21/00248/Fll
Perth and Kinross Council · 11 June 2025
Back to Planning and Placemaking Committee — 11 June 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 – 11 June 2025 Report of Handling by Development Management and Building Standards Service Manager (Report No. 25/152) Proposal: Erection of retail unit (Class 1A), formation of access, car parking, engineering works, landscaping and associated works Location: Land West Of 4 Pickembere, Pitheavlis, Perth Ref. No: 21/00248/FLL Ward No: P10- Perth City South Summary This report recommends refusal of the application as the development is considered not to comply with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no material planning considerations apparent which outweigh the Development Plan. Background and Description of Proposal 1 This application was first referred to committee on 1 June 2022, with a recommendation of approval on the basis of a particular approach to considering the provisions of the Development Plan and the various material planning considerations. The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to conclusion of a legal agreement to secure contributions and the cessation of retail use rights at Aldi’s existing Glasgow Road store. Prior to the legal agreement being signed, the Development Plan changed through the introduction of National Planning Framework 4. The application therefore was returned to Committee in February 2023 to allow for assessment against the new policies of NPF4. Committee again agreed to grant planning permission. The legal agreement was thereafter signed and the decision notice was issued on 31 May 2023. 2 That grant of planning permission was subsequently challenged through a Judicial Review (JR) brought by Tesco in the Court of Session. The Court upheld that challenge and revoked the planning permission. The JR judgement concludes that the proposal is not small scale or ‘neighbourhood’ development. In relation to NPF4, Policy 28 (c): Retail, the following is further clarified, taken from the judgement
Page 2
[56] In paragraph (c), the critical wording, for present purposes, is as follows: “Proposals for new small scale neighbourhood retail development will be supported where the proposed development: …” I see no reason not to understand these words as they are stated. In order for a proposed retail development to be supported, it requires to be both small scale and a neighbourhood development. [68] 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. 3 It was also clarified that it is the retail development as a whole that must be considered, not the net increase of floorspace from replacing the current Aldi store at Glasgow Road. That increase from the existing store being a focus of the reasoning to approve the application. The outcome of the JR is that the application is returned to the Council for reassessment in light of the judgement and any changes that have occurred in the meantime. 4 So, turning to the context, the application site is located within the settlement boundary of Perth, on the southern edge of the city. The Aviva campus, the main building of which is Category A listed, lies to the south in an elevated position. Currently access to the site is from the main Aviva service road, through a vacant area of ground to the southwest. This area was previously used as a hotel/training centre linked to Aviva. Topography across the application site generally falls by c.5 metres west to east, towards woodland (forming the Buckie Braes) and a row of traditional stone cottages. To the northwest, across Necessity Brae, is a residential area. 5 The application is for a retail development to replace the current Aldi store at Glasgow Road. The store proposed has a gross external floor area of 1,903 sq.m, of which the internal net floorspace (customer area) will comprise 1,315 sq.m. The net retail sales area will be 1,160 sq.m. This compares with the existing Aldi store on Glasgow Road which measures 1,231 sqm gross, and has a 660 sqm net retail sales area. The proposals therefore represent a c.500 sq.m uplift in sales floorspace (a slight reduction in the area from the original plans due to revisions in the way internal sales floor space is calculated). 6 The plans also include a new access junction from Necessity Brae, parking facilities, retaining structures and landscaping. Site History 7 08/00122/OUT Outline planning permission (OPP) was approved on 15 August 2008 for a mixed use development comprising residential, hotel with associated public house/restaurant, care home and offices with associated car parking, internal access roads and adjusted site levels.
Page 3
8 14/00269/AMM related to the above parent permission and a subsequent Section 42 consent (11/00933/FLM) saw the matters specified in conditions considered and detailed permission approved on 12 September 2014 for the residential aspects of the OPP. This permission was then implemented, the result being the development now present on the north-west side of Necessity Brae. Pre-Application Consultation Pre application Reference: 20/00447/PREAPP 9 The proposed development falls below the relevant thresholds and is therefore 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 formally submit information to and gain approval from the Council in relation to pre-application consultation with the local community. Development Plan 10 The Development Plan for the area comprises National Planning Framework 4 and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) along with its associated statutory supplementary guidance. National Planning Framework 4 11 The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) is the Scottish Government’s long- term spatial strategy with a comprehensive set of national planning policies. This strategy sets out how to improve people’s lives by making sustainable, liveable and productive spaces. NPF4 has an increased status over previous NPFs and comprises part of the statutory development plan. It is also a more recent position on planning policy considerations than Local Development Plans which predate it. 12 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 7: Historic assets and places Policy 13: Sustainable Transport Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place Policy 15: Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods Policy 18: Infrastructure First Policy 20: Blue and Green Infrastructure Policy 22: Flood Risk and Water Management Policy 23: Health and Safety
Page 4
Policy 27: City, Town, Local And Commercial Centres Policy 28: Retail Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 13 The Local Development Plan 2 (2019) (LDP2) sets out a vision statement for the area and states that, “Our vision is of a Perth and Kinross which is dynamic, attractive and effective which protects its assets whilst welcoming population and economic growth.” It is the most recent statement of Council policy, although a number of years older than NPF4, and is augmented by Supplementary Guidance. 14 The principal relevant policies are, in summary; Policy 1A: Placemaking Policy 1B: Placemaking Policy 2: Design Statements Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions Policy 6: Settlement Boundaries Policy 7A: Employment and Mixed Used Areas: Business and Industrial Policy 13: Retail and Commercial Leisure Proposals Policy 15: Public Access Policy 17: Residential Areas Policy 27: Listed Buildings 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 Policy 57: Air Quality Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals Statutory Supplementary Guidance 15 Supplementary Guidance - Air Quality (adopted in 2020) Supplementary Guidance - 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 - Placemaking (adopted in 2020)
Page 5
PKC Non Statutory Guidance 16 Planning Guidance - Planning & Biodiversity Supplementary Guidance - Renewable & Low Carbon Energy (draft) Other material considerations Perth and Kinross Retail Study February 2023 17 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. Getting the Right Change – Retail strategy for Scotland - March 2022 National Guidance 18 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 19 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 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. Consultations 21 As part of the planning application process the following bodies were consulted: External 22 Historic Environment Scotland: No objection, initial concerns addressed by submission of a Heritage Assessment.
Page 6
23 Scottish Water: No objection. Note that capacity is available for foul and water, subject to an application to secure connections. Internal 24 Biodiversity: No objection. Advise of no impact on protected species. Concerns raised over the removal of trees and limited amount of biodiversity enhancements. 25 Community Greenspace: No objection. No conditions required. 26 Development Contributions Officer: No objection. Advise a contribution is required for transport infrastructure. This could be secured via a suitable legal agreement or other mechanism. 27 Environmental Health (Contaminated Land): No objection, no conditions required. 28 Environmental Health (Noise Odour): No objection. Conditions recommended related to noise, lighting and constriction management. 29 SEPA: No objection to proposal on flood risk, they highlight surface water issues but note that these are for the Local Authority to consider and take a position on. 30 Structures and Flooding: No objection. The Council’s Flood Team have reviewed most up to date drainage information and recommend a condition requiring SUDs. 31 Transport Planning: No objection. Conditions recommended for construction traffic management, road improvements and submission of travel plan. 32 Enterprise Team: No objection. Advise that the proposals align with council policy of encouraging investment, tackling poverty, developing a resilient economy, promoting business creation, growth and job creation. Representations 33 44 representations were received: 19 in support, 22 objections, 2 neutral and a petition supporting the development. The main issues raised within the representations are: 34 Support Employment provision Enhances character of area Results in environmental improvements Supports economic development Provides a shop within walking distance/shorter car trips
Page 7
35 Objections Impact on Buckie Braes Out of character with the area Adverse effect on visual amenity Contrary to development plan policy Inappropriate land use Loss of open space Loss of trees Noise pollution Road safety concerns Traffic congestion Flooding Impact on residential amenity 36 These issues are addressed in the Appraisal section of the report. Additional Statements 37 Screening Opinion EIA not required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not applicable Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations Habitats Regulations Appraisal - AA not required Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Submitted Report on Impact or Potential Impact e.g. Flood Risk Assessment Heritage Assessment, Landscape Design Statement, Tree Survey, Planning and Retail Statement, Employment Land and Viability Report, Drainage Impact Assessment inc. Flood Risk Assessment, Geo-Environmental Assessment, Consultation Report, Transport Assessment, Ecological Survey, Noise Report
Page 8
Appraisal 38 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. 39 In this instance, section 14(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 places a duty on planning authorities in determining such an application as this to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the Listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Principle National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) Policy 28 – Retail 40 Policy 28(a) of NPF4 states that retail proposals require to be consistent with the town centre first principle. This means that retail proposals: (i) will be supported in existing city, town and local centres, and (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). 41 The application site is not zoned for retail and is in an out of centre location therefore it does not meet criteria (i) or (ii) above. The alternatives offered by Policy 28(c) only relates to small scale neighbourhood retail development and 28(d) relates to island and rural areas. As such, the application can only be considered against Policy 28(c). 42 However, in relation to exception (c), the judgement arising from the Judicial Review saw it concluded “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.” It was also clarified that it is the retail development as a whole that must be considered, not the net increase in floorspace which would result from the replacement of the existing store and removal of rights for retail use at that location. Furthermore, the 2023 Perth and Kinross Retail Study recommends that the forthcoming LDP3 defines small scale neighbourhood retail as comprising no more than 500 sqm gross floorspace in total, with individual retail units measuring
Page 9
no more than 200 sqm gross. These controls would ensure development principally serves local retail needs and is consistent with the principles of 20- minute neighbourhoods. 43 On this basis, given its scale, the proposal does not comply with Policy 28(c) and 28(d) does not apply. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to the principal policy consideration in relation to retail development, Policy 28 of NPF4. 44 Policy 28, in relation to new retail needs or development, directs planning authorities to sites allocated in the Development Plan. In the case where there are no existing sites that are deemed 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). This lack of capacity has also been further compounded with the recommended approval of the retail foodstore adjacent to Strathtay Road, Perth (Ref: 23/02025/FLL) where a further 1949 square metres of retail floorspace received a ‘minded to grant’ position at the Planning and Placemaking Committee of 12 March 2025. Although it should be noted that that decision has not been issued yet, as there are required developer obligations to be secured – via either contribution or a suitable legal agreement. In addition, the projections for physical retail space are not positive due to a general contraction of physical retail space requirements, as a result of a number of factors including: the increase in online shopping and click and collect services. 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 3 review. NPF4 Policy 27 Town, local and commercial centres 45 Policy 27 of NPF4 relates to town, local and commercial centres. It must be noted that it is the intention of this policy to enhance and improve the vitality and viability of city, town and local centres, and ensure that development proposals are consistent with the town centre first approach. In any case, the policy approach for retail development in an out of centre location is clearly set out in NPF4 Policy 28 Retail, and thus Policy 27 is not considered offer significant support in this case. Particularly as the application site is not within a designated centre which Policy 27 otherwise relates and would have impacts on the vitality and viability of existing centres. NPF4 Policy 15: Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods 46 Policy 15 relates to local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods and seeks to create compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home. 47 In terms of Policy 15 the proposal would contribute to local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods. However, it must be noted that the store would go beyond fulfilling the ‘daily need within a reasonable distance of home’. Rather the store
Page 10
would provide an expansive offering and be seen more as a more significant ‘weekly food shop’ facility serving not only the local community, but to a large extent a much wider car-based catchment. Indeed, this is identified within the submissions supporting documents. 48 It is therefore considered that Policy 15 is not the appropriate policy to consider the principle of a significantly scaled supermarket. Although it is recognised that the proposal may provide an option for daily needs, for the local catchment close enough to walk there and back for top up items, the proposal and its overall target market and scale cannot be considered to gain the appropriate level of support from this policy, to outweigh the intentions of Policy 28. NPF4 Policy 9 Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings/Policy 26 Business and Industry 49 The principle of development on the site is supported by policy through the employment zoning and by uses supported. Particularly this relates to non-retail uses, as outlined in Policy 26 Business and Industry (excluding retail). Notably an office development was previously approved, although never progressed. 50 Policy 9 is relevant as the site formed part of a larger previously developed area and the policy intent is to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield land for necessary development. The policy aims are to maximise existing assets and minimise additional land take. Policy 9 a) supports proposals which will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land. 51 It is considered by the applicant that the existing store at Glasgow Road cannot easily or in their view appropriately expand, so they would like to relocate to a larger site and provide a store which meets their aspirations. The existing and proposed sites are to an extent comparable, being both out of centre and zoned for employment uses. Although the existing location is close to the city centre, in proximity to other retail facilities and adjacent to a main road and associated bus route and stop. It is appreciated that the site at Necessity Brae has been vacant for more than 20 years and has been demonstrated to have abnormal build costs which restrict the viability of development to higher value proposals, such as a retail-based development. Therefore, this site is unlikely to come forward as a viable employment site. Although it is not considered to have adverse visual impacts and has become largely regenerated. 52 In this case the existing retail use would be revoked on the Glasgow Road store and that site would revert to employment use. The proposed development could also be seen to revitalise a brownfield and allocated site with viability issues (Necessity Brae) and in its place provide a more easily serviced and deliverable employment site at Glasgow Road. In this case the benefits of the potential return of the Glasgow Road site to employment could be seen to comply with a number of policies in NPF4, as it meets Policy 26 Business and Industry in location, size and quality in terms of accessibility and services. Although the application itself would see the development of an employment site for retail purposes, the impact
Page 11
in land use allocation terms would be fairly neutral as it removes the Class 1 retail use from the Glasgow Road site which also falls within an allocated employment zoning. It is therefore considered that although development of the site for a non- employment use would be contrary to Policy 26 Business and industry, the unusual situation involving the revocation would see significant impacts in terms of available ‘employment’ land such that it could be seen as a significant departure from Policy 26 of the LDP. 53 Therefore the proposal may comply with Policy 9 Brownfield and may be justifiable in terms of return of the existing site at Glasgow Road to employment use. However, that is in relation to the zoning of the site and does not consider the nature of the use proposed. The policy for considering retail development remains Policy 28 and as the Perth Retail Study notes there is no requirement for additional retail within Perth and Kinross so there is not enough support to develop this site contrary to Policy 28 Retail. Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) – Policy 13 - Retail 54 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 as noted above. 55 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. 56 On these criteria the Perth catchment is well served by its convenience and comparison offer, as demonstrated by the Council's commissioned 2023 Retail Study which projects an oversupply in retail floor space. This a change from the 2016 study which indicated some retail capacity. The 2022 consideration of the application took into account the information within the 2016 Retail Study, with the 2023 Retail Study showing a differing situation and showing the speed of change experienced in the retail industry. 57 The applicants supporting information provides contrasting data to that within the Council’s Retail Study. The figures within their assessment indicate overtrading by convenience retailers and concludes that there is capacity available. However, the methodology within the applicant’s supporting retail assessment adopts the approach taken within the Council’s 2016 Retail Study, which had also identified significant levels of capacity across the Council area. The main difference being that in 2016, the study considered overtrading as a sign of deficiency (and need for more choice as most retail studies do) and therefore capacity to accommodate further floorspace to address said deficiency. The applicant’s agent notes that
Page 12
comparing the 2023 and 2016 studies reveal quite different views on the floorspaces of foodstores. 58 The applicants conclude that there is a capacity of £8.03m with the proposal’s turnover being £4.75m. Additional inflow is then considered, with this assumed to be 5% of the total, based on the percentage within the Council’s last two retail studies which vary from 3% -6%. This 5% inflow generates a further £11.59m and would derive from visitors from elsewhere in Scotland and further afield given Perth’s location as an entry point into the Scottish Highlands via the A9. The 2016 Study found visitors came from Stirling, Dundee and beyond Scotland with over £11.59m flowing into the area. Overall, this results in the applicants view that there is a residual capacity of £19.62m which they assert is closer to the findings of the 2016 Retail Study. They consider this to be a more accurate projection than the alternative methodology employed within the 2023 Study, given that this did not consider overtrading. With this finding, the applicant considers that there is a quantitative deficiency within Zone 1. 59 It must also be acknowledged that more recently an additional Class 1 retail proposal at Crieff Road has been recommended for approval at the March 2025 meeting of the Planning and Placemaking Committee. This therefore adds additional retail floorspace which the 2023 Council Retail Study stated was not required. The applicant has acknowledged this within their statement and figures and even with the Lidl store approved they continue to be of the opinion that there is still capacity for the Aldi store uplift. 60 The information supplied within the submission has been put to the consultants who prepared the 2023 Council study. The PKC commissioned retail study forecasting oversupply of convenience retail space (and comparison). There is no distinction between discount and non-discount retailing – or between real or perceived value/cost differences between operators. In addition, discount or value retail offerings are not, of their own, a separate planning use class. It is also the case that many, if not almost all, mainstream retail operators have ranges to meet this and indeed all section(s) of the market. However, even if overtrading were an issue the Councils consultant confirms it is marginal and even if included wouldn’t change the overall projected negative figures. In this case there is a differing methodology and outcome but as the Council study is independent and not related to any individual retail interest, such as that under consideration, it is not proposed that the Council would change its view and depart from the position taken within the study it has seen undertaken. 61 In this context there is no identified or obvious quantitative or locational requirement for an additional food store at the site. It must also be stressed that a perceived need for additional ‘discount/value’ provision to provide wider choice is not a relevant planning consideration. It is, however, the case that there are already a wide range of choices for shoppers across Perth and Perth and Kinross more widely, with various different offerings to serve different segments of the population. Overall, the Perth catchment is considered to be well served by its
Page 13
retail (convenience and comparison) offer and these conclusions are supported by the Council's 2023 Retail Study. 62 The proposal would therefore not satisfy criteria 1 (helps meet quantitative or qualitative deficiencies) or 4 (provides improved distribution and accessibility). 63 In relation to criteria 7 (no significant impact individual or cumulative on any of the centres) as outlined above there is considered to be sufficient availability and choice in Perth and to an extent more widely. In addition to the local centres in Oakbank Road/Alder Drive, West Mains Avenue and Broxden services, there is important convenience retail provision within the city centre, and some good edge of centre/commercial centre provision. Morrisons, B&Ms, and the Foodstore at St Catherine's Retail Park all encourage 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. 64 The updated retail study suggests in relation to neighbourhood centres that, ‘those that are small / weak and sit in the shadow of large foodstores appear to be most likely to struggle’. The Development Plan policy team consider an approval of an Aldi store is likely to negatively impact on local neighbourhood provisions rather than complement it. However, in this case it should be noted that the closest undesignated retail offerings are a significant distance from the site. The closest is at Broxden Services which due to its petrol station offering the resultant trade mainly from passing motorists would not likely be significantly impacted by the development of the site. Oakbank Road/Alder Drive and West Mains Avenue are also a considerable distance from the application site so the store would be unlikely to draw away significant trade, if the principles of 20 minute neighbourhoods and sustainable travel are prioritised by shoppers. 65 In this case as the site is within an underserved area of Perth the proposal may not significantly impact the neighbourhood centres but the location well away from the town centre, based on the position of the 2023 Retail Study, could detrimentally impact the city centre/edge of centre offering. This particularly as the scale of offering proposed is significant and designed to serve a large catchment who would currently access those existing retailers, in existing identified centres, especially in the context that there is no new uplift in spend or patronage predicted. In essence the proposed store would draw trade away from existing retailers and impact their vitality and viability with limited if any positive overall impact. 66 This view has changed since the previous assessment of the proposal in 2022, as the 2023 Retail Study revises the retail projections and the proposal therefore no longer gains significant support from Policy 13 of LDP2.
Page 14
Policy conclusion 67 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. 68 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 retail facilities, or (d) for island and 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 2023 Retail Study and that there would likely be a detrimental impact on the city centre. Material Considerations 69 There is however some support for the proposal. 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. As outlined above, the proposal is clearly contrary to the Development Plans main considerations. However the existence of support in letters of representation is not considered to be a significant material planning consideration, which would merit departure from the Development Plan. Also, whilst there is a perceived need for discount/value foodstore provision, this is also not considered to be a relevant test or planning consideration in relation to the determination of this planning application. Particualrly, 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. Operators can, of course, change after the grant of planning permission without any further consideration being required. This allowing any retail operation to occupy the building if it were approved. So it must be remembered that the presence of supporting representations is not considered to outweigh the above policy concerns. 70 The supporting information indicates that all existing employees at Glasgow Road would be transferred to the proposed new store with an opportunity for 10 new jobs. It will also provide additional employment during the construction process. Whilst job creation is welcomed the number of new jobs/related temporary jobs is limited and would not be enough to set aside the primacy of the Development Plan policy. It must also be noted that it is accepted that there could be potential impact on existing retail provision, impact on footfall in the city centre, and thus adversely impact on employment elsewhere. So the overall economic benefit of the proposals are unclear. Design and Layout 71 The proposed retail unit with car parking, servicing and landscaping sees a single storey building located to the south of the site with the service area contained to
Page 15
the rear. The access is to the west onto Necessity Brae and the carpark lies to the north/northwest. 72 The building has a simple rectangular floor plan with a low mono-pitch roof. The site, due to the sloping topography, requires land engineering works to increase levels and create a platform for development. The building would be sited in the southern part, where no significant increase in levels are required. Where the levels require to be increased and retained, to a maximum height of c.4.95m (to the north/east) carparking areas would be provided. The platforming and cut and fill of sloping sites is not uncommon and can include the use of masonry/ concrete retaining walls, gabion baskets or a crib lock structures. However, the approach proposed seeks to mitigate the impacts and provide a softer solution via the use of ‘Tensar Greenslope’, which is a naturally vegetated, steep-slope earth retaining system. 73 The building’s finishes are timber cladding to walls and the roof finished in green coloured panels, to tie in with the natural character of the site and the immediate context of the woodland backdrop. 74 The design, siting and materials are considered to be acceptable and comply with the design policies of LDP2 and NPF4. Residential Amenity 75 The proposed opening hours of the store are between 8am and 10pm, Monday to Saturday and 9am to 8pm on Sundays. 76 The site sees the closest residential properties to the east at 1 to 4 Pickembere (Low Road) and then to the northwest (separated by Necessity Brae) where there are flatted properties at Arthur Park. 77 The store and its service yard are located to the south of the site set at the furthest point from these dwellings. The car park is however sited closer to 1 to 4 Pickembere. Air Quality 78 The site is within the Perth Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and an Air Quality Assessment (AQA) supports the application. The AQA aligns with the submitted Transport Assessment and has used the traffic data from the recently produced Systra 2019 baseline traffic model for Perth. In line with the Institute of Air Quality Management impact descriptor the AQA concluded that the impact from the proposed development will be insignificant for all pollutants. 79 A dust assessment was also undertaken to assess construction phase impacts and concluded that dust generated from the site construction activities would be low risk.
Page 16
Noise 80 The submission is also accompanied by a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) which assesses noise from the proposed car park, store service area, fixed plant noise sources and deposit return scheme facilities. 81 The NIA concluded that no additional mitigation noise control measures would be required. As the development is not likely to have a detrimental effect on the existing residential amenity at closest dwellinghouses for both daytime and night- time as target criteria levels are not exceeded. Lighting 82 The carpark would be at a higher level than the current ground level, as a result of site level works. However, the retaining structure would form a pediment enclosure to the boundaries which will screen car headlights. An overall lighting scheme for the carpark could be required by condition, to ensure screening. 83 While this application is recommended for refusal, if the application is approved, a number of conditions are recommended with regard to construction management, noise, servicing and delivery times and lighting to protect the amenity of existing residential dwellings. 84 Overall in relation to residential amenity the proposal could be seen to comply with the applicable policies of both LDP2 and NPF4. Contaminated Land 85 Site investigations have been undertaken to support a previous application covering a larger land area (but which included the application site). This saw no identified constraints to the site’s redevelopment. Roads and Access 86 The proposed vehicle and pedestrian access is to be formed directly onto the B9112 (Necessity Brae). The site-specific developer requirements of LDP 2 states that connection is to be made to the core path network to east. However, this is not included in the proposal, due to the change in levels which would require a substantial stepped/ramp access and also reduce the potential for landscaping/compensatory planting. It is also considered that the link would offer little benefit, as the Buckie Braes lead out of Perth and do not connect any residential areas. As such this aspect is not considered necessary. 87 The site would be served by 100 parking spaces, including 8 accessible (two of which would see electric vehicle charging points (EVCP)) along with 9 parent and child spaces, and 4 EVCPs, (2 at accessible spaces and 2 at other spaces). Furthermore, ducting will be provided within the car park for a further 16 EVCPs
Page 17
should the need arise in the future. Cycle stands would also be installed at the shopfront, for up to 10 bicycles. 88 The delivery regime for Aldi stores generally involves the following: one to two HGV deliveries (16.5m vehicles) and a smaller milk delivery (small rigid truck) each day. The HGV would drive forwards into the site, manoeuvre in the loading bay, and then exit the site in forward gear. 89 To facilitate the vehicle access into the site, the proposal is to relocate the southwest bound bus stop on Necessity Brae. 90 Trip generation information for the development, shows that there will be a number of new trips and pass-by trips attracted to the store. Therefore if permission was to be grated there are a number of matters which would require to be subject to suitable planning conditions. 91 With approximately 300 residential properties to the northern side of Necessity Brae, it is considered that a signalised pedestrian crossing should be provided to enable residents to cross and access the proposed Aldi store. 92 The footway on the southern side of Necessity Brae is currently slabbed and the development would result in increased footfall, such that any approval sees it recommended that an alternative material is considered, such as a Hot Rolled Asphalt. This to improve evenness and navigation, such as by those with visual impairment. 93 With the large employer of Aviva to the southwest, it is recommended that the footway to the west of the proposed vehicle access should be extended round into the site, to a point where there is gas meter housing, to reduce the conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. 94 Proposed ‘yellow box’ junction markings shall be subject to further discussion with Perth & Kinross Council and Police Scotland, therefore the implementation of the yellow box markings would not be approved through this planning application and rather a suitable condition applied to any consent. 95 If the applications were to be supported conditions would be required in relation to the installation of a crossing, cycle parking spaces, footpath layout/resurfacing. 96 Overall, the proposal is considered to comply with LDP2 Policy 60 and NPF4 Policy 13, as far as they relate to roads and access matters. Drainage and Flooding 97 The application is supported by a Drainage Impact Assessment which includes a Flood Risk Assessment. This sees the site not identified within an area of flood risk, but there are known surface water flooding issues within the area. Despite this, there is no requirement to formally consult SEPA on matters relating to
Page 18
development proposals where the only source of flood risk is surface water. In such instances SEPA refer planning authorities and developers to their standing advice. The applicant has provided an update in relation to more recent letters of representation which raised flood risk. 98 The development will increase the impermeable area within the site boundary. However, the site currently sees surface water drainage essentially unmanaged and thus contributes to the downstream catchment at an unrestricted rate both through a pipe connection to the watercourse and overland runoff. As a result of the proposed development the discharge rate has been calculated for all storm events up to the 1 in 200 year +39% climate change. In this regard the data provided demonstrates that here is an overall betterment which would result post development, as the outflow would be restricted to rates below the current calculated levels. 99 Reference has also been made to an existing surface water sewer which crosses the site. The drainage consultant confirms that the sewer can only flood from manholes located outside the site boundary. The development of the site would therefore not change the current situation and the flow path from this sewer will remain unchanged. In addition, as set out above, the flood risk will be reduced due to the reduction in discharge rate resulting from the proposed development. There is also reference to the combined sewer and the consultant confirms that the flood flow path will not change as a result of the development. 100 The development is also to be connected to the Scottish Water network for water and foul drainage. Scottish Water note that the following assets are within/or close proximity: a 225mm foul and combined sewer, 100mm surface water sewer and a 200mm distribution main. These have been taken into account in the development layout and the planting scheme. 101 Although not required to be consulted, SEPA have reviewed the information and confirm the site is not at flood risk from the Scouring Burn or the Buckie Burn, both of which flow into the Craigie Burn. The only advice they offer is that surface runoff from the new development should not make flood risk downstream on the Craigie Burn any worse, given the existing issues that exist. They note that this is a matter for the Local Authority to comment on. On this issue the Council’s Flood Team have reviewed the updated information and have no objection to the proposal, recommending standard SUDs conditions. 102 It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy LDP2 and NPF4 policies on drainage. Conservation Considerations 103 The site is located to the north of the category A listed Aviva Insurance Building. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) initially considered that the development proposed could have a negative impact on key views from the Aviva Building in the immediate designed landscape which slopes down to the development site.
Page 19
To better understand the potential impacts, they recommended that further analysis of the setting was carried out to inform the design, proposed materials and mitigation measures. Also advising that visualisations should be produced to confirm the appearance of the building and car park in key views northwards from the Aviva Building. 104 This information has been submitted and HES reconsulted, where they welcome the amendments and supporting information which takes account of their previous advice. These include a new Heritage Assessment, updated Design and Access statement and Landscape Design Plan, and changes to the building design. They particularly welcome the visualisations which help to show how the building will be seen in key views from the Aviva building. 105 It is therefore considered that the proposed mitigation measures – including changes to the roof colour and removal of cowls, timber clad elevations, and redefining of the northern edge of the site with micro siting of new trees - will make the building sufficiently recessive in the setting of the Aviva Building. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy 28 of LDP2 and Policy 7 of NPF4. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity 106 A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (PEAR) was undertaken in September 2020, in accordance with best practice guidance and was updated in August 2024. This reflects works undertaken on the site, including tree felling, prior to the Judicial Review overturning the initial grant of planning permission. 107 Overall, the site was assessed as providing low suitability to support protected species and no evidence of such species was found during the survey. 108 The grassland within the site is suitable for breeding birds, although human disturbance may limit this. As recommended in section 5:2 of the PEAR, any vegetation clearance must be undertaken outside of the bird breeding season. 109 The revised plans have enhanced biodiversity by including planting to tie in with the Buckie Braes, including: native trees, pollinator friendly plants, installing a variety of bird boxes, a bee post and pole mounted bat boxes. 110 Although the site has been cleared of trees there will be no detrimental impact on protected species and the proposal is incorporating biodiversity enhancement. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the Policy 41 of LDP2 and Policy 3 NPF4. Trees/Landscape 111 A significant number of trees (95) needed to be felled to enable the development of the site and as noted tree felling has taken place following the previous grant of permission prior to the Judicial Review. Notwithstanding, it has been accepted
Page 20
that trees needed to be felled to facilitate the development of this site and whilst the level of tree felling is unfortunate it must overall be weighed against the benefits of developing a site that it is zoned for development. 112 While the tree loss is accepted, the landscaping scheme must offer acceptable mitigation. In this sense the initial landscaping scheme has been revised to address concerns regarding the species chosen, etc. Also due to clarifications on drainage wayleaves which has seen planting removed from areas where it was previously shown. The revised scheme also includes a small amount of planting beyond the site boundary which the agent confirms has been discussed with the relevant landowners. Whilst this planting is welcomed it couldn’t be controlled via condition or enforced and is therefore not a determining issue in relation to the acceptability of the scheme. 113 The revised landscape plan sees 102 trees to be planted, comprising: 2 trees at the west boundary, 46 at north, 40 at east, with 14 trees off site. Overall, the increase in tree numbers is heavily weighted to the east. This provides screening of the site to walkers accessing Buckie Braes addressing some of the Community Greenspace comments. It also affords screening to the local residents adjacent to the east boundary. 114 The landscaping scheme includes herbaceous planting along the boundary with Necessity Brae, this offers benefit for pollinators but would not screen the building. The supporting documents note that due to wayleaves and position of retaining slopes tree planting cannot be accommodated within this area. It must also be noted that in planning terms it is not necessary to hide or screen the development. It is more important that the cumulative impacts of the proposal can be accommodated within the landscape capacity. It is considered that the design of the building and colour pallet of materials (timber cladding/green roof) will enable the building to blend with the landscape backdrop. The use of the Tensar Greenslope will also help integrate the retaining structures into the landscape framework. The herbaceous planting can also contribute by providing a green edge. 115 The landscape proposals for the site are considered to provide adequate mitigation and to comply with the placemaking polices of LDP2 and NPF4. The proposal is also considered to comply with Policy 40 of LDP2 and Policy 6 of NPF4 as mitigation in the form of replacement planting has been included. Low and Zero Carbon Generating Technologies 116 LDP2 Policy 32 ‘Embedding Low and Zero Carbon Generating Technology in New Development’ states that proposals for all new buildings will be required to demonstrate that at least 10% of the current carbon emissions reduction set by Scottish Building Standards will be met through the installation and operation of low and zero-carbon generating technologies. As this proposal includes the erection of a new building, consideration must be given to this requirement.
Page 21
Further, NPF4 Policy 2 ‘Climate Mitigation and Adaptation’ requires that development should be designed to reduce green gas emissions. 117 The supporting statement details that the objective is to minimise energy needs in development by following the Government’s Energy Hierarchy approach to minimising energy use. This includes the innovative “heat recovery” technology which removes 100% of a store’s requirement for heating equipment by recycling heat from the refrigeration units. In this case a condition could have been added so this can be agreed formally as the details submitted don’t cover the specific 10% requirement as outlined in the policy if the application had been recommended for approval. Developer Contributions 118 The Council’s 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. 119 In this regard the site is located in the Perth Transport Infrastructure zone (Appendix 3 of the Supplementary Guidance). 120 In this regard a Section 75 Legal agreement has already been signed, following the previous determination, securing the contributions £87,654required for the site. Economic Impact/Benefits 121 The submission has been reviewed by the Council's Business, Place and Investment Team (BPIT) 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 potential for adverse economic impacts on existing retail provision, as highlighted in this report. 122 The BPIT also consider that the proposal is expected to create up to 10 new jobs (in addition to the 18 transferred roles) plus indirect jobs via construction and the supply chain. They also feel that the store would provide more choice for local people with lower prices, although these are not material planning considerations. They also feel that there would also be potential local supply chain benefits. However, they also accept that there would be potential impact on existing retail provision, especially small independent businesses and the proposal would likely also impact on footfall in the city centre. Overall, whilst there are considered to be some economic benefits associated with the proposal these may not be positive in a wider sense and are not considered to outweigh the fundamental planning policy conflicts which are outlined above.
Page 22
Variation of Application Under Section 32A 123 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 scheme, finish materials and submission of additional supporting documents. Planning Obligations and Legal Agreements 124 If the application is approved, the existing s75 agreement will require to be reviewed and, if necessary, a variation undertaken to ensure that the transport contributions due as set out above are appropriately provided for. Direction by Scottish Ministers 125 Under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, regulations 30 – 33 there have been no directions by the Scottish Government in respect of an Environmental Impact Assessment screening opinion, call in or notification relating to this application. Conclusion and Reasons for Recommendation 126 To conclude, the application must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this respect, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the Development Plan. Account has been taken of the relevant material considerations and none, whether individually or cumulatively, have 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 additional retail floorspace within the catchment, 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 to a lesser degree other local centres.
Page 23
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 None required. Informatives None. Background Papers Letters of representation 54 Authors Name Designation Contact Details Joanne Ferguson Planning Officer (Major applications) developmentmanagement@pkc.gov.uk Approved Name Designation Date Sean Panton Team Leader (Major Applications and Enforcement) 28 May 2025