(a) Notice of Review and supporting documents (Pages 375-390)
Perth and Kinross Council · 26 January 2026
Back to Local Review Body — 26 January 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
4(iv)(a) LRB-2025-23 LRB-2025-23 25/01040/FLL - Erection of replacement garage with ancillary accommodation, Glenburn, Bellwood Park, Perth, PH2 7AJ Papers Submitted by the Applicant
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
Page 1 of 4 NOTICE OF REVIEW UNDER SECTION 43A(8) OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED)IN RESPECT OF DECISIONS ON LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCHEMES OF DELEGATION AND LOCAL REVIEW PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013 THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (APPEALS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2008 IMPORTANT: Please read and follow the guidance notes provided when completing this form. Failure to supply all the relevant information could invalidate your notice of review. Use BLOCK CAPITALS if completing in manuscript Applicant(s) Name Lucy Atkinson Address Glenburn Bellwood Park Perth Postcode PH2 7AJ Contact Telephone 1 Contact Telephone 2 E-mail* Agent Name Jon Law Address 68 Cooper Drive Perth Postcode PH1 3GN Contact Telephone 1 01738 248655 Contact Telephone 2 07880952485 E-mail* jonlaw75@googlemail.com Mark this box to confirm all contact should be through this representative: *Do you agree to correspondence regarding your review being sent by e-mail? Yes Planning Authority Perth and Kinross Planning authority’s application reference number 25/01040/FLL Site address Glenburn, Bellwood Park, Perth, PH2 7AJ Description of proposed development Erection of replacement garage with ancillary accommodation Date of application 09/07/2025 Date of decision (if any) 21/08/2025 Note. This notice must be served on the planning authority within three months of the date of the decision notice or from the date of expiry of the period allowed for determining the application.
Page 4
Page 2 of 4 Nature of application 1. Application for planning permission (including householder application) 2. Application for planning permission in principle 3. Further application (including development that has not yet commenced and where a time limit has been imposed; renewal of planning permission; and/or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition) 4. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions Reasons for seeking review 1. Refusal of application by appointed officer 2. Failure by appointed officer to determine the application within the period allowed for determination of the application 3. Conditions imposed on consent by appointed officer Review procedure The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case. Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the handling of your review. You may mark more than one box if you wish the review to be conducted by a combination of procedures. 1. Further written submissions 2. One or more hearing sessions 3. Site inspection 4. Assessment of review documents only, with no further procedure If you have marked box 1 or 2, please explain here which of the matters (as set out in your statement below) you believe ought to be subject of that procedure, and why you consider further submissions or a hearing are necessary: N/A Site inspection In the event that the Local Review Body decides to inspect the review site, in your opinion: 1. Can the site be viewed entirely from public land? Yes 2. Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely, and without barriers to entry? Yes If there are reasons why you think the Local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here: N/A
Page 5
Page 3 of 4 Statement You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. Note: you may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. If the Local Review Body issues a notice requesting further information from any other person or body, you will have a period of 14 days in which to comment on any additional matter which has been raised by that person or body. State here the reasons for your notice of review and all matters you wish to raise. If necessary, this can be continued or provided in full in a separate document. You may also submit additional documentation with this form. A separate Appeal Statement has been included with this review submission Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the determination on your application was made? Yes No If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising new material, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should now be considered in your review. N/A List of documents and evidence Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. Appeal Statement, Original Planning Design Statement, Drawings 2246/PL/01 (Proposed garage drawings), 2246/PL/02 (Site Location Plan) and 2446/EX/01 (Existing garage drawings). The original submission also included velux, solar panel, and heat pump literature, these have not been included with this appeal but can be provided if required. Note. The planning authority will make a copy of the notice of review, the review documents and any notice of the procedure of the review available for inspection at an office of the planning authority until such time as the review is determined. It may also be available on the planning authority website. Checklist Please mark the appropriate boxes to confirm you have provided all supporting documents and evidence relevant to your review: Full completion of all parts of this form
Page 6
Page 4 of 4 Statement of your reasons for requiring a review All documents, materials and evidence which you intend to rely on (e.g. plans and drawings or other documents) which are now the subject of this review. Note. Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice from that earlier consent. Declaration I the applicant/agent [delete as appropriate] hereby serve notice on the planning authority to review the application as set out on this form and in the supporting documents. Signed: Jon Law Date: 01/09/2025
Page 7
Project: Replacement Garage at Glenburn, Bellwood Park, Perth, PH2 7AJ Project No: 2446 Appeal Statement: For Local Review Body Submission Date: September 2025 Applicant: Mr and Mrs Atkinson This appeal statement is in support of the planning application which has been submitted for review by the Local Review Body. The application was submitted on the 9th of July 2025 and was refused on the 21st August 2025. We were notified of the likely refusal by the planning officer on Tuesday the 19th of August 2025, at which time we were advised that we were not notified sooner as minor amendments would not have been sufficient to make the proposal acceptable. This appeal statement would ideally be read in conjunction with the original supporting planning statement and the submitted proposal drawings. Existing garage structure serving Glenburn accessed from Bellwood Park The main reasons for refusal were noted as the garage’s siting, design, finishing materials, height, scale, massing, distance from existing dwellinghouse and the external access stairs. There were no objections from neighbours, including none from the neighbour that the planning officer considers will be overlooked by the external stair, and only one statutory consultee comment from Transport Planning relating to visibility. In terms of any neighbour comments directly to the applicants, the applicants confirmed the following; many of the neighbours commented that they think the proposed new building would improve the appearance of the street. The neighbours to the east that the planner was concerned will be overlooked initially said they were concerned about losing their view but having seen the plans this concern was allayed. They have not raised any other concerns about overlooking or otherwise, either with the applicants or upon consultation. In terms of the concern raised by Transport Planning, it is worth noting that the proposals do not alter the existing vehicle access and egress to and from the existing garages on what is a quiet, private cul- de-sac. Looking at the main reasons for refusal and reading them in conjunction with the planning report of handling we have some comments to make, both in terms of supporting the proposals as drawn and in response to the concerns raised.
Page 8
Proposed Garage Siting: The proposed garage sits on the footprint of the existing garage, a position that the applicants and all the neighbouring occupants are used to and comfortable with as it is a long standing existing building position. The proposed vehicle access doors are in the same position as the existing doors which would seem like the most sensible position with least impact for all the residents of Bellwood Park. We therefore do not understand the opinion that it is a poor choice for siting the building; the position is long- established albeit the architecture of the existing garages is not aesthetically pleasing (see photo above). The footprint of the proposed garage has been slightly extended at the back - into the applicant’s garden - to accommodate larger modern vehicles. Otherwise the footprint is generally the same. The red outlines on the proposal drawings demonstrate the existing garage outline. From the applicants’ perspective, they would like to replace their garage in its current position, as this seems like the most efficient method of replacement and the garage and house positions form a long-standing functional relationship. Further, the current concrete garage building is not attractive architecturally and is also in need of renovation. Proposed Garage Design, Height, Scale and Massing: In terms of the buildings that are already on the street and the wider Bellwood Park area, the decision notes that none of the existing outbuildings on the street is as visually prominent as the proposed one, and that the proposal would fail to respect the character of the street. This is not correct. There is a large double garage with office/workshop/accommodation above which was built in 2008 at Glenhall, a 1930s house below the applicants’ property on Bellwood Park. It is one of the first buildings you come to unlike this proposed building which sits at the top of the road end. The Glenhall garage with accommodation above, has a prominent gable end facing the roadway, with a balcony above the garage door on that gable end. As with the proposed building, the land at Glenhall slopes down away from the garage making it prominent. Gable end and side elevation of garage at Glenhall on Bellwood Park built in 2008 In terms of the character of the street that there is a wide range of architectural styles and shapes/sizes of building. External materials include stone, white render, grey and red brick, red sandstone, slate tiles, timber fascias and soffits and timber windows and doors each of a different design and built during different periods. The report of handling notes these different building styles and varying materials. These buildings are a combination of original houses and outbuildings/garages, extensions, new garages and outbuildings, all at varying heights and masses based on the particular site and its topographical constraints and with roof styles to suit function as well as form. By way of example, if the architecture required hipped ends to ancillary roofs then the function of the garage built at Glenhall would not be possible. It would seem there is no precedent therefore for a particular building style or roof shape. Instead each is a representation of the client’s brief and requirements for a particular building. We are proposing to replace an aesthetically unattractive concrete, flat-roofed garage which looks borderline commercial in nature and which has limited architectural merit with a much more sympathetic residential style building which we would say is in keeping with other buildings on the street, and improves the overall appearance and ambiance of the street rather than detracting from it.
Page 9
There are a number of physical site constraints that we have embraced with the building design. The garage is split-level to accommodate the site topography, as is the case with the current garage. The front façade has an angled break to allow for the curve of the road, which is also reflected in the roof. The garage doors are positioned to match the existing door positions to avoid any disturbance of the dropped kerb arrangement. Although the garage sits near the high point of the applicants’ garden, this is towards the top end of the cul-de-sac road with only two houses beyond it. We could incorporate a panel over the lower door if it was preferred to keep the doors at the same head level. The opportunity to change or even discuss this was not made available. Effectively the design and the proposal is to replace the ground floor of the garage almost like for like, aside from extending its length slightly into the applicants’ garden to accommodate modern vehicle sizes, working with all the current and existing site constraints and quirks of building design. The point of contention seems to be adding a pitched roof over the garage. We believe we have pitched the roof in the correct orientation to minimise the visual impact from the street and in terms of the visual impact on the property to the east, with them having a gable end facing their property rather than the long side of a roof. The proposed eaves of the new pitched roof sits just under 0.5m below the current wallhead of the existing garage, so the extent of street frontage wall has been reduced. As noted elsewhere in this appeal document there are answers to all the concerns raised by the planning officer and also justifications of the design approach taken with the garage. The proposed roof pitch is set at 45 degrees which is architecturally similar to other buildings in the road and also a sensible pitch to allow for meaningful accommodation in the roof space. This creates a building which is taller than the existing one but not an unusual shape or style of building either generally or in the context of what is already on the street. If we were to employ hipped ends to the roof, we would lose the accommodation in the roof space and end up with a pyramid style roof which we do not feel is in keeping with the architecture in Bellwood Park. The report of handling refers to the proposed garage being out of place within the architecture of the road. However, again this is incorrect. We note in particular the architecture of the Glenhall garage pictured above and the front elevation of Summerhill which sits directly across from the garage and is in the line of sight as you travel up the cul-de-sac. We also note the architecture of Bellwood Cottage, the first building on the street which has a prominent white gable end, and that of Redinche which is adjacent to the applicants' garage to the east. (See photos below.) Summerhill front elevation as viewed from Bellwood Park and showing applicants' current garage on the left.
Page 10
Prominent white two-storey gable end of Bellwood Cottage at the foot of Bellwood Park. Redinche with the applicants' current garage in the foreground. We see the addition of a pitched roof on the garage as a welcome change architecturally to a street frontage building that could and should present itself better to the road. With that in mind, we consider that the design, height, mass and scale are necessary to create the right building for the applicants and for the road, we see it as a positive aesthetic change which has been acknowledged by neighbouring residents. Proposed Garage Finishing Materials: The external finishing materials are noted twice in the refusal decision notice as reasons for refusal, but are then referred to positively in the report of handing as being generally appropriate. This seems to be an odd situation; the external materials proposed are natural stone to the street elevation, natural slate to the roof, timber windows and doors, timber fascias and soffits with wet dash rendered walls to the sides and rear. All materials that feature widely on the architecture of Bellwood Park and in the wider Kinnoull area and materials that we would suggest are entirely appropriate for the conservation setting. We do not understand, and the report of handling does not explain, why these materials are considered appropriate only “on the face of it”. No substantive reason for objecting to the materials used is given. The report notes the gable ends of the roof as a concern on the basis that they are white render which matches the adjacent house, Redinche, (and, we note, Summerhill across the road), but
Page 11
emphasises the mass, height and scale. We would happily have discussed an alternative material for the gables but the opportunity to do so was not made available. However, we would question in any event why white render is not appropriate when the two houses nearest the garage are also white. We also note here the prominent, large, white double gable end of the property directly across the road from the garage, Summerhill, which is in a particularly noticeable position for anyone coming up the hill of Bellwood Park (see photo above). Proposed Garage Proximity to the Existing House: As noted above regarding the siting of the garage, the strong functional relationship between the dwellinghouse and garage is already in long established existence, and we seek to maintain this relationship. We are not sure how replacing the building in its current position can alter that functional relationship. The applicant’s would like to replace their garage in its current position and would like to take advantage of the pitched roof to create some additional accommodation for guests and a home office. In design terms the pitched roof with gable ends seems like a more appropriate roof for the setting of the garage, than the existing flat roof or indeed a replacement flat roof. The report of handling states that the siting of the garage adjacent to the street could allow occupants to live independently from the main house. However, it is not clear how this could be achieved, with no pedestrian access to the new garage. Instead anyone accessing the new garage would first have to interact with the main dwellinghouse and its pedestrian access. However, independent access is in any event not the intention of the proposals. Instead, the applicants intend to use the accommodation above the garage as a room for guests, immediate family and a home office to be accessed through the garden of the main dwellinghouse (which is the only access – the accommodation cannot be accessed from the car garage). The distance from the dwellinghouse to the garage is noted as being greater than the distance from the dwellinghouse to the neighbouring dwellinghouses. Again, given that this is the current situation this is not relevant to the proposal in terms of a reason to refuse. The Council's own website introducing the Ancillary and Annex Accommodation Supplementary Guidance 2021 notes specifically that ancillary accommodation "can provide office or living space within the garden grounds of a house, allowing the occupants flexibility for home-working or visitors". The proposed use – for guests (particularly the applicants’ respective parents) and a home office – is precisely why they value the existing distance from the main house – so that work and guests can be kept separate from the home. Proposed Garage External Stair: The report of handling describes the placement of the proposed external stair as “disrespectful to the neighbouring residents”, which unhelpfully suggests we have designed a building which takes no cognisance of neighbouring properties and ignores the impact this proposal may have on them. There are many different factors to consider when designing a building, particularly when it is close to a neighbouring property or properties. In designing this particular building, we have taken care to minimise any overlooking; the main windows of the first floor accommodation look into the applicants’ own garden, a conscious decision to alleviate any potential concern of unencumbered overlooking. Windows have been kept as far as possible as velux type units which make overlooking more difficult than perhaps a dormer window would. Dormers would also increase the visual impact of the building. The access stair has been positioned to ensure that there are no windows or glazed doors looking into the neighbouring property. It is a functional stair which does not have larger than necessary landings which could allow prolonged resting/sitting. Further, it will be metal grate which would prevent furniture being placed on it. We considered an internal stair access but this causes a number of issues relating to available floor space; an internal stair and the necessary fire separation walls would have necessitated a larger increase of the current footprint. A stair on the opposite side of the garage would necessitate the removal or relocation of the existing original Edwardian summer house, and in any event would render the building less aesthetically attractive from the main street. This would also result in a window likely having to move to the opposite gable. Any window facing the neighbouring property would not create the perception of overlooking which the report of handling refers to in relation to the stairs, but would instead create actual overlooking, which we have sought to avoid. If it were appropriate then some form of screening could be considered up the side of the stair but again there was no opportunity to discuss this in more detail.
Page 12
As noted above, there were no objections to the proposed plans from the neighbours whose property the planning officer considers to be overlooked by the stairs, nor from any other neighbours on the street. We believe the proposals and design originally submitted are a full and considered response to the brief set by the applicants, that they are respectful of the conservation area setting, they consider all aspects of the visual and other potential impacts on neighbouring properties and are an aesthetic improvement on the existing garage which will have a positive impact on the private road setting. With this in mind we would appreciate your consideration in supporting these proposals.
Page 13
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bS]^SXQ ]S^O ZVKX *3+)) )W *W +W ,W -W 0W.W 1W/W 2W *)W *3+)) EMKVO 6K\ #*)W$ ]S^O VYMK^SYX ZVKX *3*+.) 2)W.)W 0)W,)W *))W/)W 1)W-)W+)W *3*+.) EMKVO 6K\ #*))W$ *)W )W A E 9H ObS]^SXQ Q\Y_XN PVYY\ ZVKX *3.) *3.) EMKVO 6K\ #.W$ .W,W -W+W*W)W +--/(9I())* 9bS]^SXQ 8\KaSXQ] & 9bS]^SXQ ;\Y_XN :VYY\ CVKX% ES^O CVKX KXN 9VO`K^SYX] H9 79DF=:J F<5F F<=E =E 5FDG9 7BCJ B: F<9 C?5A#E$ D9:9DD98 FB =A F<9 C?5AA=A;(H5DD5AF 5CC?=75F=BA E=;A98'''''''''''''''''''''''''85F98''''''''''' ABF93 5VV Z\YZ\SO^K\c QYYN] KXN WK^O\SKV]K\O^Y LOPS^^ON SX KMMY\NKXMO aS^R WKX_PKM^_\O\] SX]^\_M^SYX]% \OVO`KX^ 7YNO]YP C\KM^SMO KXN 6\S^S]R E^KXNK\N]' 5VV NSWOX]SYX] ^Y LO `O\SPSON Lc ^RO 7YX^\KM^Y\ YX ]S^O' M FRS] N\KaSXQ \OWKSX] ^RO 7YZc\SQR^ YP>YX ?Ka5\MRS^OM^_\KV FOMRXSMSKX KXN WKc XY^ LO \OZ\YN_MON SX aRYVO Y\ KXc ZK\^ aS^RY_^ Z\SY\ a\S^^OX ZO\WS]]SYX' N\KaSXQ XY3 \O`3 ]MKVO3 NK^O3 N\KaX3 N\KaSXQ XKWO3 Z\YTOM^3 MVSOX^3 \O` N\X NK^O NO]M\SZ^SYX TYX VKa K\MRS^OM^_\KV ^OMRXSMSKX V^N /1 MYYZO\ N\S`O 3 ZO\^R 3 ZR* ,QX ^3 )*0,1 +-1/.. W3 )011)2.+-1. O3 TYX4TYXVKaK\MRS^OM^_\KV^OMRXSMSKX'MY'_U aOL3 aaa'TYXVKaK\MRS^OM^_\KV^OMRXSMSKX'MY'_U (,+ )*- #'"#&"$% %43 &(9 $6*/07,*786(2 ',*/30*0(3 5\MRS^OM^_\KV 8O]SQX EO\`SMO] K] XY^ON TV LY_XNK\c ]MRON_VO3 \ON VSXO NOXY^O] KZZVSMK^SYX ]S^O LV_O VSXO #SP ]RYaX$ NOXY^O] VKXN SX KZZVSMKX^"] YaXO\]RSZ SP \O[_S\ON \OPO\ ^Y ]S^O VYMK^SYX ZVKX PY\ P_VV Ob^OX^ YP ^RO\ON KXN LV_O VSXO LY_XNK\SO] A E 9H XY\^R OVO`K^SYX *3*)) EMKVO 6K\ #*)W$ *)W 2W /W 1W .W 0W -W ,W +W *W )W ]Y_^R OVO`K^SYX Z\YZY]ON OVO`K^SYX] *3*)) aO]^ OVO`K^SYX OK]^ OVO`K^SYX -46 52(3303. # .2,3)863" ),22944+ 5(61" 5,67/ )0()0(+. @\ KXN @\] 5^USX]YX C\YZY]ON DOZVKMOWOX^ ;K\KQO K^ ;VOXL_\X% 6OVVaYYN CK\U% CO\^R% C<+ 05> ]^\OO^ & ]Y_^R OVO`K^SYX 52) ^Y 8_XNOO 51. ^Y CO\^R ES^O A E 9H ]S^O SNOX^SPSMK^SYX ZVKX X'^'] ObS]^SXQ \YYP ZVKX *3.) *3.) EMKVO 6K\ #.W$ .W,W -W+W*W)W *3+) EMKVO 6K\ #+W$ +W *'1W *'+W *'/W *W *'-W )'1W )'/W )'-W )'+W )W ObS]^SXQ aSXNYa OVO`K^SYX] KXN ]OM^SYX *3+) ObS]^SXQ aSXNYaaO]^ OVO`K^SYX XY\^R aO]^ OVO`K^SYX XY\^R OVO`K^SYX ]_X \YYW]^\OO^ & ]Y_^R OVO`K^SYX ]^\OO^ & ]Y_^R OVO`K^SYX
Page 14
AIHMQGLI :OIQFXUQ U ZS U ZS J JO 22 '.+ ) J JO *) )') )) U ROOIU EG G IV V HR RU UROO IU E GG IVV HR RU PI WEO V WE MU E QH FEO XVW UEH MQK P IWE O V WEMU E QH FEO XVW UEH MQK $ 22' 2)) $2 1'0 0) VYS ,Q R * /)P P V WI SV +2 ,) +- .) UIH OMQ IMQ HMG EWI V K EUE KI UIP RY IH 0))) ,0,. ,0,. //*. EOJ E UR PI R W RQE OI V NRH E N RHM ET QR VSIGMPIQ WUIIV EUI EJJIGWIH F\ WLI SURSRVEOV% HIQVI RYIUKURZQ YIKIWEWMRQ ZMOO FI UIPRYIH JURP EURXQH I[MVWMQK FXMOHMQK SIUMPIWIU JURQW(VMHI OEZQ JURQW OEZQ UIEUKEUHIQ% SEWMR% SOEQWIUV EQH SEWLV I[MVWMQK WUIIV I[MVWMQK WUIIV I[MVWMQK WUIIV 99= 22'.+) KURXQH OIYIO KURXQH OIYIO 99= *))'))) 96= *)+'-.) 99= *)+'0.) 96= *).'*.) JJO 22'.+) +2,) +-)) URRJOMKLW -.^ URRJ SMWGL ++)) KEUEKI KXIVW FIHURRP 4 4 VXQ URRP FRXQHEU\ ZEOO FRXQHEU\ ZEOO FRXQHEU\ ZEOO UZS UZS KEUEKI JJO 22'.+) KEUEKI JJO *))'))) UROOIU EGGIVV HRRU UROOIU EGGIVV HRRU PIWEO VWEMU EQH FEOXVWUEHMQK PIWEO VWEMU EQH FEOXVWUEHMQK $22'2)) $21'00) URRJOMKLW URRJOMKLW VYS ,QR */)PP VWISV +2,) +-.) UIH OMQI MQHMGEWIV KEUEKI UIPRYIH 4 4 EOJE URPIR WRQEOI VNRHE NRHMET KXIVW FIHURRP $*)+'0.) JJO *)+'0.) URRJOMKLW URRJOMKLW URRJOMKLW VYS +-)) 4 4 VLRZIU URRP NMWGLIQIWWI URRJOMKLW 2-)[*/))PP GRQVIUYEWMRQ YIOX[ URRJOMKLW 01)[**1)PP GRQVIUYEWMRQ YIOX[ URRJOMKLW2-)[*/))PP GRQVIUYEWMRQ YIOX[ URRJOMKLW VYS VGLIHXOI RJ ZRUNV3& I[MVWMQK KEUEKI3& WLI I[MVWMQK KEUEKIV EQH VXUURXQHMQK VWISV EQH LEUHVWEQHMQKV ZMOO EOO FI UIPRYIH GRPSOIWIO\ WR JEGMOMEWI GRQVWUXGWMRQ RJ WLI QIZ KEUEKI' KEUEKI3& WLI SURSRVIH KEUEKI ZMOO FI E PRHIUQ GRQVWUXGWMRQ WLURXKLRXW% GRPSUMVMQK E WMPFIU JUEPIH VWUXGWXUI ZMWL WLI I[WIUQEO JEGEHI EV UIQHIUIH FORGNZRUN% MQWIUQEO OMQIH ZMWL MQVXOEWMRQ EQH SOEVWIUFREUH' CLI JORRU RJ WLI KEUEKI ZMOO FI EQ MQVMWX GRQGUIWI JORRU VOEF EQH WLI GIMOMQK EFRYI E MQVXOEWIH VXVSIQHIH WMPFIU JORRU% EQH WLI URRJ E SMWGLIH VOEWI URRJ ZMWL URRP MQ WLI URRJ MQVXOEWMRQ' CLI ZMQHRZV EQH HRRUV ZMOO FI WLIUPEOO\ IJJMGMIQW WMPFIU XQMWV ZMWL PIWEO IOIGWUMG MQVXOEWIH KEUEKI HRRUV' RXWHRRU LIEW SXPS MQHRRU LIEW SXPS EQH G\OMQHIU *+QR ;4 BROEU ;4>.-7-* =5 FOEGN JUEPI PRQR GIOO VROEU SEQIOV% -.)D XQMWV% MQVWEOOIH EV SIU WIGL KXMHEQGI% JMWWIH JOXVL ZMWL SURSRVIH QEWXUEO URRJ VOEWIV KURXQH OIYIO *))')))99= *)+'-.)96= KURXQH OIYIO KURXQH OIYIO KURXQH OIYIO KURXQH OIYIO KURXQH OIYIO KURXQH OIYIO KURXQH OIYI *)+'0.)99= *).'*.)96= *))')))99= *)+'-.)96= *)+'0.)99= *).'*.)96= *))')))99= *)+'-.)96= *)+'0.)99= *).'*.)96= 22'.+)99= 22'.+)99= 22'+.)99= *))')))99= *)+'-.)96= *)+'0.)99= *).'*.)96= 22'+.)99= QEWXUEO VWRQI ZEOOV FOEGN XSYG UZ KRRHV ZLMWI UIQHIUIH ZEOOV YIOX[ GRQVIUYEWMRQ URRJOMKLWV QEWXUEO VOEWI URRJ WMOIV ZLMWI WMPFIU ZMQHRZV EQH HRRUV ZLMWI WMPFIU JEVGMEV EQH VRJJMWV PIWEO VWEMU EQH FEOXVWUEHI FOEGN XSYG UZ KRRHV QEWXUEO VOEWI URRJ WMOIV ZLMWI WMPFIU JEVGMEV EQH VRJJMWV PIWEO VWEMU EQH FEOXVWUEHI ZLMWI UIQHIUIH ZEOOV ZLMWI PIWEO UROOIU KEUEKI HRRUV D)* SUS D)+ SUS D), SUS D)- SUS 7)* SUS 7)+ SUS RXWHRRU LIEW SXPS *+QR ;4 BROEU ;4>.-7-* =5 FOEGN JUEPI PRQR GIOO VROEU SEQIOV% -.)D XQMWV% MQVWEOOIH EV SIU WIGL KXMHEQGI% JMWWIH JOXVL ZMWL SURSRVIH QEWXUEO URRJ VOEWIV D)* SUS D)+ SUS D), SUS D)- SUS 7)* SUS 7)+ SUS SURSRVIH WMPFIU HRXFOI KOE]IH HRRU XQMW "ZLMWI# SOEW OIYIO SURSRVIH GEYMW\ ZEOO JORRU OIYIO SURSRVIH WMPFIU HRXFOI KOE]IH ZMQHRZ XQMW "ZLMWI# WMPFIU HK ZMQHRZ XQMW *+.) *.)) WMPFIU HK ZMQHRZ XQMW WMPFIU HK ZMQHRZ XQMW WMPFIU HK ZMQHRZ XQMW WMPFIU HK HRRU XQMW WMPFIU HK HRRU XQMW 2.) *+)) 2.) +*)) 2.) *+)) 2.) *+)) 2.) +*)) SURSRVIH GEYMW\ ZEOO SURSRVIH GEYMW\ ZEOO SURSRVIH GEYMW\ ZEOO / / ++ 0 Z\YZY]ON Q\Y_XN PVYY\ ZVKX +4/* +4/* FMKVO 7K\ $/W% /W-W .W,W+W*W ,..0)D@)**+ WK^O\SKV ]MRON_VO4 \YYP ' XK^_\KV ]VK^O \YYP ^SVO] aKVV] ' ]^YXO KXN aRS^O\OXNO\ aSXNYa] ' aRS^O ^SWLO\ aSXNYa)NYY\] OK`O])PK]MSK] ' aRS^O ^SWLO\ \a QYYN] ' LVKMU _Z`MQ_^^O\] KXN NYaXZSZO] *1)*1),/ A\ KXN A\] 6^USX]YX D\YZY]ON EOZVKMOWOX^ <K\KQO K^ <VOXL_\X& 7OVVaYYN DK\U& DO\^R& D=, 16? DVKXXSXQ 9\KaSXQ] ' D\YZY]ON <\Y_XN KXN ;S\]^ ;VYY\ DVKX]& FS^O DVKX& FOM^SYX " :VO`] I: 8:EG>;J G=6G G=>F >F 6GEH: 8CDJ C; G=: D@6B$F% E:;:EE:9 GC >B G=: D@6BB>B<)I6EE6BG 6DD@>86G>CB F><B:9(((((((((((((((((((((((((96G:9((((((((((( BCG:4 6VV Z\YZ\SO^K\c QYYN] KXN WK^O\SKV]K\O^Y LOPS^^ON SX KMMY\NKXMO aS^R WKX_PKM^_\O\] SX]^\_M^SYX]& \OVO`KX^ 8YNO]YP D\KM^SMO KXN 7\S^S]R F^KXNK\N]( 6VV NSWOX]SYX] ^Y LO `O\SPSON Lc ^RO 8YX^\KM^Y\ YX ]S^O( M GRS] N\KaSXQ \OWKSX] ^RO 8YZc\SQR^ YP?YX @Ka6\MRS^OM^_\KV GOMRXSMSKX KXN WKc XY^ LO \OZ\YN_MON SX aRYVO Y\ KXcZK\^ aS^RY_^ Z\SY\ a\S^^OX ZO\WS]]SYX( N\KaSXQ XY4 \O`4 ]MKVO4 NK^O4 N\KaX4 N\KaSXQ XKWO4 Z\YTOM^4 MVSOX^4 \O` N\X NK^O NO]M\SZ^SYX TYX VKa K\MRS^OM^_\KV ^OMRXSMSKX V^N 02 MYYZO\ N\S`O 4 ZO\^R 4 ZR+ -QX ^4 *+1-2 ,.20// W4 *122*3/,.2/ O4 TYX5TYXVKaK\MRS^OM^_\KV^OMRXSMSKX(MY(_U aOL4 aaa(TYXVKaK\MRS^OM^_\KV^OMRXSMSKX(MY(_U %43 &(9 $6*/07,*786(2 ',*/30*0(3 6\MRS^OM^_\KV 9O]SQX FO\`SMO] K] XY^ON TV LY_XNK\c ]MRON_VO4 \ON VSXO NOXY^O] KZZVSMK^SYX ]S^O LV_O VSXO $SP ]RYaX% NOXY^O] VKXN SX KZZVSMKX^#] YaXO\]RSZ SP \O[_S\ON \OPO\ ^Y ]S^O VYMK^SYX ZVKX PY\ P_VV Ob^OX^ YP ^RO\ON KXN LV_O VSXO LY_XNK\SO] -46 52(3303. # .2,3)863" ),22944+ 5(61" 5,67/ Z\YZY]ON PS\]^ PVYY\ ZVKX +4/* +4/* FMKVO 7K\ $/W% /W-W .W,W+W*W Z\YZY]ON ]S^O ZVKX +4,** *W +W ,W -W .W 1W/W 2W0W 3W +*W +4,** FMKVO 7K\ $+*W% B F :I Z\YZY]ON M\Y]] ]OM^SYX KK +4/* +4/* FMKVO 7K\ $/W% /W-W .W,W+W*W XY\^R OVO`K^SYX +4+** FMKVO 7K\ $+*W% +*W 3W 0W 2W /W 1W .W -W ,W +W *W ]Y_^R OVO`K^SYX Z\YZY]ON OVO`K^SYX] +4+** aO]^ OVO`K^SYX OK]^ OVO`K^SYX +4,* FMKVO 7K\ $,W% ,W +(2W +(,W +(0W +W +(.W *(2W *(0W *(.W *(,W *W Z\YZY]ON aSXNYa OVO`K^SYX] KXN ]OM^SYX +4,* Z\YZY]ON \YYP ZVKX +4/* +4/* FMKVO 7K\ $/W% /W-W .W,W+W*W (,+ )*- #'"#&"$% +4+ FMKVO 7K\ $+**WW% +**WW 3*WW 0*WW 2*WW /*WW 1*WW .*WW -*WW ,*WW +*WW *W Z\YZY]ON K]^\KQKV NO^KSV +4+
Page 15
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2019 OS 100019980 Cormack Sheldrake Redinche 30.0m Glenburn BELLW OOD PARK rev drn date description drawing no: rev: scale: date: drawn: drawing name: project: client:WE CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN(S) REFERRED TO IN THE PLANNING/WARRANT APPLICATION SIGNED......................... DATED........... NOTE: All proprietary goods and materials are to be fitted in accordance with manufacturers instructions, relevant Codes of Practice and British Standards. All dimensions to be verified by the Contractor on site. c This drawing remains the Copyright of Jon Law Architectural Technician and may not be reproduced in whole or any part without prior written permission. jon law architectural technician ltd 68 cooper drive : perth : ph1 3gn t: 01738 248655 m: 07880952485 e: jon@jonlawarchitecturaltechnician.co.uk web: www.jonlawarchitecturaltechnician.co.uk Jon Law Architectural Technician Architectural Design Services as noted jl 2446/PL/02 site location plan 1:1250 90m50m 70m30m 100m60m 80m40m20m 1:1250 Scale Bar (100m) 10m 0m N S EW Planning Drawings - Site Location Plan 07/07/25 Mr and Mrs Atkinson Proposed Replacement Garage at Glenburn, Bellwood Park, Perth, PH2 7AJ
Page 16
Project: Replacement Garage at Glenburn, Bellwood Park, Perth, PH2 7AJ Project No: 2446 Design Statement: For Planning Submission Submission Date: July 2025 Applicant: Mr and Mrs Atkinson The proposal is to demolish the existing pair of connected garages and the associated steps and hardstanding. On a slightly larger footprint a new double garage is to be constructed. The house – Glenburn – on Bellwood Park (a private road) is not listed but is in a conservation area. The existing pair of garages are both of brick construction with flat roofs, both with a level access onto Bellwood Park. The main doors are modern metal electric units whilst the windows and doors are original timber units. The garages were not constructed at the same time, it is assumed the garage at higher level is the original garage with the lower one a later addition. The garages have split floor levels with a stepped access to the rear garden from the back of the higher garage. There is an original timber construction sun room immediately adjacent to the garages and a high stone wall to the neighbouring boundary on the opposite side. The proposed garage building will again comprise two garages spaces with a split floor level to facilitate level access from each of the doors onto Bellwood Park. The higher garage will have a rear stepped approach from the rear garden and a rear facing window whilst the lower garage will have rear facing and side facing windows. There will be an internal stepped link between the garages. The new garage footprint is slightly larger than the original garage to ensure that modern vehicles will fit in the garage spaces, this has however not encroached any closer to either the neighbouring wall or existing sun room. There is a metal stair to provide access to the upper level of the garage. The upper level of the garage provides ancillary accommodation comprising a guest room with small kitchen and separate shower, this is intended for residents of the house and extended family use only. The upper floor is formed by having a pitched slate roof over the garages. There is a gable window facing west into the applicant’s garden along with rear facing velux windows facing north into the applicant’s garden. The main external door to the upper level is on the east elevation by the proposed stair. The proposed eaves level of the new garage is slightly below the existing road facing parapet wall height. The external materials proposed are stone to the front of the garages to tie in with the stone boundary wall, rendered walls elsewhere, a pitched natural slate roof along with timber windows and doors. The main garage doors will again be modern electric metal doors. The applicants are very keen on the garage building being as self-sufficient and energy efficient as possible. With that in mind the plan – with specialist designs already undertaken – is to have a combination of air source heat pump and solar panels to provide heating, power and hot water to the garage. The outdoor heat pump unit will likely be at the back of the garage with the indoor unit immediately adjacent inside the garage. The solar panels will be laid flush with the slate roof covering, there are twelve panels all sitting on the south elevation, which proves to be the most efficient position for them.