Proposal to house over 55s at chalet development is rejected
Morris Leslie has been denied permission to have permanent residents at a planned holiday development at Scone.
The site just south of Perth Airport was granted planning permission for a holiday development of 52 chalets in 2014.
But in a revised application, the applicant said this was no longer viable in this location and sought to amend plans to allow over 55s to live there permanently.
Councillors unanimously denied the change to the existing planning permission at a virtual Perth and Kinross Council planning and development management committee on Tuesday, August 25.
Morris Leslie had requested permission to amend the condition of the chalets being used as holiday accommodation to be used as permanent occupied homes.
The company sought to allow retired and semiretired residents to live in the two-bedroomed chalets on a permanent basis.
But a report by PKC’s planning team recommending councillors refuse permission said: “The proposed site is not considered a suitable or sustainable location for retirement living.”
The report explained: “The 52 dwellings proposed are in a remote location, outwith any settlement or an existing residential area. As such, the residents would not have easy access to local services or facilities without the use of a private vehicle, given the infrequent bus service on the A94.”
Officers said that while there was no specific planning policy related to “park home” developments, as the applicant referred to it, this was because “they are not a specific use class.”
The report said the 12-metre by six-metre chalets fell within the legal definition of caravans so allowing permanent residence on this site contravened several policies in PKC’s latest local development plan.
Councillors agreed the reasoning why this could not be allowed was quite clear-cut. Cllr Willie Wilson moved for refusal saying: “I think this is quite clear we should refuse this.”
He pointed to reasons outlined in the report and added: “It’s a fundamental principle this is not a housing site. To be blunt, it’s trying to get a housing site by the back door.”
Cllr Callum Purves agreed and seconded.
He said he was surprised it was given planning permission in the first place when it is not within the settlement plan for the area.
He cited the lack of public transport and subsequent pressure on the roads network and GP surgery as further reasoning not to support the application.
Cllr Tom Gray said it was “clear-cut” and contravened policies six, 19 and 22 of the local development plan and “really should not go ahead.”