K&DCC/Taymouth Estate Planning Meeting - 14 February 2024
Present:
Colin Morton, Peter Ely, Shirley Shearer
David O’Donoghue, Robert Johnston, Mairi McAdam
Purpose
The meeting was called at K&DCC’s request to discuss the recent planning application for a golf maintenance facility (GMF) within the estate.
Background
Planning application 23/02152/FLL is for the erection of a building for golf vehicle maintenance purposes, staff welfare facilities and offices, formation of vehicular access road, hard standing, vehicle wash bays, landscaping and associated works at Taymouth Castle estate. The application proposes curtailment of an area of land designated, at the Community Council’s request, for housing (H42) under the Perth and Kinross Local development Plan. 25% of the houses within the area are to be earmarked as affordable housing.
CM raised concern that around a year ago it was agreed that DLC would pre-advise K&DCC of all significant upcoming planning applications. This ‘no surprises’ approach was agreed so that K&DCC would be equipped with the details and information it needed to be able to inform residents, and had an opportunity to comment and advise informally before formal application is made. This approach had worked well for both parties so far.
While various location for the golf maintenance building had been discussed some time ago, on this occasion the Council had received no ‘heads up’ as to the new proposed location within the application. The Council was particularly concerned about the proposal to amend the H42 housing designation of this site, and considered that the application was significant and would prove to be contentious.
This application along with two unrelated others, are to be discussed at a local planning consultation meeting on February 15th and the Council considered that some elaboration of the intention of the estate, and more specific details of the golf application and its estimated impact, would be helpful before that event.
DOD – apologised for the estate’s lack of communications on the application, and accepts responsibility for not highlighting it beforehand. He thought it had been previously discussed with the Council as he recalled presenting 3D imaging of tree cover etc.
DOD explained that the purpose of the development is to provide an operational base and store for all golf equipment and machinery. He explained the consideration of various sites, with the necessity of the store being adjacent to the golf course. This site was deemed best due to the layout of the golf course. While it proposed utilising some of the H42 designated land, the estate wishes to maintain the deliverability and spirit of H42.
H42 Housing designation
RJ said that PKC needs to be satisfied that H42 remains deliverable, and so the proposed amended area remains within the 21-33 unit range set out in the policy. The outline plan provided as part of the application shows a concept of a housing development with units which are sufficient in terms of back/front garden, parking, and are between 120-140 sq feet.
In discussion, it was agreed that while obtaining 20 or more houses within the H42 allocation may be optimistic, the provision of local housing remains a priority for the Community Council.
Visual impact
PE was concerned that the building was very close to the existing houses - possibly as close as 2-3 metres, and that the views from the three houses at the bottom end of Taymouth Drive would be impaired.
RJ clarified that distance from back garden to the GMF is 13m; and from house to GMF is 22m – RJ will send a map to show measurements.
RJ agreed those houses views will be impacted and noted that PKC has a variable take on visual impact complaints. Objections should be on the basis of loss of amenity.
Noise
CM asked for clarity on noise impact assessment of the proposals and elaboration on the use of electric vehicles.
RJ confirmed that PKC have asked for a noise survey to be done, and a qualified acoustician will be appointed to assess vehicles, operations, working hours, fabric of building and site specific nature of acoustics.
Light Pollution Query
Luminosity levels across whole Taymouth Estate plan, by the owners’ own requirements, are to remain at a low light emitting level in their design. PKC have not asked for any light pollution surveys to be done.
Neighbour notification
It was noted that some nearby residents had not received any planning notification. This aspect (as confirmed by KCC and RJ) is the responsibility of PKC and any concerns should be put to it.
Other considerations
RJ and DOD highlighted that within the visual impact consideration for the Kenmore side of Taymouth Estate, there is no longer going to be an equestrian centre or Golf Club House. General comments – were that these 2 facilities would have been more impactful than the proposed GMF.
While it was at short notice, the estate was invited to attend to answer any queries on the golf application at the public meeting on 15 February. DOD said he would come back to KCC on this. (Aoplogies were later received)
Future of H42
RJ outlined the possible avenues with H42:
- land developed by the estate;
- passed to PKC / Local Housing Authority;
- land sold for private development;
- stipulation to have 25% affordable housing retained, or a developer contribution made.
CM and PE asked for confirmation that DLC is are still amenable to these options and especially to a housing association, for example Caledonian Housing Association (CHA) which already manages properties on Taymouth Drive, acquiring and managing H42. This was considered to be the preferred mode for PKC and K&DCC. PE said he had had an outline discussion with CHA, which would be interested in this approach.
DOD – agreed that DLC would be amenable to that as its intention remains to fulfil and honour the H42 policy in line with the settlement study. A wider discussion would be needed on this at some point.
RJ commented that a master plan would need to be drawn up to ensure that if H42 was passed onto a Housing Association (subject to PKC approval) that sticking to a roads, drainage and infrastructure plan would be a necessity.
Response
K&DCC welcomed the opportunity to discuss the application in more detail. However, depending on the outcome of the public meeting it seemed likely that KCC would submit comments or objections regarding the loss of H42 area and on the negative impact on neighbour amenity.
DOD acknowledged and respected this and accepted that is as part of the planning process. He offered to answer any queries, take into account the Council’s concerns, and work through the planning procedures.
AOB
CM noted people’s complaints that the temporary traffic lights Balnaskeag didn’t work well. DOD promised to find a solution (the lights were subsequently removed – however more wall work is planned to take place at the West Entrance).
PE – asked for an update about the street etc plan for Kenmore village and beach. DOD said this is its part of the estate’s evolving masterplan for Kenmore village and he will provide an update when it is further developed.
PE – noted that the Reading Rooms are having some work done and asked David if there was anywhere on the estate that the Council might store large table and chairs? DOD offered to explore options.
DOD provided brief summary of other updates –
- Channel alignment near burnside cottage – K&DCC made no comment, have no concerns
- Planning for a temporary golf starter hut will be submitted shortly
- Planning for 2 comfort stations on Golf Course will be submitted shortly
- Planning for temporary back of house solution behind the Castle (until Newhall operational, subject to planning) – K&DCC was happy with, as ‘temporary’
- Planning for Temporary Spa facility will be submitted shortly
- Toilets, no further update
- Village Shop – still on course for a Spring opening; a community consultation will take place beforehand.
- East Gate works and West Gate trade entrance will be operational in a few weeks time