24/00299/Flm
Perth and Kinross Council · 11 December 2024
Back to Planning and Placemaking Committee — 11 December 2024 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 December 2024 Report of Handling by Strategic Lead: Economy, Development and Planning (Report No. 24/358) PROPOSAL: Siting of 68 holiday accommodation units and managers accommodation unit including formation of vehicular access, erection of hub building, landscaping, car parking and associated works LOCATION: Land 1 kilometre east of Muirhead Cottage, Auchterarder Ref. No: 24/00299/FLM Ward No: P7- Strathallan Summary This report recommends refusal of the application as the development is considered to be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no material considerations apparent which justify setting aside the Development Plan. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL 1 The application site comprises 10.51 hectares of agricultural land, located 0.5 miles to the west and outwith the settlement boundary of Auchterarder and 1 mile to the north of Gleneagles Hotel. The site comprises of predominantly arable land (soil type 3.2 – good quality agricultural soil) with a small area surfaced in hardcore, used in the past as temporary Ryder Cup parking. 2 The site is bound by the A823 to the west but is otherwise relatively open to the surrounding fields and countryside. 3 The proposal is for a holiday lodge development comprising of the following: • 68 prefabricated holiday lodges (which would fall within the planning definition of a caravan) • Manager’s residence • Reception/hub building to create onsite facilities • Landscaping, open space and play areas • Site Access from A823 • Parking • SUDS, drainage infrastructure and associated works
Page 2
4 The lodges will be laid out in 10 ‘clusters’, with the hub building, manager’s accommodation and parking located near an access off the A823. The single- storey lodges are all indicated to all be of the same type, with two bedrooms, but can be reconfigured internally to create a third. 5 The exterior is predominantly timber cladding with areas of contrasting composite cladding (both wood coloured & dark grey). Roofing is either grey tile or slate. Windows with dark grey uPVC frames. Timber decking and stone patios will be offered as options. Metal flashings are to frame the gables. SITE HISTORY 6 19/00005/PAN A Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) setting out community consultation arrangements were submitted and accepted by PKC in August 2019 relating to a prospective development of 196 holiday lodges, hub buildings, landscaping, open space, vehicular access, parking area and associated works 7 19/01721/SCRN An EIA Screening Opinion, confirming that no EIA was required, was issued by PKC in January 2020 relating to the above development. 8 20/00868/FLM A ‘Major’ planning application was withdrawn on 9 December 2021. This related to a development comprising 122 holiday accommodation units, formation of vehicular access, erection of hub building, landscaping, car parking and associated works. 9 20/01336/FLL A planning application for the installation of drainage infrastructure and associated works was returned to the agent prior to determination. 10 23/00006/PAN A second PAN was accepted by PKC in April 2023 relating to a prospective development of 68 holiday accommodation units and manager's accommodation unit, formation of vehicular access, erection of hub building, landscaping, car parking and associated works ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 11 A proposal for a larger holiday accommodation development on an area covering the site was previously subject to EIA screening, Ref: 19/01721/SCRN. At that time the proposal’s characteristics, location and likely significant environmental effects were considered, and an opinion was adopted that the proposal was not EIA development. As there has been no material change in circumstances and the current proposal is for a smaller development, the previously adopted opinion is considered to remain valid for this application. PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION 12 Pre application Reference: 23/00006/PAN
Page 3
13 The proposed development is classed as a ‘Major’ development, in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009. Therefore, the applicant was required to undertake formal pre-application consultation with the local community. The submitted Pre-application Consultation (PAC) Report outlined that two public exhibitions were held locally on 26th April 2023 and 17th May 2023. The outcome of the events, etc. is detailed within the PAC Report. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 14 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 15 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. 16 The Council’s assessment of this application has considered the following policies of NPF4: • Policy 1: Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises • Policy 2: Climate Mitigation and Adaptation • Policy 3: Biodiversity • Policy 7: Historic Assets and Places • Policy 13: Sustainable Transport • Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place • Policy 17: Rural Homes • Policy 20: Blue and Green Infrastructure • Policy 22: Flood Risk and Water Management • Policy 25: Community Wealth Building • Policy 28: Retail • Policy 29: Rural Development • Policy 30: Tourism Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 17 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.
Page 4
18 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 8: Rural Business and Diversification • Policy 9C: Caravan Sites, Chalets and Timeshare Developments: Chalets, Timeshare and Fractional Ownership • Policy 14B: Open Space Retention and Provision: Open Space within New Developments • Policy 19: Housing in the Countryside • Policy 26A: Scheduled Monuments and Archaeology: Scheduled Monuments • Policy 26B: Scheduled Monuments and Archaeology: Archaeology • Policy 27A: Listed Buildings • Policy 32: Embedding Low & Zero Carbon Generating Technologies in New Development • Policy 38A: Environment and Conservation: International Nature Conservation Sites • Policy 38B: Environment and Conservation: National Designations • Policy 39: Landscape • Policy 41: Biodiversity • Policy 42: Green Infrastructure • Policy 52: New Development and Flooding • Policy 53A: Water Environment and Drainage: Water Environment • Policy 53C: Water Environment and Drainage: Surface Water Drainage • Policy 53E: Water Environment and Drainage: Water Supply • Policy 54: Health and SafetyConsultation Zones • Policy 55: Nuisance from Artificial Light and Light Pollution • Policy 56: Noise Pollution • Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals Statutory Supplementary Guidance 19 • Supplementary Guidance - Developer Contributions & Affordable Housing (adopted in 2023) • Supplementary Guidance - Flood Risk and Flood Risk Assessments (adopted in 2021) • Supplementary Guidance - Green & Blue Infrastructure (adopted in 2020) • Supplementary Guidance - Housing in the Countryside (adopted in 2020) • Supplementary Guidance - Landscape (adopted in 2020) • Supplementary Guidance - Open Space Provision for New Developments (adopted in 2021) • Supplementary Guidance - Placemaking (adopted in 2020)
Page 5
PKC NON-STATUTORY GUIDANCE 20 • Planning Guidance - Planning & Biodiversity NATIONAL GUIDANCE 21 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 22 The following Scottish Government Planning Advice Notes (PANs) and Guidance Documents are of relevance to the proposal: • PAN 40 Development Management • PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation • PAN 68 Design Statements • PAN 69 Planning and Building standards Advice on Flooding • PAN 75 Planning for Transport Creating Places 2013 23 Creating Places is the Scottish Government’s policy statement on architecture and place. It sets out the comprehensive value good design can deliver. It notes that successful places can unlock opportunities, build vibrant communities and contribute to a flourishing economy and set out actions that can achieve positive changes in our places. Designing Streets 2010 24 Designing Streets is the policy statement in Scotland for street design and changes the emphasis of guidance on street design towards place-making and away from a system focused upon the dominance of motor vehicles. It was created to support the Scottish Government’s place-making agenda, alongside Creating Places. National Roads Development Guide 2014 25 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 26 As part of the planning application process the following bodies were consulted:
Page 6
External 27 Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust: No objections, subject to a condition requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological works. 28 Scottish Environment Protection Agency: No objection. 29 NatureScot: No objection. Advise that the site is within foraging range of geese associated with South Tayside Goose Roost Special Protection Area (SPA). As a result, PKC as competent authority is required to carry out an Appropriate Assessment. 30 Scottish Water: No objection. Confirm that there is water and wastewater capacity in the local network. 31 Transport Scotland: No objection, subject to a condition requiring a travel plan. 32 Historic Environment Scotland: No objection. The proposals do not raise historic environment issues of national significance. 33 Health and Safety Executive: No response received. Internal 34 Development Plans: Object. Advise the proposal is a departure from the Development Plan and, in this instance, there are no material considerations that justify a departure from the Plan. 35 Environmental Health (Private Water): No objection. The development will be serviced from the public mains water supply, and no existing private water supplies will be affected. 36 Environmental Health (Noise Odour): No objection, subject to conditions on noise, delivery times, external lighting and construction hours. 37 Development Contributions Officer: Contributions are required towards primary education (£6,300) and the Auchterarder A9 junction (£120,750). 38 Transportation and Development: No objections. 39 Biodiversity/Tree Officer: No objections. Conditions required. 40 Structures and Flooding: No objections, subject to conditions on SUDS details.
Page 7
41 Commercial Waste Team: No objections. Confirmed that the proposed bin stores are sufficient. Representations 42 57 representations were received, 2 objections and 55 in support, including a 47 signature petition. 43 The main issues raised within the objections are: • Contrary to development plan policy • Adverse effect on visual amenity • Inappropriate density • Inappropriate land use • Lack or loss of car parking • Light pollution • Loss of open space • Out of character with the area • Over intensive development • Traffic congestion 44 The main reasons for supporting the application are as follows: • Will help to maintain local bus services • Sustainable design and construction • Incorporates walking routes and tree planting • Will provide local jobs and support businesses • Improvement to local sports facilities 45 These issues are addressed in the Appraisal section of the report. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS 46 Screening Opinion EIA not required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report not required Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations Habitats Regulations Appraisal completed AA completed Design Statement or Design and Access Statement submitted Report on Impact or Potential Impact e.g. Flood Risk Assessment • PAC Report • Transport Assessment • Biodiversity Action Plan • Ecological Appraisal
Page 8
• Holiday Accommodation Market Demand Assessment • Sustainability and Low Carbon Assessment • Statement of Community Benefit • Socioeconomic Statement • Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Biodiversity Enhancement Plan • Planning Statement • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment • Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment • Design and Access Statement • Business Plan APPRAISAL 47 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. Principle 48 NPF4 Policies 29: Rural development and 30: Tourism are relevant as are LDP2 Policies 8: Rural Business and Diversification and 9: Caravan Sites, Chalets and Timeshare Developments. 49 NPF4 Policy 29 advises that ‘development proposals that contribute to the viability, sustainability and diversity of rural communities and local rural economy will be supported, including: i. farms, crofts, woodland crofts or other land use businesses, where use of good quality land for development is minimised and business viability is not adversely affected; ii. diversification of existing businesses; iii. production and processing facilities for local produce and materials, for example sawmills, or local food production; iv. essential community services; v. essential infrastructure; vi. reuse of a redundant or unused building;
Page 9
vii. appropriate use of a historic environment asset or is appropriate enabling development to secure the future of historic environment assets; viii. reuse of brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention; ix. small scale developments that support new ways of working such as remote working, homeworking and community hubs; x. improvement or restoration of the natural environment.’ 50 The Planning Supporting Statement asserts that the proposal is a ‘land-use business’ in terms of criterion i. However, this is not accepted, and the proposal is not considered to fit readily into any of the listed criteria including when considered against the wider criterion and other policies within the Development Plan. This includes that there is no indication that the proposals are a diversification of a business related to the specific attributes of the site; and that the small area of previously used land, the area of hardcore, is not having a significant impact on the area and could easily be reversed or allowed to return to a natural state. As a result, it does not benefit from direct policy support via NPF4 Policy 29. Indeed, it is considered that the proposals are contrary to this policy. 51 NPF4 Policy 29 also seeks to protect ‘good quality land’. The site is currently used for arable farming and is classified as soil type 3.2 in terms of Land Capability for Agriculture (LCA). NPF4 Policy 5: Soils states that ‘Development proposals on prime agricultural land, or land of lesser quality that is culturally or locally important for primary use, as identified by the LDP, will only be supported where it is for: i. Essential infrastructure and there is a specific locational need and no other suitable site; ii. Small-scale development directly linked to a rural business, farm or croft or for essential workers for the rural business to be able to live onsite; iii. The development of production and processing facilities associated with the land produce where no other local site is suitable; iv. The generation of energy from renewable sources or the extraction of minerals and there is secure provision for restoration.’ 52 LDP2 Policy 51: Soils defines ‘good quality agricultural soils’ as those with an LCA classification of 1, 2, 3.1 and 3.2. Therefore, the proposal is also contrary to NPF4 Policy 5, as it does not fall within any of the identified land use criteria. 53 Part (a) of NPF4 Policy 30 offers considerable support for new tourist accommodation, although in locations identified in the Local Development Plan. In this instance the site is not within an area identified as such in the LDP. This does not automatically make it unacceptable, but it does mean that the policy offers no direct support to the proposal. 54 LDP2 Policy 8: Rural Business and Diversification sets out qualified support for the creation of new tourism businesses in rural areas. However, it also advises that that it is preferable that new developments are situated within or adjacent to
Page 10
existing settlements. The proposed site is neither within or adjacent to the nearest settlement of Auchterarder. The qualification for sites outwith settlements is that they may be acceptable where they ‘offer opportunities to diversify an existing business, or are related to an existing site-specific resource or opportunity.’ As is mentioned above, there is no apparent site specific resource or business which the development would clearly relate to and would contextually diversify. 55 Notwithstanding that the proposal represents a unique opportunity to develop this site for purposes other than agriculture, this is not enough to meet the NPF4 and LDP2 policy criteria. The Planning Supporting Statement does not identify any hidden relationship to an existing site-specific resource. 56 Furthermore, in terms of specific locational need, the application fails to demonstrate the reasons that the development must be located on this particular site, indeed it appears to be rather isolated from any elements which may assist it’s success or provide wider added value – beyond the fact that the site is currently productive agricultural land in a high quality open rural landscape. As such the proposal does not meet the criteria in any of these three primary policies. 57 LDP2 Policy 9: Caravan Sites, Chalets and Timeshare Developments has two elements that are relevant to the proposal. 58 Firstly the development cannot be used as permanent residences. The application supporting documents advise that it is intended that, with the exception of the manger’s accommodation, the accommodation units will be sold as second homes and not permanent residences. 59 Secondly, proposals must meet either of the following criteria: • (a) involve the expansion of an existing hotel, guest house, chalet park, caravan park or timeshare or fractional ownership development where the development does not constitute either overdevelopment of the site or its setting; or • (c) meet a specific need by virtue of its quality or location in relation to existing tourism facilities. 60 Again, as is noted above, the proposal does not show any compliance with these criteria. 61 Overall, while there is considerable policy support for new tourist development from both NPF4 and LDP2. Especially LDP2 Policy 8. This is not unconditional and in this case the proposals clearly depart from the overall intent of these primary policies with no overriding material considerations evident. The proposal does not expand or diversify an existing business at the location, nor does it demonstrate that the development is required at the identified location, indeed it
Page 11
appears that the same development arguments could relate to multiple agricultural areas in multiple other locations. Therefore, the proposed development fails to meet the criteria of the above relevant policies and therefore the principle of the development is considered unacceptable in this location. Economic Impact 62 A ‘Holiday Accommodation Market Demand Assessment’, a ‘Socioeconomic Statement’ and a ‘Business Plan’ have been submitted in support of the application. These outline that the accommodation units will be for second home ownership and the documents provide estimates of the potential economic impact from construction phases and from recurring visitor expenditure. 63 Although there may be market demand for second home ownership in the area, or any area within a high-quality rural landscape in close proximity to the large catchment of Scotland's Central Belt, and the ensuing economic impacts generated as a result. However, there is limited correlation between the narrative of the assessment and the requirement for the development in this specific location. Economic impact is a material consideration and careful deliberation has been given to whether there are significant benefits in this regard that would justify a departure from the Development Plan. The outcome of this is that the reletively modest economic benefits would be insignificant in relation to the negative impacts and it is concluded that there is no reasonable justification for the development in this location and a departure is not supportable. Design and Layout 64 NPF4 Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place and LDP2 Policy 1: Placemaking are relevant in the consideration of the design and layout of the proposal. 65 The indicative masterplan shows a development that will be functional with modern elements in all accommodation types, in what is currently a relatively open landscape in use as agricultural fields. The layout proposes clusters of lodges, each cluster with a common green area. Each green area will be directly overlooked by the proposed lodges. A hub building will be located at the site entrance from the A823, with the manager’s accommodation, landscaping and car parking also proposed in this area adjacent to the road. 66 The development is expected to be delivered in 4 phases. Overall, the proposals will bring a clear and obvious change to the existing landscape setting as it is currently part of a grouping of open fields. A new shelterbelt of structural native trees and hedging will eventually give a degree of containment and create a new landscape context. However, the degree of visual change and limited use of existing landscape features would result in a significant and negative impact on the existing landscape appearance. Primarily, what is presently open agricultural fields and the associated boundary treatments and landscape containment, would become an envelope of significant structural landscaping containing not
Page 12
insignificant scaled buildings and associated infrastructure. This would also include lighting, where presently there is none. 67 Overall, whilst the proposed design and layout is not inconsistent with some other holiday lodge developments within Perth and Kinross, the design and siting at the proposed undeveloped and open rural location, resulting in a detached and isolated development in the open countryside, does not contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding environment nor respect the character and amenity of the area. The proposal fails to accord with NPF4 Policy 14: Design, quality and place, specifically the spatial strategy is not underpinned by the ‘six qualities of successful places’ as it is not support attractive natural and built spaces nor is it well connected to its surroundings and fails to reduce car dependency. 68 The proposal is not considered to accord with the Council’s Placemaking policies and in particular LDP2 Policy 1, as it would result in a significant and largely irrevocable change to the existing landscape. The design, density, and siting would be to the detriment to the character and amenity of the place. Any improvement to transport links, including walking and bus services would be mainly related to the proposed use of the site itself and is not considered sufficient to outweigh the negative aspects. Furthermore, the proposed and landscaping and planting works do not fully respect the existing landscape character and would result in a significant change to the existing landscape context and introduce a scale and nature of development which would have detrimental impact. Landscape 69 A ‘Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ has also been submitted in support of the planning application. Initially this only showed the site in its current, undeveloped state and then jumped forward 10 years, when landscaping is likely to achieve an element of growth and maturity. Upon request additional visuals were provided of the site in the intervening period. 70 However, by its very nature the proposed development will result in landscape and visual effects that will cause changes to local landscape character and affect views from a number of locations, both localised and further afield. 71 The characteristics of the proposed development will be groups of lodge buildings located on agricultural grassland, within a newly planted shelterbelt of trees and hedges. There is limited existing screening from the A823, with the current site largely open. This situation would, to an extent, change due to landscaping proposals, but the character and appearance of the site in the wider landscape would see clear change from it’s existing high quality character in a relatively open landscape that side of the road and for a significant distance beyond. 72 Without the proposed woodland planting the proposed lodges would be, in themselves, highly prominent in a largely open landscape. Although the
Page 13
proposed planting will soften the extent of impact, it will take considerable time to mature and even then, would not mitigate the adverse landscape impact or provide justification for the proposed development at this location. 73 Although the impacts on the landscape would reduce as the distance from the site increased, more localised impacts would be of a scale and context which is considered detrimental. Impact on local visual amenity would also be negative, even accounting for the fact that the significance of impact would to an extent slowly reduce over time as structural landscaping matured. It is thus not considered that the proposed development satisfactorily would integrate into the surroundings, to an extent that the impacts would be considered acceptable. 74 Although the proposal attempts to mitigate the impacts on the landscape and visual amenity, the adverse impact on the landscape character is not justified, nor in themselves provide adequate justification for the proposed development at this location. As such the proposals are not considered to comply with LDP2 Policy 39 as it will not provide a high-quality landscape enhancement to the area. Residential Amenity 75 The closest residential properties are ‘West Third’ to the north and ‘Muirton Park’ to the south-east, which are both approximately 500m from the site. The site will be visible to these properties. There is also staff accommodation at the Gleneagles Equestrian Centre approximately 450 metres away. Lighting 76 Environmental Health raised no concerns regarding light pollution and impact on the nearest residential properties. They have requested a standard lighting condition should the application be approved to prevent any light spillage issue from occurring. The proposal is considered to comply with LDP2 Policy 55. Noise 77 The main source of noise will be from patrons using the site, especially in the late evening period. Environmental Health advise that this can be controlled through good site management. There is also the potential for noise during the construction phase. Should the application be approved Environmental Health recommend that a Noise Management Plan will be required to be submitted and agreed prior to the operation of the development. Further conditions will also be required to control plant noise, delivery times and construction hours. Roads and Access 78 A ‘Transport Assessment’ has been submitted in support of the application. Transport Planning initially had some concerns over some road widths within the development being able to accommodate emergency vehicles. Adjustments to
Page 14
the site layout have been made to ensure that larger vehicles can be accommodated within the internal roads. 79 Transport Scotland has advised that the proposal is not anticipated to have a negative effect on the trunk road network. However, if the application is approved, they have requested a condition requiring a Travel Pan to be submitted for approval that sets out proposals for reducing dependency on the private car. 80 It is acknowledged that the main mode of transport associated with the development will be predominantly vehicle-based trips. The proposal includes the provision of a pedestrian footpath to connect into the existing network, approximately 500m to the south. However, it is unclear how this will be delivered, as it does not appear that the applicant has control over or has investigated the deliverability via other controlling interests. NPF4 Policy 13 Sustainable Transport states that ‘development proposals for significant travel generating uses will not be supported in locations which would increase reliance on the private car, taking into account the specific characteristics of the area’. In this respect the development will rely significantly on the private car and given its location away from the settlement of Auchterarder, will undoubtedly see this as the primary mode of transport. Similarly, LDP2 Policy 60 also advises that significant travel generating uses that rely on the private car will only be supported where there are direct links made to core path networks and access to local bus routes within 400 metres are available. The development would introduce a significant level of new traffic to the locality. However, because of the site’s countryside location it is not well served by sustainable modes of transport. 81 Each lodge and the manger’s accommodation will be provided with two car parking spaces. A further 38 car parking spaces will be provided adjacent to the hub area, of which 19 spaces will be provided with EV charging points. In total, 176 car parking spaces will be provided for the development, demonstrating its car-dependent nature. 82 The Transport Assessment advises that the development would generate the same level of daily vehicle trips as 35 residential dwellinghouses. On this basis it asserts that no developer contributions should be sought from the proposed development. Officers dispute this assertion and a contribution towards A9 junction improvements will be required, as detailed in the Developer Contributions section below. Drainage and Flooding 83 A ‘Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment’ (FRA) supports the application, and this has been assessed by both SEPA and the Council’s Structures and Flooding Team. Neither has any objections to the approach set out. 84 The FRA is considered to be based on appropriate methods and its representation of flood risk at the site is in line with available evidence. SEPA are
Page 15
satisfied that the recommendations of the FRA have been considered in the design and development is not considered to be at risk of flooding. 85 Structures and Flooding are also satisfied with the information provided with the proposal and, if planning permission is granted, have requested a condition for detailed SUDS design to be subject to further approval. 86 Overall, the proposal complies with NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policies 52 and 53. Waste Collection 87 Waste Services have confirmed that the proposed bin storage area is sufficient to meet the proposed number of lodges and hub building. Conservation Considerations 88 Perth & Kinross Heritage Trust (PKHT) confirm that the proposed development lies within an area that is archaeologically sensitive due to the lack of any previous construction, as evidenced in map regression of the site and the presence of significant archaeological sites in the local area. Therefore, if permission is granted, it is recommended that a programme of archaeological works is required via condition to assess the presence / absence, character and significance of archaeological deposits on the site. 89 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) advise that the proposal has the potential to affect Tullibardine Chapel and Easthill Standing Stones Scheduled Monuments. Although they assess that they are broadly content that the impact on the setting of the monuments would not be significant. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity 90 NPF4 Policy 3: Biodiversity and LDP2 Policies 40: Forestry, Woodland and Trees and 41: Biodiversity are relevant in the assessment of the application. 91 A ‘Preliminary Ecological Appraisal’ and ‘Biodiversity Enhancement Plan’ were submitted in support of the application and considered by PKC’s Biodiversity/Tree Officer. Further information was requested on a number of matters including: tree protection; further badger survey; further red squirrel survey; assessment of trees with bat roost potential, including impact assessment, mitigation and compensation if required; and the requirement for the submission of a ‘Site Biodiversity Action Plan’. 92 A further ‘Ecological Appraisal’ and ‘Biodiversity Action Plan’ were submitted to address these points. These reports make a number of observations and recommendations, including details of native hedgerow planting, individual tree and woodland planting, shrub planting, a dry SUDS basin, wildflower grassland, bat and bird boxes and a sensitive lighting scheme. Should the application be
Page 16
approved conditions will be required to ensure the recommendations and mitigation measures set out in the reports are implemented to ensure compliance with NPF4 Policy 3 and LDP2 Policies 40 and 41. Low and Zero Carbon Generating Technologies 93 LDP2 Policy 32 ‘Embedding Low and Zero Carbon Generating Technology in New Development’ states that proposals for all new buildings will be required to demonstrate that at least 10% of the current carbon emissions reduction set by Scottish Building Standards will be met through the installation and operation of low and zero-carbon generating technologies. As this proposal includes the erection of a new building, consideration must be given to this requirement. Further, NPF4 Policy 2 ‘Climate Mitigation and Adaptation’ requires that development should be designed to reduce green gas emissions. In this instance, a Sustainability and Low and Zero carbon Statement has been submitted. The Statement advises that he energy and thermal performance of the proposed new buildings will be determined during the building warrant stage of the development, should planning permission be granted and, therefore, it is not feasible to attempt to deliver that level of detail at this stage of the proposal. However, the statement of intention proposes options including, low carbon thermal efficient design, solar PV, heat pumps and biomass. Developer Contributions 94 The Council’s Developer Contributions Officer has assessed the applicants Transport Statement and Socioeconomic Statement. LDP2 Policy 5 and the associated Developer Contributions Supplementary Guidance requires contributions from developments within the Auchterarder and wider Strathearn housing market area towards meeting the cost of delivering the A9 junction improvements, which are required in the interests of safety. 95 The applicant’s supporting information references the Supplementary Guidance (2020), which was replaced in December 2023 with the adopted statutory Supplementary Guidance (2023). PKC’s implementation of this guidance, as it specifically relates to holiday accommodation, was clarified in the Further Information Note: Holiday Accommodation (August 2024). 96 For non-residential developments that have a trip generation equal to or greater than a dwellinghouse, an assessment for contributions is made on a case-by- case basis. Where it is considered to reduce the need to travel e.g. through the provision of local employment or services, the Guidance would not apply. Due to its nature and location, is not considered that the proposed development reduces the need to travel. 97 The applicant’s supporting information concludes that the impact of the proposed holiday accommodation development is the equivalent of 35 dwellinghouses. The adopted rate is £3,450 per dwellinghouse, thus it is considered that the development results in the requirement for a contribution of £120,750.
Page 17
98 In addition, the Developer Contributions Supplementary Guidance requires a financial contribution towards increased primary school capacity in areas where a primary school capacity constraint has been identified. A capacity constraint is defined as where a primary school is operating at over 80% and is likely to be operating following completion of the proposed development, extant planning permissions and Local Development Plan allocations, at or above 100% of total capacity. 99 This proposal is within the catchment of The Community School of Auchterarder Primary School. There is one dwellinghouse proposed as manager’s accommodation, which will require an Education Contribution of £6,300. PLANNING OBLIGATIONS AND LEGAL AGREEMENTS 100 If approved, a Section 75 legal agreement would be required to cover the developer contributions relating to the A9-Loaninghead Junction and education. DIRECTION BY SCOTTISH MINISTERS 101 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 102 To conclude, the application must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this respect, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the Development Plan. Account has been taken account of the relevant material considerations and none has been found that would justify overriding the Development Plan. Accordingly the proposal is recommended for refusal on the grounds identified below. RECOMMENDATION Refuse the application Reasons for Recommendation 1. The proposal is contrary to NPF4 Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place as it is not designed to improve the quality of the area, nor is it consistent with the six qualities of successful places. In addition, it is contrary to LDP2 Policy 1: Placemaking as the proposed location is not in a sustainable location. Furthermore, the proposal fails to demonstrate that the proposed design and siting contributes positively to the quality of the surrounding environment or respect the character and amenity of the area.
Page 18
2. The proposal is contrary to NPF4 Policy 29: Rural Development and LDP2 Policy 8: Rural Business and Diversification as the proposal fails to demonstrate the proposal will diversify an existing business or is related to an existing site-specific resource or opportunity. 3. The proposal is contrary to NPF4 Policy: 30 Tourism and LDP2 Policy 9: Caravan Sites, Chalets and Timeshare Developments as the proposal is not identified in the LDP for tourist accommodation and fails to demonstrate the proposal will diversify an existing tourism business or is related to an existing site-specific resource or opportunity. 4. The proposal is contrary to NPF4 Policy 29: Rural Development and LDP2 Policy 39: Landscape as the proposal is not suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area, and will result in localised visual impacts of a scale and context which is considered detrimental and that the proposed development will not satisfactorily integrate into the surroundings to an acceptable standard. 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 required. Background Papers: 57 letters of representation Contact Officer: Alex Gudgeon Date: 29.11.2024 DAVID LITTLEJOHN STRATEGIC LEAD: ECONOMY, DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING