House access proviso to stay
Perth and Kinross Council has refused to remove a condition attached to a man’s planning consent obligating him to spend thousands of pounds improving an access route in Kinross-shire.
Planning officials granted Kevin O’Reilly permission to build a house and office on land south west of Powmill Cottage near Rumbling Bridge last October with the proviso that he pay to upgrade a local track linking the site to the A977.
A consultant acting for Mr O’Reilly then asked PKC to drop the condition a few months later claiming the planned upgrade could end up costing his client as much as £350,000.
Joe Fitzpatrick said in a supporting statement:“A preliminary costing exercise carried out by my client in relation to provision of an adoptable roadway ... indicates that the cost of implementing the works to fully adoptable standard will be in order of £320k-£350k.”
Earlier this year Fossoway Community Council asked PKC to reject Mr O’Reilly’s application to delete the condition arguing all historical applications associated with the site have had the same condition attached to them.
PKC has now decided not to remove the condition and recommended Mr O’Reilly seek to share the cost of upgrading the track with other landowners in the area whose plots are also accessed via the same route.
A council officer said in their report of handling:“There is a long standing historic requirement for the upgrade of the access associated with the [site] ... and it would be for the applicant/developer on each plot of land to be aware of this when they purchased the land.
“The apportioning of costs/ sections of the access for upgrade is not considered to be a material planning consideration and is a civil matter which requires to be resolved between the owners/ developers of the relevant plots which are to be served by the access.
“On that basis it is suggested to the applicant that discussions are undertaken with the other owners and any future developers to consider how the cost of the works to upgrade the access are apportioned to each site owner as it is not considered to be the remit of the planning authority to split up and apportion costs and upgrade works for sections of the access track.”