22 of NPF4 requires new development to be served by a private drainage system where there is no public system available. 135 Foul drainage is proposed to utilise a gravity foul drainage system connected to the existing public foul/combined sewer on Crieff Road. This is considered to be acceptable. 136 Surface water drainage requires to be collected via a SUDS system as required by Policy 53C and Policy 22(c) of the LDP2. The submission indicates that surface water will involve below ground cellular storage tanks within the car park supplemented by at source treatment consisting of permeable paving and filter trenches, with a controlled discharge from the attenuation tank connected to an existing surface water drainage flowing south to north along the eastern boundary. There were initial concerns from the Council's flood team regarding the ability of this ditch to accommodate additional flow particularly as it has a high probability to flood (10% chance in any year). 137 Following submission of additional information the extent of surface water discharge has been clarified and the Council's Flood Team now consider the proposals to be acceptable. 138 The applicant is proposing drainage works out with the red line boundary of the application. This could be delivered via a suspensive condition should planning permission be granted to ensure the infrastructure is completed in full prior to the commencement of development. Residential Amenity 139 Policy 1A and B and 56 of LDP2 and Policy 14 (c) and 23 of NPF4 require any development to not detrimentally impact on residential amenity. A Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) accompanies the application. The NIA has assessed the predicted noise impacts from plant, deliveries and the car park associated with the proposed development on the closest existing noise sensitive receptors based on a noise survey undertaken over a weekend period in January 2022. 140 Environmental Health have been consulted and notes that the NIA concluded that the noise from all introduced sources, car parking activities, servicing noise and fixed plant and equipment noise are not likely to have a detrimental effect or unduly impact on the existing amenity of the closest NSR for daytime operations as the design target limits have been demonstrated as being achieved. 141 While this application is recommended for refusal, if the application is approved, a number of conditions are recommended with regard to noise, servicing and delivery times and lighting to protect the amenity of existing residential dwellings.
Page 24
142 As mentioned elsewhere in this report there are concerns with how the operation of the store may impact on future residential development within the remainder of allocated site H71 and the store and noise from it may limit the ability to develop the housing allocation. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy 23(e) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and Policy 56 and the H71 allocation of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019). Air Quality 143 An Air Quality Impact Assessment has been submitted and the conclusions have been accepted by PKC Environmental Health. Should planning permission be granted conditions regarding dust management and construction methods should be attached. Developer Contributions 144 The Council Transport Infrastructure Developer Contributions Supplementary Guidance requires a financial contribution towards the cost of delivering the transport infrastructure improvements which are required for the release of all development sites in and around Perth. 145 The site is located in the 'Full' Transport Infrastructure contributions zone (Appendix 3 of the Supplementary Guidance). 146 In line with 6.8 of the Guidance, the Retail contribution rate (at £185 per sqm) will only be applied to the trading floorspace of new, or extensions to existing, retail developments. Non-trading and Back of House functions space will be calculated on the employment use category (at £17 per sqm). 147 Floorspaces noted on the "Proposed Site Plan" are a Sales Area of 1,331 sqm plus Warehouse/Ancillary space at a combined total of 618 sqm. 148 Therefore, the total contribution required is as follows: 149 Transport Infrastructure: (£154 x 1,331) + (£14 x 618) £204,974 + £8,652 Total: £213,626 150 The applicant has indicated an intention to pay the developer contribution upfront.
Page 25
Low and Zero Carbon 151 Policy 32 of the Local Development Plan requires proposals to demonstrate that at least 10% of the current carbon emissions reduction set by Scot Building Standards will be met through the installation and operation of low and zero- carbon generating technologies. Limited information has been submitted with regard to this. If approved a condition will be attached to ensure compliance with this requirement which would ensure compliance with Policy 32, Embedding Low and Zero Carbon Generating Technology in New Development, of the LDP. The submission indicates that the above policy requirements would be met by the proposal. Economic Impact/Benefits 152 The proposal would have an economic impact during the construction phase and during the lifetime of the development. The submission has been reviewed by the Council's Business, Place and Investment Team who have indicated that the application aligns with the Council's corporate priorities around tackling poverty and developing a resilient economy, promoting business creation, growth and job creation but this is only looking at the proposal in isolation without considering the adverse economic impacts on existing retail provision as highlighted in this report. The proposal is expected to create 40 jobs plus indirect jobs via construction and the supply chain. The store would provide more choice for local people with lower prices. There would also be supply chain benefits. However, it is accepted that there could be potential impact on existing retail provision and the proposal would impact on footfall in the city centre. The Business, Place and Investment Team also recognise that the site is allocated for housing development and this proposal would reduce the availability of land for new homes. Overall, whilst there are considered to be some economic benefits associated with the proposal these are not considered to outweigh the fundamental planning policy concerns which are outlined above. Variation of Application Under Section 32a 153 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 landscaping and planting, design and materials of the store and the finish of the retaining structure. These were not considered to merit re-advertisement of the application. Planning Obligations and Legal Agreements 154 None required. Conclusion and Reasons for Recommendation 155 To conclude, the application must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this
Page 26
respect, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the Development Plan. Account has been taken of the relevant material considerations and none has been found that would justify overriding the Development Plan. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal on the grounds identified below. Recommendation Refuse the application. Reasons for Refusal 1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 28, Retail, of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), specifically 28 a) iii which does not support retail proposals in out of centre locations. The site is in an out of centre location and is not allocated for new retail development. The proposal is also contrary to Policy 13 of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as there is no requirement for an additional retail store as demonstrated by the Perth and Kinross Retail Study 2023. The proposal will also divert trade from existing allocated neighbourhood centres and their anchor convenience stores, to their likely detriment. The proposal also would encourage diversion of existing footfall and spend away from the city centre and therefore would impact significantly on the viability and vitality of the city centre and local centres. 2. The proposal is contrary to the H71, Newton Farm allocation in the Perth and Kinross Council Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as the proposal is for a significant retail use within a site allocated for residential development. Furthermore, the proposal fails to meet the site specific developer requirements of the allocation as no detailed masterplan has been submitted to demonstrate a comprehensive development and phased release of the site. The proposal is located in the south east corner of the H71 allocation on an elevated part of the site at the junction between Crieff Road and the new A85 link road. An indicative layout for the housing site has been provided but no information has been provided as to how and when this will be delivered. Furthermore, the applicant appears to have no control over the delivery of the allocated housing site. The proposed vehicular access provides a link to the remainder of the housing site but the rest of the proposed development sits in the corner of the wider allocation with no other linkages to the remainder of the site by means of cycle paths/pedestrian linkages which is a specific requirement of this allocation. The elevated nature of the site and the introduction of large scale retaining structures means that the supermarket effectively backs onto the remainder of the housing land allocation rather than being an integral part of it, contrary to the developer requirements of the H71 allocation. 3. The proposal is contrary Policy 41 of the Perth and Kinross Council Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and Policy 3 of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) which require survey work to be undertaken where protected species are known or suspected and requires development to contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity. The further bat survey work which is recommended within the Bat
Page 27
Survey Report (Appendix D) has not been undertaken. Therefore, it is not possible to fully understand the impact of the development on protected species and to be satisfied that a license from Nature Scot would likely to be issued. 4. The proposal is contrary to Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), Policy 1A and 1B(b):Placemaking and the requirements of the H71 allocation within the Perth and Kinross Local Development 2 (2019) as the proposed retaining structures to the north of the store are considered to undermine any future housing development within the remainder of the H71 allocation. This proposal seeks a solution for the proposed store only but pays no consideration for the needs of the wider site. It would result in a large scale, oppressive retaining structure, which is clearly visible from the public road and could have implications on the future assessment of housing on this site in terms of overshadowing and visual impact. The only reason this scale of retaining structure is required is because the masterplan site has been salami sliced with this application only considering the needs of the proposed supermarket. 5. The proposal is contrary to Policy 23(e) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and Policy 56 and the H71 allocation of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as the proposed service yard on the north side of the site could have an impact on the future allocated housing site in terms of noise and disturbance. This could potentially severely limit the ability to develop housing in this adjacent location due to noise generation. Given the lack of any consideration of the site as a whole as part of a detailed masterplan this cannot be fully assessed. If the supermarket is approved in this location, it would put an unreasonable onus on a future housing developer to mitigate this issue in the layout and design of the housing site. Justification The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. Procedural Notes 1 No planning permission should be issued until the developer contribution of £213,626 has been paid in full. Informatives None Background Papers Letters of representation 10
Page 28
Authors Name Designation Contact Details John Williamson Planning Officer 01738 475300 Developmentmanagement@pkc.gov.uk Approved Name Designation Date Kristian Smith Service Manager 26 February 2025 Paul Williamson Team Leader 21 February 2025