Appendix I: Planning Pathway
Planning policy, consent process, risk register, and comparable decisions — everything trustees need to assess deliverability.
This appendix supports The Luxury Camp executive briefing. Return to the executive briefing for the summary.
Bottom line: The policy landscape is broadly supportive. NPF4, LDP2, and the site's own planning history all point in the right direction. But there are real hurdles — noise, traffic, change of use, infrastructure capacity — that need to be addressed head-on, not glossed over. This appendix lays out both sides honestly.
1. What's In Our Favour
| Factor | Detail |
|---|---|
| Site designation | Cultybraggan is designated ED1B (Mixed Use Area) in LDP2, not purely employment land. PKC already recognises the site's diverse character: businesses, allotments, sports, housing, heritage. |
| NPF4 Policy 7 | The National Planning Framework 4 (adopted February 2023, equal weight to LDP2) explicitly supports “redundant or neglected historic buildings brought back into sustainable and productive uses” and recognises enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets at risk. See full policy detail below. |
| NPF4 Policy 29 | Supports rural economic ventures including reuse of brownfield land or redundant/unused buildings and use of historic environment assets as appropriate enabling development. |
| NPF4 Policy 30 | Encourages tourism development including visitor accommodation, tourism facilities, and reuse of existing buildings for short-term holiday letting. Rural tourism is explicitly supported where it contributes to the local economy. |
| LBC precedent | Huts 29–39 and Hut 1 have already been converted under Listed Building Consent. The Heritage Conservation Framework confirms the approach is “replicable or adaptable.” The architects, contractor, and methodology are all identified. |
| Existing events use | The camp already hosts weddings (chapel, 14–20 capacity), venue hire, and self-catering accommodation. This is not starting from zero — it is scaling an existing use. |
| Interior scope | Listed building records describe interiors as “mostly plain” and “mostly very plain.” HES (2005) confirmed “considerable scope for upgrading and adaptation of the interior spaces.” LBC for interiors is achievable. |
| LBC is free | No application fee. Target determination: 8 weeks. Pre-application LBC discussions with PKC are also free. |
| Community ownership premium | CDT's community ballot had 72% turnout with 97% in favour. NPF4 is the first national planning document to mention Community Wealth Building. PKC offers a 50% reduction in pre-application fees for community council developments. |
| PKC already invested | PKC and PKHT co-funded the Heritage Conservation Framework. They want CDT to succeed. PKC now sees CDT as a serious delivery partner. |
2. NPF4 Policy Detail
NPF4 was adopted in February 2023 and forms part of the statutory development plan with equal weight to the Local Development Plan. Three policies are directly relevant.
Policy 7: Historic Assets and Places
Policy intent: “To protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places.”
| Subsection | Provision | Cultybraggan Application |
|---|---|---|
| 7(a) | Proposals with significant impact on historic assets must include a proportionate assessment referencing the relevant inventory, list, or designation | The Heritage Conservation Framework itself fulfils this requirement. It references both designations (LB50471, LB50472) in detail. |
| 7(b) | Demolition of listed buildings will not be supported unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated | No demolition proposed. The model preserves and restores every building. |
| 7(c) | “Development proposals for the reuse, alteration or extension of a listed building will only be supported where they will preserve its character, special architectural or historic interest and setting.” | The Huts 29–39 template demonstrates how to preserve character while converting interiors. External appearance remains unchanged. |
| Enabling development | Recognises the role of enabling development to secure the future of historic environment assets | This is the core argument. The commercial venue model exists specifically to fund the conservation of 93 heritage buildings that current income cannot maintain. |
Policy 29: Rural Development
Development will be supported where it involves:
- Diversification of existing businesses
- Reuse of brownfield land or redundant/unused buildings
- Use of a historic environment asset or appropriate enabling development to secure the future of historic environment assets
- Small-scale developments supporting new ways of working
Cultybraggan, as a former military site with redundant listed buildings on brownfield land, fits squarely within this policy support.
Policy 30: Tourism
Supports tourism-related development including visitor accommodation, tourism facilities, and the reuse of existing buildings for short-term holiday letting (Policy 30(e)). Tourism development in rural areas is explicitly supported where it contributes to the local economy.
Other Supporting Policies
| Policy | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Policy 2: Climate Mitigation | Supports reuse of existing buildings over demolition and new build. The solar micro-grid strategy aligns with net-zero targets. |
| Policy 9: Brownfield Land | Encourages development on previously developed land. Cultybraggan is a textbook brownfield site. |
| Policy 14: Design & Place | Requires development to demonstrate the six qualities of successful places: Healthy, Pleasant, Connected, Distinctive, Sustainable, Adaptable. |
3. Use Class & Change of Use
Under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997, an exclusive-use event venue does not fall neatly into any existing class.
| Use Class | Description | Why It Doesn't Fit |
|---|---|---|
| Class 7 | Hotels and Hostels | The venue is not primarily providing overnight accommodation — it is an event space with accommodation as part of the package |
| Class 10 | Non-Residential Institutions | Covers education, museums, public halls — but not commercial hire for private events with alcohol and food service |
| Class 11 | Assembly and Leisure | Covers cinemas, concert halls, dance halls — an exclusive-use venue doesn't match these descriptions |
Classification: Sui generis (of its own kind). This means there are no permitted changes of use from or to this use — full planning permission is required. This is a material change of use from the current community lettings/mixed use.
Self-catering holiday accommodation is also not specifically classified. Where the existing property is not already residential or tourist accommodation, planning permission will generally be required. Perth & Kinross Council has not designated a Short-Term Let Control Area, so the additional licensing requirements under the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 do not currently apply.
4. Listed Building Consent — Process Detail
LBC is required to demolish, alter or extend a listed building where the works affect the building's character. Failure to obtain consent is a criminal offence.
When LBC Is NOT Required
Like-for-like repairs do not require LBC. HES guidance states: “You probably won't need listed building consent if you're replacing old materials for new on a ‘like-for-like’ basis and the repair work doesn't affect the character of the building.” This means the urgent repair programme (£941K) can proceed without LBC applications for the majority of works.
Statutory Consultees
| Scenario | HES Consultation |
|---|---|
| Category A listed — any alteration/extension | Mandatory. HES is a statutory consultee. Applies to Huts 19, 20, 44, 45, 46 (LB50471). |
| Category B listed — any alteration/extension | At PKC's discretion (but expected given the site's national significance). Applies to Huts 1–3, 21, 29–39, 47–57 (LB50472). |
| Any listed building — demolition | Mandatory. HES must be consulted. |
| Curtilage buildings (pre-1948) | Treated as if listed. ~50+ buildings fall into this category. |
LBC Application Process
| Step | Detail |
|---|---|
| Application fee | Free (no charge for LBC applications) |
| Advertisement | Must be advertised in a local newspaper and the Edinburgh Gazette |
| Waiting period | 21 days before determination |
| Target determination | 8 weeks |
| HES objection | If HES objects and PKC is minded to approve, the application may be called in by Scottish Ministers |
Key Designations
| Listing Ref | Category | Structures | Date Listed |
|---|---|---|---|
| LB50471 | A (national importance) | Huts 19, 20 (Guard's Block) and Huts 44, 45, 46 | 30 May 2006 |
| LB50472 | B | Huts 1–3, 21, 29–39, 47–57 | 30 May 2006 |
HES describes Cultybraggan as “one of the three best preserved purpose-built WWII prisoner of war camps in Britain.”
5. Risk Register
An honest assessment of the planning risks, their real-world implications, and how each can be addressed.
| Risk | Reality | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Change of use | A shift from community lettings to exclusive-use commercial venue is a material change of use, likely classified as sui generis. Full planning application required. | Frame as heritage-led regeneration under NPF4 Policy 7. Pre-application discussion with PKC essential. The camp already hosts events and accommodation — this is scaling an existing use, not introducing a new one. |
| Noise | Events with amplified music are Noise Generating Developments under PAN 1/2011. This is likely the single biggest planning risk. Late-night events (past 23:00) face particular scrutiny under the Antisocial Behaviour (Noise Control) (Scotland) Regulations 2005. | Noise Impact Assessment required. The camp's isolated rural setting is a genuine advantage. Expect conditions: amplified music curfew (typically 23:00), noise limiters, event caps per year. These are standard for venue permissions and manageable within the exclusive-use model. |
| Traffic and access | The camp is accessed via a minor road ~1 mile from Comrie. 170+ guests means 80–100 vehicles or coach movements. PKC will require a Transport Assessment. | The exclusive-use model actually reduces traffic compared to high-volume tourism: one arrival Friday, one departure Sunday. Coach hire as part of the event package further reduces vehicle count. Transport Statement (not full TA) may suffice given rural context and low trip frequency. |
| Infrastructure capacity | Water and sewage treatment has had capacity issues historically. SEPA will assess whether existing systems can handle 170+ guests. | Infrastructure upgrades can be funded via RTIF (through PKC) before the main capital bid. This is exactly the type of enabling work RTIF exists for. “The local council has already funded the capacity upgrades; your £2 million will go purely toward heritage.” |
| Community benefit | The site was community-purchased in 2007 for community benefit. A shift to exclusive commercial use could face objections that it contradicts the original purpose. | The commercial model funds the heritage conservation that the community asset requires. Community benefit is maintained through jobs, training, heritage preservation, and the revenue that sustains it all. The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 supports community-led economic development. |
| ED1B mixed-use character | Exclusive-use events could be argued as reducing the mixed-use character of the site, particularly if existing tenants are displaced. | The 45-hut venue occupies a dedicated section of the camp. Existing businesses, allotments, and community uses can continue in other areas. The proposal should demonstrate coexistence, not displacement. |
| Category A huts | Huts 19, 20, 44, 45, 46 are Category A listed (national importance). Any alterations face the highest scrutiny, with HES as mandatory statutory consultee. | These huts should be treated as premium heritage experiences with minimal intervention. The “living history” angle works with, not against, the listing. HES can be engaged early through pre-application consultation. |
| Major development threshold | If the application covers 2+ hectares of site area, it triggers “major development” classification under the Hierarchy of Developments Regulations 2009. This requires Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) with the public, 16-week determination period, and committee (not delegated) decision. | PAC is manageable and actually beneficial — it demonstrates community engagement. The longer timeline should be planned for from the outset. A phased approach may keep individual applications below the major threshold. |
| EIA screening | Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations 2017 covers tourism/leisure developments. Given the site's scale, a screening request to PKC is likely required. | Request a screening opinion early (PKC has 21 days to respond). An EIA is not guaranteed — the development reuses existing buildings on previously developed land, which reduces environmental impact compared to new-build. |
6. Noise — The Biggest Single Risk
This deserves its own section because it is the most likely reason for refusal or restrictive conditions.
The Regulatory Framework
| Regulation | Application |
|---|---|
| PAN 1/2011 | The primary planning guidance on noise. For entertainment venues, it states that higher noise levels may be permitted “subject to a limit on the hours of use, and the control of noise during unsociable hours.” |
| Antisocial Behaviour (Noise Control) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 | Sets maximum noise levels for the night-time period (23:00–07:00). Stricter enforcement during these hours. |
| BS 4142 | Standard assessment method for industrial/commercial noise impact. |
| WHO Night Noise Guidelines | Recommends 40 dB Lnight,outside. Practitioners commonly reference these as benchmarks. |
Typical Planning Conditions for Event Venues
| Condition | Typical Requirement |
|---|---|
| Amplified music curfew | 23:00 (all amplified sound to cease) |
| All activities curfew | Midnight (all event activities to cease) |
| Noise limiter | Calibrated limiter installed and maintained on all PA systems |
| Event cap | Maximum number of amplified music events per year |
| Noise at boundary | Amplified music/vocals not audible at nearest residential receptor |
| Noise Impact Assessment | Required before determination; methodology pre-agreed with PKC Environmental Health |
Why Cultybraggan Has an Advantage
The camp's isolated rural setting is its single greatest planning advantage on the noise question. The nearest residential properties are approximately 1 mile away. Most venues face noise objections from adjacent neighbours — Cultybraggan has none. A Noise Impact Assessment commissioned early will quantify this advantage and pre-empt the objection.
The Agent of Change principle, enshrined in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, also provides protection: where an existing noise source is established, new noise-sensitive development nearby cannot impose additional costs on the existing source. While this primarily protects existing venues from future residential complaints, it establishes a principle that pre-existing use carries weight.
7. Environmental Assessments
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
| Category | Detail |
|---|---|
| Governing legislation | Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 |
| Likely Schedule 2 category | Category 12 “Tourism and leisure” (holiday villages, hotel complexes) |
| Screening threshold | Site area 0.5+ hectares in sensitive areas |
| Recommendation | Submit a screening request to PKC early. 21-day response time. EIA is not guaranteed given the brownfield nature and reuse of existing buildings. |
SEPA Role
SEPA is a statutory consultee. Key areas of interest:
| Issue | SEPA Concern | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Flood risk | NE corner of site at risk from surface water flooding | Check SEPA flood maps. Factor into conversion phasing — prioritise Escort Camp and Admin Area (lower risk). |
| Drainage & sewerage | SEPA will not authorise private treatment where public capacity exists. Historic capacity issues noted. | Early RTIF-funded infrastructure assessment. Demonstrate capacity for 170+ guests. |
| Contaminated land | Possible at a former military site (ordnance, fuel) | Desk-based assessment of former military uses. May require intrusive investigation. |
| Water environment | Any works affecting watercourses require CAR authorisation separately from planning | Identify any watercourse interactions early. |
Transport Assessment
Governed by Transport Scotland's DPMTAG guidance (June 2012). Full Transport Assessment is normally required for developments generating significant trip increases. However, the exclusive-use model generates fewer trips than high-volume tourism:
- Arrival pattern: One arrival Friday evening, one departure Sunday morning
- Vehicle estimate: 80–100 vehicles or 2–3 coaches per event
- Comparison: Far fewer movements than a daily visitor attraction or touring site
- Recommendation: A Transport Statement (lighter than a full TA) may suffice. Engage Transport Scotland early.
8. Conservation Area Designation
The Heritage Conservation Framework notes that PKC is open to discussing whether Cultybraggan should become a Conservation Area. This is a strategic decision with significant implications.
What It Would Enable
| Benefit | Detail |
|---|---|
| Funding eligibility | Unlocks HES Heritage & Place Programme (area-based funding). Strengthens NLHF applications. |
| Control over sold huts | Some huts were sold without conservation burdens. Conservation Area status restores planning control over external changes. |
| Profile | Raises the camp's heritage profile nationally. Demonstrates seriousness to funders. |
| Tree protection | 6 weeks' notice required before cutting trees, allowing time for TPOs. |
What It Would Restrict
| Restriction | Detail |
|---|---|
| Unlisted buildings | Demolition of unlisted buildings within the area requires Conservation Area Consent. |
| Permitted development | Most external works require planning permission: extensions, roof alterations, satellite dishes, replacement windows. |
| New development | Must demonstrate it will not harm the character or appearance of the area. |
| Signage | Additional controls on advertising and signage. |
Recommendation: Conservation Area designation should be pursued alongside the luxury conversion. The additional restrictions are manageable — indeed, they align with the venue model's emphasis on preserving heritage character. The funding benefits are significant. The process is initiated by PKC, not CDT, but CDT can formally request that PKC consider designation.
9. Lessons from Comparable Sites
Military Heritage Conversions
| Site | Outcome | Lesson for Cultybraggan |
|---|---|---|
| Harperley POW Camp 93 (County Durham) | Planning granted for visitor attraction, holiday lets, restaurant, farm shop. Subsequently deteriorated, put up for sale, went unsold. | Planning permission alone is not enough — the commercial model must be viable. Cultybraggan's exclusive-use model addresses the revenue problem that sank Harperley. |
| Stobs Military Camp (Scottish Borders) | Application for 50 log cabins rejected due to flooding and site constraints. | Environmental constraints can be fatal. Address infrastructure and site capacity evidence early, not as an afterthought. |
| The Barracks, Stirling | Former military ordnance depot (1860s). Converted to conference and event centre, opened 2019. Offers office space, meeting rooms, events for up to 150 delegates. | Successful conversion of heritage military building to commercial/community use. Demonstrates the principle is established in Scottish planning. |
| Winston Barracks, Lanark | Military barracks conversion. Four listed buildings retained and converted to 45 luxury apartments. Planning granted 2008. | Mixed-use conversion of military sites retaining listed structures has clear precedent. |
Heritage Event Venues
| Site | Outcome | Lesson for Cultybraggan |
|---|---|---|
| Mansfield Traquair, Edinburgh | Category A listed former church. Repaired 2000–2002. Now operates as an exclusive-use event venue for weddings, corporate events, and private celebrations. | Category A listing is not a barrier to exclusive-use event venue operation, provided heritage character is preserved. |
| Dundas Castle, South Queensferry | Category A listed 15th-century castle. Operates as a 5-Star Exclusive Use venue for weddings, conferences, corporate events. Not open to general public. | The exclusive-use model has planning acceptability within Category A listed heritage settings. |
| Guardswell Farm, Perthshire | 150-acre farm within Perth & Kinross. Agricultural steading converted to event spaces (2017). Also provides self-catering accommodation. | The most directly relevant precedent. PKC has approved farm diversification to event venue use within its own area. Demonstrates local planning authority appetite. |
| Hospitalfield, Arbroath | Category A listed Victorian arts complex. Multi-phase masterplan granted: Phase 1 (2021), Phase 2 (2024). Phased approach to heritage conversion. | Phased planning applications for heritage site conversion are accepted and expected. |
Cultybraggan's Own Track Record
| Permission | Date | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Full planning for catering, business, industrial, storage uses | September 2008 | Established principle of change of use on this site |
| 9 hut conversions to commercial units | 2014 | Demonstrated delivery capability |
| Hut 1 visitor/heritage centre | 2014 | Heritage interpretation use approved |
| Sports facilities conversion | 2014 | Recreational use approved |
| Self-catering accommodation (Huts 29–39) | Various | The proven template for luxury rollout |
| Chapel wedding venue | Various | Events use already established on site |
CDT has a proven track record of securing consents on this site. Incremental delivery with demonstrated heritage benefit has worked. The challenge with the luxury model is the step-change in scale and exclusivity — but the principle of commercial reuse is already firmly established.
10. The Application Process
Is This a “Major” Development?
Under the Hierarchy of Developments (Scotland) Regulations 2009, development is “major” if it involves:
| Category | Threshold |
|---|---|
| Housing | 50+ dwellings OR site area 2+ hectares |
| Business/Industry/Storage | Floor area 10,000+ sqm OR site area 2+ hectares |
| Other Development | Gross floor space 5,000+ sqm OR site area 2+ hectares |
“Site” means the land to which the development relates — not the total landholding. A phased approach may keep individual applications below the 2-hectare threshold. However, if the full venue proposal encompasses a substantial part of the camp, it will likely be classified as major.
If Major: What Changes
| Requirement | Detail |
|---|---|
| Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) | Mandatory. Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) served on PKC at least 12 weeks before submission. Minimum 1 public event (proposed change to 2). Newspaper advertisement 7 days in advance. Written comments accepted. |
| Pre-application fee | £1,040 (inc. VAT) for major development enquiry. 50% reduction may apply for community council developments. |
| Determination period | 16 weeks (vs 8 weeks for local) |
| Decision maker | Planning & Placemaking Committee (not delegated officer) |
| Appeal route | To Scottish Ministers via DPEA (not Local Review Body) |
Recommended Sequence
| Step | Action | Timeline | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pre-application discussion with PKC (planning + LBC) | Month 1–2 | £520–1,040 (50% discount possible) |
| 2 | EIA screening request | Month 2–3 | Free (21-day response) |
| 3 | Commission Noise Impact Assessment | Month 3–5 | £3,000–8,000 (est.) |
| 4 | Commission Transport Statement | Month 3–5 | £2,000–5,000 (est.) |
| 5 | Pre-Application Consultation (if major) | Month 6–9 | £2,000–5,000 (events, advertising) |
| 6 | Submit planning application + LBC applications | Month 9–10 | Planning fee (TBC); LBC free |
| 7 | Determination | Month 10–14 | — |
| 8 | Discharge conditions / detailed design | Month 14–18 | Variable |
Expected total timeline from pre-application to determination: 12–18 months. With conditions discharge and detailed design: 18–24 months to construction-ready. This is not unusual for a project of this scale and significance. The key is to start the pre-application process early — it is low-cost, low-risk, and identifies issues before they become problems.
11. Planning Conditions — What to Expect
Planning conditions are likely and should be expected. They are standard for venue permissions and are manageable within the exclusive-use model.
| Likely Condition | Typical Requirement | Impact on Model |
|---|---|---|
| Event cap | Maximum events per year (e.g. 30–40) | The model projects 30 bookings/year — well within likely limits |
| Guest capacity | Maximum guests on-site at any time | ~170 hut capacity; ~210 with glamping |
| Amplified music curfew | 23:00 (all amplified sound to cease) | Standard for all Scottish venues. Manageable. |
| Noise monitoring | Ongoing monitoring at site boundary | Can be automated. Cost built into operating budget. |
| Traffic management plan | Arrival/departure management, coach provision | Single-arrival, single-departure model simplifies this significantly |
| Heritage management plan | Ongoing maintenance and monitoring of listed buildings | The Heritage Conservation Framework already provides this — another advantage of having it in place. |
| Landscaping | Maintain/enhance landscape setting | Compatible with heritage preservation of sightlines and layout |
12. Key Contacts
| Organisation | Contact | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| PKC Development Management | [email protected] / 01738 475300 | Pre-application discussion, planning queries |
| PKC Conservation Officer | Jody Blake (via PKC) | Conservation Area designation, LBC pre-application |
| Historic Environment Scotland | [email protected] / 0131 668 8716 | Category A consultations, heritage guidance |
| SEPA | Via planning consultation | Flood risk, drainage, contamination |
| Transport Scotland | Via early engagement | Transport Assessment scoping |
Analysis based on NPF4 (February 2023), Perth & Kinross LDP2, Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997, PAN 1/2011, Hierarchy of Developments (Scotland) Regulations 2009, EIA (Scotland) Regulations 2017, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, and Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. All policy references verified as of early 2026.