22/02194/Flm
Perth and Kinross Council · 13 March 2024
Back to Planning and Placemaking Committee — 13 March 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 – 13 March 2024 Report of Handling by Strategic Lead - Economy, Development and Planning (Report No. 24/71) PROPOSAL: Change of use of agricultural land to form extension to existing leisure park, formation of internal access, parking, hardstanding, engineering works and landscaping LOCATION: Land 200 Metres North East Of Erigmore Caravan Site, St Mary's Road, Birnam Ref. No: 22/02194/FLM Ward No: P5 - Strathtay Summary This report recommends refusal of a detailed planning application for the creation of an extension to an existing holiday park at Erigmore Caravan Site in Birnam, 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 This planning application seeks to obtain detailed planning permission for an extension to the popular Erigmore Caravan Site at Birnam. The existing site accommodates approx. 157 caravans which are a mix of privately owned and holiday lets, and it is understood the majority of the holiday lets remain within the ownership of the resort. 2 This planning application seeks to create a new expanded area to the east of the existing site which would be capable of accommodating a further 76 additional lodges, which would fall under the definition of a ‘caravans’. It is proposed to extend the site beyond the defined settlement boundaries. These new caravans would be a combination of privately owned and units for rent via the resort - over an area of approx. 4.6ha. The applicant has indicted that the prime reason for this application is to react to local demand for this type of holiday accommodation, and by opting to develop a green field site, it would negate the need to disrupt the existing layout, density and woodland setting of the existing area. The proposed units will all be movable but will be placed on designated newly formed concrete pads/bases and will be served by a new internal road layout, associated landscaping, planting and outside communal recreational areas.
Page 2
3 In order to facilitate the expansion, engineering operations over an area of approx. 4.2ha is proposed to redesign the levels of the site, and ground levels will be altered. The finished levels will generally be higher than the existing across the site, with the increase ranging from around 0.15m to 1.6m. The applicant has indicated that the majority of the increase in levels will be delivered by ‘cuts’ across the site which are required to form ‘fills’ including bases and roads etc which will negate the need for exporting of material off site. 4 The vehicular access to the site will be via the existing Erigmore Holiday Park, which has an existing junction and access point with the public road (Perth Road). 5 The site is presently in agricultural use, and undulates gently across its area. Along the northern boundary is the southern banks of the River Tay, which is a Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Also along the northern boundary is a public path which is both a Core Path and Right of Way, which judging by the letters of representations is a popular route. There are a number of trees which surround the north, south and west boundaries of the site and some of these groups are part of a designated Ancient Woodland. The site is also part of a wider Historic Garden and Designed Landscape (HGDL) which is associated with Murthly Castle, and is within the National Scenic Area (NSA). PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION 6 A Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) report was submitted with the application. This document demonstrates that appropriate pre-application consultation was undertaken by the developer with the local community and other specified parties in line with the relevant regulations. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) 7 The proposal has been screened for EIA, and whilst the development is significant in terms of its scale and it affects a number of sensitive designations, the impacts on the environment are not considered to be the level which requires assessment through EIA. The application has however been accompanied by a number of supporting technical documents. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 8 The Development Plan for the area comprises National Planning Framework 4 (2023), the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019), and statutory supplementary planning guidance (SPG).
Page 3
National Planning Framework 4 9 The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) was approved by the Scottish Parliament on 11 January 2023. NPF4 has an increased status over previous NPFs and comprises part of the statutory development plan. 10 The Council’s assessment reviews the policies of NPF4 and it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with its intentions. The most relevant policies are: • Policy 1: Tackling the Climate and Nature Crisis • Policy 2: Climate Mitigation and Adaptation • Policy 3: Biodiversity • Policy 4: Natural Places • Policy 5: Soils • Policy 6: Forestry • Policy 7: Historic Assets and Places • Policy 9: Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings • Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place • Policy 22: Flood Risk and Water Management • Policy 29: Rural Development • Policy 30: Tourism Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 11 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. 12 Within the LDP2, the site is located within an area outside of the settlement of Dunkeld and Birnam, where the following policies are applicable, • Policy 1: Placemaking • Policy 2: Design Statements • Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions • Policy 6: Settlements • Policy 9: Caravan Sites • Policy 15: Public Access • Policy 17: Residential Amenity • Policy 26B: Scheduled Monuments and Archaeology • Policy 28A: Conservation Areas: New Development • Policy 29: Gardens and Designed Landscapes • Policy 32: Embedding Low & Zero Carbon • Policy 39: Landscape • Policy 40: Forestry, Woodland, and Trees • Policy 41: Biodiversity
Page 4
• Policy 47: River Tay Catchment Area • Policy 52: New Development and Flooding • Policy 53: Water Environment and Drainage • Policy 55: Nuisance from Artificial Light and Light Pollution • Policy 56: Noise Pollution • Policy 60: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements Statutory Supplementary Planning Guidance 13 The following statutory SPG are applicable to this proposal, • Developer Contributions & Affordable Housing (adopted in 2023) • Flood Risk and Flood Risk Assessments (adopted in 2021) • Forest & Woodland Strategy (adopted in 2020) • Landscape (adopted in 2020) • Open Space Provision for New Developments (adopted in 2021) • Placemaking (adopted in 2020) NATIONAL ADVICE AND GUIDANCE 14 The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through Planning Advice Notes, Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide, and a series of Circulars. 15 The following Scottish Government Planning Advice Notes (PANs) and Guidance Documents are of relevance to the proposal: • PAN 40 Development Management • 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 National Roads Development Guide 2014 16 This document supports Designing Streets and expands on its principles and is the technical advice that should be followed in designing and approving of all streets including parking provision. OTHER PKC POLICIES Non-Statutory Planning Guidance 17 The following non-statutory planning guidance is applicable to this proposal, • Planning & Biodiversity • Conservation areas
Page 5
SITE HISTORY 18 There has been no formal planning history on the site. 19 A ‘major’ pre-application response was however issued by the Council in 2021 (21/00334/PREAPP) for a similar proposal, in a slightly different layout from what has been brought forward as part of this planning application. CONSULTATIONS 20 As part of the planning application process the following bodies were consulted: External 21 Scottish Water - No objection in terms of capacity issues. 22 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) - No objections in terms of the impact on the HGDL 23 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) – No objection in terms of flood risk matters, following an amendment to the layout. 24 NatureScot - No objection in terms of the impact on the SAC and the NSA, and subject to conditions being attached to any permission and suitable mitigation measures. 25 Scotland Gas Networks Plc - Holding objection to the development due to the proximity of the pipeline which crosses the site. Should Members be minded to approve this proposal, then this may require deferral to address this aspect. 26 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) - No objection to the proposal on the basis that less than 3 caravans are located within the pipeline consultation area. Internal 27 Transportation And Development – No objection in terms of road related matters, but they have suggested that a number of minor matters should be addressed either by conditions, or by amendment to plans. 28 Structures and Flooding – Initial concerns over the methodology used for the original FRA. This matters has largely been addressed through the parallel revisions to address the concerns of SEPA, and given the recommendation, no further response has been sought. 29 Environmental Health - No objection in terms of noise subject to conditions and informatives. They have also indicted that a site licence is required.
Page 6
30 Biodiversity/Tree Officer - No objection in relation to ecological impact, subject to the recommendations and mitigation being delivered and secured. Some concerns do remain in relation to the impact on boundary trees, and initial and long term impacts. 31 Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust (PKHT) - No objections in terms of local archaeology REPRESENTATIONS 32 99 objections from 91 households have been received. The main issues raised are, • Contrary to the Development Plan • Impact on environmentally sensitive River Tay • Inappropriate land use • Development out of character with the area • Flooding concerns • Noise concerns • Impact on visual amenity • Impact on quality of local walks • Parking concerns • Loss of Open Space • Impact on local road network • Impact on local wastewater treatment plant 33 In addition an objection from the Dunkeld and Birnam Community Council has also been received, which confirms that they fully support, and are in agreement with, the views and concerns expressed by local residents’ representations. 34 These issues are addressed in the main appraisal section. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS 35 Screening Opinion No EIA Required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not Required Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations AA Not Required Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Submitted Report on Impact or Potential Impact e.g., Flood Risk Assessment Flooding, ecology and tree reports submitted.
Page 7
APPRAISAL 36 Sections 25 and 37 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises NPF4, LDP2 and statutory SPG. 37 The relevant policy considerations are outlined in the policy section above and are considered in more detail below. In terms of other material considerations, this involves consideration of the Council’s other non-statutory supplementary guidance, these are discussed below only where relevant. 38 In addition to the Development Plan, Section 64(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 requires planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the designated conservation area. Policy Appraisal 39 There are relevant policies contained in all parts of the Development Plan. 40 In terms of the NPF4, Policies 1 and 2 (Climate Change) seek to ensure that all proposals take on board climate change responsibilities, and the likely physical changes which will occur in the future as a result of the changing climate. Policy 3 (Biodiversity) adds extra weighing to biodiversity interests from previous National Planning Policies and places bio-diversity front and centre of all planning decisions, especially those which are significant in terms of their size and environmental impacts. 41 Policy 4 (Natural Places) seeks to protect and enhance our local, regional, national and internationally important natural sites, whilst Policy 5 (Soils) seek to protect prime agricultural land from permanent loss. Policy 6 (Forestry) seeks to protect trees and adds extra protection to Ancient Woodlands, whilst Policy 7 (Historic Assets) looks to protect our cultural assets from inappropriate new developments. Policy 9 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings) only offers support for proposals on greenfield sites when they have either been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. 42 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) aims to improve design and the quality of developments and Policy 22 (Flood risk) seeks to ensure that new developments do not take place on sites which are functional flood plains or result in flood risk increasing on adjacent land. Policy 26 (Business and Industry) encourages, promotes and looks to facilitate business interests in suitable locations, providing a number of criteria is met – such as the development (by virtue of its nature and scale) is compatible with the surrounding area.
Page 8
43 Policy 29 (Rural development) promotes economic activity and diversification in areas with populations under 3000, and Policy 30 (Tourism) offers support tourism in suitable locations providing the development is suitably scaled, sited an designed to be in keeping with the character of the area. 44 In terms of the LDP2, the site is located immediately outwith the settlement boundary of Dunkeld and Birnam, and within an area which is both culturally and naturally sensitive. Policies 1(Placemaking), 6 (Settlements), 8 (Rural business and Diversification), 9 (Caravan sites), 15 (Public Access), 26 (Archaeology), 28 (Conservation areas), 29 (HGDL), 38 (Environmental designations), 39 (Landscape), 40 (Trees), 41 (Bio-diversity), Policy 47 (River Tay Catchment Area), 52 (Flooding), 53 (Water Environment and Drainage), 55 (nuisance from Artificial Light and Light Pollution), 56 (noise) and 60 (Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements) – are all relevant. 45 Policy 1 seeks to ensure that all new developments do not have an adverse impact on the areas in which they are located, whilst Policy 6 looks to restrict new developments immediately adjacent to settlements, except in certain instances. Policy 8 offers support for new and extensions of existing rural businesses, and Policy 9 offers support specifically for new caravan sites in suitable locations. 46 Policy 15 seeks to protect both designated and other well used public access routes, and Policies 26, 28 and 29 looks to protect our cultural assets in terms of both potential physical impact and impacts on their character, appearance and settings. 47 Policies 38 and 47 seeks to protect our environmentally designated sites and their qualifying interests, Policy 39 looks to protect our designated landscapes, Policy 40 seeks to protect existing trees and Policy 41 seeks to ensure that both protected and local wildlife is fully considered when determining planning applications. Policies 52 and 53 seek to ensure that new development is not affected by flood risk, that new development does not increase flood risk elsewhere, and that water management is fully considered as part of the development. Policies 55 and 56 seek to ensure that residential and other sensitive receptors are not adversely affected by noise and light nuisance. Finally Policy 60 looks to ensure that a proposal which could generate a significant about of travel movements are supported by a Transport Assessment and that for all proposals an acceptable (and safe) means of access can be delivered. 48 In terms of statutory SPGs, the Council’s guidance on Placemaking, Flood Risk and Developer Contributions are all applicable, and the content of these broadly follows the comparable LDP2 policies. Land Use Acceptability 49 The proposal was subject to pre-application discussion with the Council, which in general terms offered support for the principle of an extension of the existing
Page 9
caravan site. That response did nevertheless include some caveats, especially in terms of the impact that the development would have on the character and amenity of the existing area. In addition to this, there has been a significant change in planning policy since that pre-application advice was offered, with the adoption of the NPF4 reframing the policy context from that at the time of the pre- application advice. 50 The layout has been amended from what was submitted at the pre-application stage, to account for some of the comments made and has addressed (or reduced) some of the concerns – but not them all. 51 The proposed extension is very large with around 4.2ha of new development, which clearly does not comprise several additional caravans or even a cluster. It could be argued that the scale of what is proposed is more akin to a new resort altogether when looked at in isolation, and this is a concern. 52 In terms of relevant land use policies, Policy 30 of the NPF4 specifically relates to tourism development and lists caravan sites as an example of what developments it considers. Policy 26 of the NPF4 is also supportive of business expansions, and both these policies talk about offering support for sites which are in locations identified in the relevant LDPs. For sites outwith settlements, these will only be supported if certain criteria can be met, delivered and that the nature and scale of the development is compatible with the surrounding area. 53 In terms of Policy 29 the intent is to encourage rural economic activity whilst ensuring that the distinctive character of the rural area, natural assets and cultural heritage are safeguarded. The policy itself also explicitly states that development proposals in rural areas should be suitability scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area concerned. 54 As this site is not identified within the LDP but is immediately outwith the settlement boundary, the acceptability of this development against all three of these NPF4 policies is ultimately whether or not the nature and scale of the development is compatible with the surrounding area. 55 The existing principal part of the caravan site is set within a distinct historic woodland setting, and generally it has a very adhoc arrangement of caravans, reflective of their siting within spaces between existing trees and contained in the wider landscape by a protective woodland setting. Those existing trees being protected by virtue of being within a Conservation Area. The development proposed is conversely situated essentially within a large open field, which is then proposed to be divided and ‘framed’ by new planting and landscaping, mainly along the eastern boundary. 56 It is acknowledged that there is landscaping proposed along the east boundary, however the resultant development by virtue of its scale would not fit well within its setting and would require further significant new planting to mitigate the adverse impacts. Particularly the splitting of the existing open field and
Page 10
proposed planting, which will take a significant period to establish, creates a new and manufactured boundary. This new landscaping will not, particularly in the initail period of establishment, provide satisfactory mitigation of the landscape impacts. Further, there is limited landscaping proposed within the site, in order to reflect the woodland setting within the existing caravan site. Thus the nature of the development, a more dense and regimented layout not reflect the existing layout to the west and as a result is significantly different and not compatible with the existing area. This approach is not acceptable and raises direct conflict with all the aforementioned NPF4 polices. 57 Lastly, in terms of the NPF4, Policy 9 is also relevant. Under part b), it is stated that ‘Proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. In this case the site is not allocated for development within the LDP. As such compliance or otherwise of this policy would be dependant on whether or not the development is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP2. For reasons set out below, the proposal is considered contrary to the LDP2 and thus fails to accord with Policy 9 of the NPF4. 58 In terms of the LDP, Policies 1, 6, 8 and 9 are all directly applicable in terms of purely land use issues. Taking these in turn, for the reasons just outlined above, the development is manufacturing a new site and related limited containment in the landscape, but which would also be at odds and differ significantly from the existing site in terms of how it is viewed, how it looks, and how it compares to the existing ad hoc layout and woodland setting. As such, proposal is considered contrary to Policy 1 as the existing environs are not being respected. 59 In terms of Policy 6 of the LDP2, this looks to prohibit new development outside settlement boundaries unless (in the case of this development), the proposal is either in accordance with Policy 8 or is justifiable on the basis of a specific operational and locational need and it can be demonstrated that there are no suitable sites available within the settlement boundary. 60 In this case, the existing site is ‘locked’ in for all other directions (apart to the east), so the only option for expansion would be to the east as proposed. There would be a reasonable business case for not seeking to physically split the business operations of the site over two divorced sites, and on this basis, there would therefore be some compliance with this part of Policy 6 and developing on land immediately outwith the settlement boundary. But this alone does not automatically merit approval or outweigh other considerations due to other conflicts across various Development Plan policies. 61 In terms of compliance with Policy 8, which offers support for the expansion of existing rural businesses, and states that the preference would be either within or adjacent to existing settlements – which is the case here. The policy continues that all proposals must be compatible with the surrounding land uses and will not detrimentally impact on the amenity of residential properties within or adjacent to the site. In this regard the use (holiday accommodation) itself would be
Page 11
considered generally compatible with the surrounding uses, however the development layout and appearance would not necessary be considered compatible with the existing context and land use and would introduce a visually different type of holiday resort which does not relate to the surroundings by virtue of its scale, layout and appearance. 62 Policy 8 goes on to say that new tourism related development must be justified by a business plan. On this, reference to the existing business is included within the supporting planning statement, including that an extra justification for the proposals is to avoid overcrowding of the existing site and the need to remove existing trees. However its extent and content would not ordinarily be considered sufficient as a formal business plan. It is however acknowledged that in this part of Perthshire, there would be a demand for holiday units of the kind proposed – although no evidence base is provided. Notwithstanding it is accepted that such a proposal would result in an increased tourism offering, as wells as jobs during and post construction. 63 For this reason, the proposal is in conflict with elements of Policy 6 and 8 by virtue of the details which have been brought forward, but perhaps not necessary the principle of an extension. 64 In terms of Policy 9B, which relates to new or expanding caravan sites, the sole policy consideration is compliance with Policy 1 of the LDP2. As stated before, whilst the principle of an extension could be justified in this adjacent to settlement boundary location, the scale and nature of the development is not considered in keeping with the character of the area. 65 For reasons stated above, whilst there may be some high-level support for the principle of a form of extension on the basis of promoting tourism and business, the nature and scale of the proposed development raises direct conflict with a number of Development Plan policies. Visual Amenity, Design and Layout 66 In isolation, what is presented is a fairly standard caravan site layout and whilst the presence of the pipeline has some degree of influence on it, there is a good level of open space and recreational areas for users of the facility to enjoy. 67 Nevertheless, the limited level of containment and uniformity of layout is considered significantly at odds with the existing site, and the wider surrounding context which is typified by small areas of development which is intertwined with trees. The scale and nature of what is proposed is thus not considered to be compatible with the existing surroundings and would therefore have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the wider area. 68 It is clear from the representations that the public path which runs along the south bank of the Tay is very popular, and is enjoyed by many. The development would have a significant impact on the visual amenity value associated with this
Page 12
walk, and whilst some new landscaping and planting is proposed, there would remain an adverse impact from the existing – which would be emphasised by the scale of the extension. Accordingly, for this reason the layout and design are considered to be contrary to Policy 1 of the LDP2, and the associated Placemaking Guide 2020 – both of which looks to protect visual amenity, and to avoid incongruous developments. 69 A smaller scaled extension that was set out and more significantly landscaped to reflect the character of the existing area, would have less of a visual impact, and potentially be more reasonable and acceptable. Landscape 70 Perceived visual amenity and landscape impacts are interlinked to some degree, but they are different entities and have different thresholds, and benchmarks for assessing the level of impact(s). This application has been supported with a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, which is useful in assessing the potential impact of the development, especially as the site is set within a sensitive natural setting which is part of both an NSA and a HGDL. 71 Both HES and NatureScot have commented and have not raised any objection in terms of its impact on the landscape. In light of this, and notwithstanding the Council’s concerns over the more localised visual impact of the development, in wider landscape terms and in particular its impact on designated sites, the proposal is considered acceptable and in accordance with the relevant landscape and natural places policies of the Development Plan. Residential Amenity 72 In terms of the impact on existing residential amenity, whilst there has been a considerable level of local opposition it would be unlikely that the development itself would have any unacceptable direct impact on existing residential amenity in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy, etc. In relation to noise and external light pollution, these could be controlled to ensure that nuisance does not occur, or is at least mitigated to within acceptable standards. 73 The issue of loss of an area which might contribute to people’s appreciation of local visual amenity when away from their homes i.e. recreational walking, is a different consideration as noted above. Roads and Access 74 In terms of road related matters, the application is supported by a Transport Assessment (TA). The methodology of that assessment is considered acceptable and in-line with current standards. The Council’s Transportation and Development team have raised a number of minor points which, in the event of any approval should be resolved or addressed by conditions. These include matters such as (evidence to show) the ability of fire appliances to safety enter
Page 13
and leave the site, and footpath links to the wider path network. These matters could be reasonably addressed via conditions. Drainage and Flooding 75 In terms of drainage, the proposal does not raise any concerns in principle however some further details regarding the SUDS areas would require to be secured via conditions, including long terms maintenance regimes. 76 It is noted that many of the representations comment on the lack of capacity at the local wastewater treatment plant, however Scottish Water (SW) do not object and would require to confirm a connection at the correct stage. The applicant has not proposed private foul drainage so it is taken that a public connection is to be made. 77 In terms of flooding, a detailed FRA was initially submitted but required an update in terms of the methodology to reflect the current guidance of the NPF4 and incorporate flood modelling that fully evidenced the flood risk area as defined in the NPF4 - 1:200yr plus climate change extents (currently 53% for the Tay). 78 The updated FRA shows that the northern extents of the site see an area which would be affected by flood water however movement of some of the caravans has addressed this, SEPA have confirmed that subject to this amendment, their objection is addressed. Plan No 40 reflects this minor change. Conservation Considerations 79 There are some conservation considerations, with a western part of the site within the Conservation Area, and the wider site within the HGDL associated with Murthly Castle. In the case of both, it is not considered the proposal would have a significant impact on the interests of either designation and it is noted that HES share this view. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity 80 In terms of ecology (in isolation from the tree survey), the work undertaken is comprehensive and covers all the areas required. In the event of any approval being forthcoming, the recommendations within the ecology report should be subject to conditional control. Impact on Trees 81 Whilst ecology work is acceptable, there remains a lack of detailed information in respect of trees bounding the site to the north and an area of Ancient Woodland. A tree survey has been submitted, and the associated report mentions this grouping, but fails to include any specific details for any of these trees. More importantly, the tree protection plan showing the line of protective fencing is considered to be arbitrary, and there is some doubt as to how this has been
Page 14
worked out (i.e. based on the stem diameters), since the affected trees do not appear to have been individually surveyed. In light of their status and size, a survey of all trees within 30m of the application boundary should have been undertaken, to determine their diameter and then accurately plot their RPA’s and position of protective fencing. In the event of any approval being forthcoming, conditions to this effect should be considered to ensure the development complies with Policy 41 of the LDP2 and also Policy 6 of the NPF4. Loss of Agricultural Land 82 Within a number of representations, a concern has been made regarding the permanent loss of agricultural land, classed as 3.2 (non-prime). Although whilst the area would be permanently lost to farming if the development was to proceed, it would be unlikely that the size of the area would have a significant impact on the local arable land capacity and stock. Public Access 83 Along the northern boundary of the site is a public path, which is both a core path (Ref: DUNK/10) and a right of way. This path appears to be outwith the planning site, however in the event of any approval being considered standard conditions in relation to ensuring accessibility across the path both during construction and on completion must be subject to appropriate conditions, as well as the additional new connections already tabled. Pipeline Implications 84 There is a gas pipeline which runs through the site from the north west to the south east corners. Whilst HSE online guidance shows no objection to the proposal, the operator of the pipeline has placed a holding objection and is looking for further discussions onsite with the applicant. In the event of any approval being forthcoming, this issue should be resolved fully before any decision notice is issued. Embedding Low and Zero Carbon Generating Technologies 85 In the event of any approval being forthcoming, a condition must be attached to the permission which requires the submission of a statement that demonstrates how the development will provide 10% of the current carbon emissions standards, in accordance with the requirements of Policy 32 of the LDP2. Developer Contributions 86 The site is located outwith the catchment areas for Transport related contributions. In terms of Affordable Housing, and Primary Education related provision / contributions, as these units will be for holiday use only there is no requirement for either.
Page 15
Economic Impact 87 The recommendation of refusal could have a negative impact on the local economy. The applicant’s agent has indicated that the development proposed would support 8 new full-time posts. VARIATION OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 32A 88 Additional information in relation to a number of matters was submitted during the assessment of this planning application, and one formal renotification of neighbours and other interested parties took place. DIRECTION BY SCOTTISH MINISTERS 89 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 90 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 has been found that would justify overriding the Development Plan. RECOMMENDATION Refuse the planning application for the following reasons: 1. The proposal comprises a significant new development which would a) not respect the character and appearance of the existing area, b) would require a new landscape setting to be introduced, with proposals set out not considered sufficient and c) would result in a visually incongruous development within the context of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 1 (Placemaking), Policy 8 (Rural Business and Diversification (criteria (c)) and Policy 9B (Caravan Sites, Chalets and Timeshare Developments) of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) and the Council’s statutory supplementary planning guidance on Placemaking (2020), as the development would not be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses, and would have an adverse impact on the existing character and appearance of the surrounding area. 2. The scale and nature of the development is neither compatible or in keeping with the surrounding area. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy 29(b) (Rural Development) and Policy 26(d)(ii) (Business and Industry) of the National
Page 16
Planning Framework 4 (2013), both of which only support new developments which are compatible and in keeping with the existing surrounding areas. 3. As the site is a) not allocated for development and b) not explicitly supported by policies in the Local Development Plan, the proposal is contrary to Policy 9 (Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings) of the National Planning Framework 4 (2023) which only permits new development on greenfield sites in certain instances. 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 applicable. INFORMATIVES None applicable. Background Papers: 99 letters of representation Contact Officer: Andy Baxter Date: 15 February 2024 DAVID LITTLEJOHN STRATEGIC LEAD – ECONOMY, DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING