(a) Notice of Review and supporting documents (Pages 267-286)
Perth and Kinross Council · 8 July 2024
Back to Local Review Body — 8 July 2024 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-2024-22 LRB-2024-22 23/02071/FLL – Erection of replacement dwellinghouse and associated works, 42 Muirend Road, Perth, PH1 1JU PAPERS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
«a 3 2° . g t 3 Notice of ReVIew 3 ED 3 NOTICE OF REVIEW N E UNDER SECTION 43A(8) OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED)|N g RESPECT OF DECISIONS ON LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS E THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCHEMES OF DELEGATION AND LOCAL REVIEW PROCEDURE) '3 (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013 THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (APPEALS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2008 IMPORTANT: Please read and follow the guidance notes grovided when comgleting this form. Failure to uggly all the relevant information could invalidate your notice of review. Use BLOCK CAPITALS if completing in manuscript Applicant(s) Agent (if any) Name cmhmeb PMA- Name Wale ' Nclwvmi Address Address ac 61,443 $w N é éN LTQ "(WE 0L0 MM 5+ (mm 31(1n (Qve c Postcode Postcode » 4 X Contact Telephone 1 Contact Telephone 1 01 2c 0/9144! Contact Telephone 2 Contact Telephone 2 Fax No Fax No E-mail* 44- C&Eimlka d C7 «M E mail* J z - mm J rud eCa u/k Mark this box to con rm all contact should be through this representative: f Yes No * Do you agree to correspondence regarding your review being sent by e-mail? E] 1: Planning authority I \ i- KUQKMF CLU lb Planning authority s application reference number Site address 42 MUII ZENO RAD Pant} WW 1 30 Description of proposed E cnr of- RW~A66W MT R&budé cvb Mb development magma) mack; Date of application 3 ML 2213 Date of decision (if any) t 2024 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 1 of4
Page 4
'U 2e . a l 3 Notice of Review 5 Nature of application E 1, Application for planning permISSIon (Including householder application) I; 2. Application for planning permission in principle [1 g 3. Further application (including development that has not yet commenced and where a time limit 3 has been imposed; renewal of planning permission; and/or modification, variation or removal of ~ D K, a planning condition) 4) 4. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions |:] Reasons for seeking review 1. Refusal of application by appointed officer [Z 2. Failure by appointed of cer to determine the application within the period allowed for D determination of the application 3, Conditions imposed on consent by appointed of cer [3 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 ofthe review case. Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the handling of your review. You may tick more than one box if you wish the review to be conducted by a combination of procedures. 1. Further written submissions D 2. One or more hearing sessions E] 3. Site inspection 4 Assessment of review documents only, with no further procedure I: 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: Site inspection In the event that the Local Review Body decides to inspect the review site, in your opinion: Yes No 1. Can the site be viewed entirely from public land? M [:1 2 Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely, and without barriers to entry? '2 E] If there are reasons why you think the Local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here: Page 2 of 4
Page 5
'U
2o
7<
('1
H Notice of Review
E Statement
E
3 You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all
g matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. Note: you may not
3 have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that
E . you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish
P the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review.
a
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.
KW Km to mmmaxr M m WMWW
Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes N0
determination on your application was made? [2], |:]
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.
l [2,0 HUT Rum Me HPUCNEN MKS Miesé oo M A Hekmwkv
MMNEYl . meme email To ATTAMWNT w m QMMW ..
Page 3 of 4Page 6
'0
2e .
7< i
('1
H Notice of Review
% List of documents and evidence
RD
3 Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with
g your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review,
4e
H z - t
E 23«ol2§(pl, col Loa uw PM :> .
E 7;; 'Ol L x) 002 QtifTI-xl. {iTE RAN A? ,
m a _ .7
23 '0 8 (FL 003 PQGPS ED TE pl, K) ,
L2 --oiz » LP» 004 PMoim 4mm) Fm P- A1 L p
. -y a ' M A2
22 me(Moos (a A Puromo hm M MD '2
zz- ol%@l )00 3 P ct eS ao MA? A?
m_oigak) 00"] PWo§ O 30 WW AZ
13,, oigc)o emmmz. STE PM amt M6 mo WT m A3
2Z-voiaLOL)ol2 amxwm ELEVKUNSM A1 .
a T u vwwax o 5' . «mum « r Emmo 5am mfwt hxl
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 con rm you have provided all supporting documents and evidence
relevant to your review:
[2 Full completion of all parts of this form
a Statement of your reasons for requiring a review
[2] 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 applicantlagent [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 Date
Page 4 of 4Page 7
'U 2° .7<n . 3 1 3 N 3 t Crossings House Design Ltd. 3 The Old Dairy r; 54 Comrie Street 5 Crieff K: Perth & Kinross 3-.- PH7 4AX v: 07920 06741 1 steve@crossingshouse.co.uk Notice of Review 23/02071/FLL (Statement page 3) There are two reasons for this Notice of Review: Firstly, the route to the refusal decision and secondly, the refusal decision Itself. 1. To address the former The application was submitted on the 13th December 2023. I emailed the case officer Joanne Ferguson on 11th January to enqutre about progress and to see if she had any concerns With the application I had no response. I then I left a voicemail on her phone on 25th January 2024 Again, no response To this date 1 have had no response from Joanne Ferguson whatsoever. I considerthis unprofessional. Email correspondence with her team leader Paul Vt lliamson post refusal has suggested that the lack of correspondence was due to her workload pressure As a sole trader I well understand this problem and I confess that I often miss deadlines myself However, the case of cer had the option to employ one of two mechanisms to remedy this problem - extend the application period or suggest the application was Withdrawn and reconsidered. Neither option was employed, and complete silence prevailed until the refusal was received on the 7th February, Again, I consider this unprofessional. 4 I am frustrated (as are my clients) that the case of cer did not give us the option to extend or withdraw the application. It would have instantly resolved any timescale concerns on her side and given us the opportunity to redesign There is no ponnt in having the 'withdraw' facility If it is not made available to all applicants. The applicants cannot understand how they could pay £600 in fees and not receive even one email from the case of cer By contrast, I am currently dealing with an application With one of Joanne's colleagues and the level of communication, collaboration and input has been exemplary. The fate of planning applications received by Perth and Kinross Council should not depend on which staff member the case is allocated to This is a lottery and not a professional service Paul VWliamson was decent enough to apologise for the service we received in his subsequent emails, see attached. In summary, we do not feel the applicants received a professional service and now ask for this to be reviewed afresh. (The applicants are so disillusioned with the planning process that they have now bought a new house) Contl
Page 8
'U
2° .
7< .
('1
H 2
U
3
N
LO
\
A
D Cent].
0
N
.b
H
N
2 To address the refusal decision itself.
g The refusal of 7th February states~
"..proposal is considered to represent an overdeve/opment of the site when taking account of the areas
environs, established building heights and surrounding house types as a consequence the development is
incompatible with the character and amenity of the area."
I know the case of cer did visit the site; however, it is clear she only looked at the site in isolation and did
not conSIder all the surrounding dwellings on Muirend Roadt If she did not have time to respond to my
email or phone call, then I have concerns that she did not have time to fully assess the details of the
application,
As | show on the enclosed drawings 23»018(PL)011 and 23-018(PL)O12 the proposals are neither over-
development in respect to plan or elevation, when viewed in context With the surrounding dwellings l will
not repeat the detalls here. but in summary. an analysm was undertaken to establish the existing house to
plot ratios and the scale of the elevations 1n the environs (21 - 52 Munrend Road) to see if the proposal was
indeed an 'overdevelopment of the site' as stated. Please refer to the original application drawings and the
two additional drawings noted above,
Please note that I am aware that the Local Review Body are not obliged to entertain further drawings and
documents beyond those originally submitted with the application. unless 'exceptional circumstances
prevail. Given the Issues noted above and the fact this 'blank refusal scenano has not occurred in any
previous planning applications that l have submitted to Perth and Kinross Council over the last 25 years, I
hope you would agree that this is indeed an 'exceptional' case,
If the case officer had engaged with myself during the application process as expected and had requested
additional informatlon to support the application, I would of course. have provnded these additional
drawings at the time I believe the applicants deserve a professional service this time around, so by way of
recompense I would ask that the additional drawings are given due consideration Thank you.Page 9
'U
a .
7< .
('1
H
2 Subject: RE: 23/02071/FLL Decision Notice
N
8 From: Paul Williamson
A
b Date:l4/02/2024,12:18
O . .
5 ; To: Steve Runcuman <steve@crossmgshouse.co.uk>
K
E Good afternoon Steve
N
m Thank you for your email in respect of the above, and I can understand your
disappointment at the outcome. I am responding to you in this instance as Joanne's line
manager, but also in light of Joanne presently being off ill.
At present we are facing an exceptionally high caseload among officers, and where we are
content that there is sufficient information to proceed to determination, then it may be
the case that officers submit their recommendations to myself in order to make as
timeous a decision, and wherever possible within the statutory timescales of two months.
In this instance, any potential solution would have required a comprehensive re-design
in light of the scale of the adjacent property, hence the decision to reach a
determination, as opposed to enter into a dialogue to seek amendments. As with any
planning application determination, you have the right to seek a review should you wish
to do so, or alternatively, you may wish to consider entering into pre application
discussion to refine before any subsequent submission.
https:[[www.pkc.gov.uk[article/ZGZIB/Pre-alication services-
Notwithstanding, I note the reference to your attempts to contact Joanne for updates,
and I shall remind her, as well as other colleagues in general about the importance of
maintaining good levels of communications, particularly when pressed for an update.
For that I can only apologise.
Should you wish to discuss any further aspect of the above, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Regards
Paul
Paul Williamson,
Team Leader (Local Developments)
Development Management
Economy, Development and Planning
Perth & Kinross Council
Pullar House
35 Kinnoull Street
Perth
PHl SGD
My working days are: Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
e www.pkc.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Development Management <DevelopmentManagement®pkc.gov.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2624 11:28 AM
To: Joanne Ferguson
Cc: Paul Williamson
Subject: Fw: 23/02071/FLL Decision Notice
CASE OFFICE ENQUIRYPage 10
'U
a .
7< n
('1
H
U .
5 Good morning,
ED
\
S Please find email in relation to decided application 23/82871/FLL.
8 Agent querying that no contact has been made with him before decision was made.
.b
H
N Paul I am CC'ing you for your information, I hope you don t mind.
N
I-I
é Kind regards
Ewa
-----Original Message ----
From: Steve Runciman <steve@crossingshouse.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2824 4:14 PM
To: Development Management <DevelopmentManagement®pkc.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: 23/92971/FLL Decision Notice
CAUTION: This email originated from an external organisation. Do not follow guidance,
click links, or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the
content is safe.
Good afternoon,
With regards to the refusal for the above application can you please confirm why no
contact was made with myself to raise your concerns ?
I made numerous email approaches to the case officer (Joanne Ferguson) to enquire
whether she was comfortable with the application and I received no response. If I had
known that a refusal was likely, then I would have withdrawn the application.
I did not get that option, which is very disappointing.
Yours, Steve Runciman
On 13/02/2624 15:17, Developmentmanagement@pkc gov.uk wrote:
See attached decision notice.
The information in this email is solely for the intended recipients.
If you are not an intended recipient, you must not disclose, copy, or distribute its
contents or use them in any way: please advise the sender immediately and delete this
email.
Perth & Kinross Council does not warrant that this email or any attachments are virus
free and does not accept any liability for any loss or damage resulting from any virus
infection. Perth & Kinross Council may monitor or examine any emails received by its
email system.
The information contained in this email may not be the views of Perth & Kinross
Council. It is possible for email to be falsified and the sender cannot be held
responsible for the integrity of the information contained in it.
General enquiries to Perth & Kinross Council should be made to gnguiries©pkc.gov.uk or
61738 475699.
Steve Runciman
Crossings House Design Ltd.
97920 667411Page 11
north 5m0 10m 50m25m north 5m0 10m 50m25m location plan 1:1250 @ A3 original @ A3 size Revisions CLIENT: Crawford Allan PROJECT: Proposed Development of 42 Muirend Road, Perth, PH1 1JU DRAWING: Location Plans SCALE: DATE: DRAWN: as noted @ A3 Dec 2023 sgr JOB NO: DWG NO: REV: 23-018 (PL)001 . Crossings House Design Ltd. The Old Dairy, 54 Comrie Street Crieff, Perth & Kinross PH7 4AX tel: 07920 067411 steve@crossingshouse.co.uk location plan 1:2500 @ A3 42 Muirend Road 42 40 38444648
Page 12
north 5m0 10m 50m25m existing site plan 1:500 @ A3 original @ A3 size Revisions CLIENT: Crawford Allan PROJECT: Proposed Development of 42 Muirend Road, Perth, PH1 1JU DRAWING: Existing Site Plan SCALE: DATE: DRAWN: as noted @ A3 Dec 2023 sgr JOB NO: DWG NO: REV: 23-018 (PL)002 . Crossings House Design Ltd. The Old Dairy, 54 Comrie Street Crieff, Perth & Kinross PH7 4AX tel: 07920 067411 steve@crossingshouse.co.uk existing house, garage and carport demolished 42 40 38 444648 site area = 1+.Vb 0.0825 hectares 0.2038 acres
Page 13
north 5m0 10m 50m25m proposed site plan 1:500 @ A3 original @ A3 size Revisions CLIENT: Crawford Allan PROJECT: Proposed Development of 42 Muirend Road, Perth, PH1 1JU DRAWING: Proposed Site Plan SCALE: DATE: DRAWN: as noted @ A3 Dec 2023 sgr JOB NO: DWG NO: REV: 23-018 (PL)003 . Crossings House Design Ltd. The Old Dairy, 54 Comrie Street Crieff, Perth & Kinross PH7 4AX tel: 07920 067411 steve@crossingshouse.co.uk driveway existing access retained, opening widened by 1m garden ground 42 40 38 444648 Site access: Existing access retained and widened by 1m. Foulwater & surface water drainage: To existing sewer connections in Muirend Road. Listed building/Conservation area status: Not applicable. Flooding risk: Not applicable Trees on site: Not applicable. Ecological issues: Not applicable.
Page 14
Snug Utility Kitchen Dining Lounge Hall Pantry Bootroom Bar Shower / WC Bedroom 04 Storage HWC Plant PV UFH MANIFOLDS wood burning stove 5m0 3m1m 2m 4m front garden / driveway T][`ZQ SX[[] S[[_\]VZ_ 5 +00Yd T][`ZQ SX[[] T][^^ VZ_R]ZNX SX[[] N]RN 5 +.-Yd NIBE F2040 air source heat pump ASHP original @ A2 size Revisions CLIENT: Crawford Allan PROJECT: Proposed Development of 42 Muirend Road, Perth, PH1 1JU DRAWING: Proposed Ground Floor Plan SCALE: DATE: DRAWN: as noted @ A2 Dec 2023 sgr JOB NO: DWG NO: REV: 23-018 (PL)004 . Crossings House Design Ltd. The Old Dairy, 54 Comrie Street Crieff, Perth & Kinross PH7 4AX tel: 07920 067411 steve@crossingshouse.co.uk proposed ground floor plan 1:50 @ A2
Page 15
No embedded text on this page.
Page 16
No embedded text on this page.
Page 17
No embedded text on this page.
Page 18
north 5m0 10m 50m25m --1Zh 354Zh -/,Zh 542Zh -/3Zh 4,3Zh -.,Zh 011Zh -/,Zh 1,4Zh -.3Zh 3-.Zh --,Zh 2,,Zh -,2Zh 152Zh 152Zh -,,Zh 222Zh -/.Zh 254Zh -/3Zh 03/Zh -.2Zh 31.Zh -42Zh 232Zh -4.Zh 3.3Zh -44Zh 334Zh -13Zh 24,Zh -2.Zh 4.1Zh -133Zh .0,Zh -1.4Zh --2Zh 335Zh -23Zh -,/Zh 3-/Zh -03Zh 201Zh 14% 13% 17% 26% 26% 18% 18% 18% 17% 20% 20% 27% 24% 27% 26% 20% 24% -53Zh24% 15% 8% 21% 14% 23% 20% 02,Zh + ./ ]_\]S_aWS` = 20% average house to plot ratio -22Zh 40424446485052 38 36 34 32 35373941 33 31 29 27 25 23 21 43 38 original @ A3 size Revisions CLIENT: Crawford Allan PROJECT: Proposed Development of 42 Muirend Road, Perth, PH1 1JU DRAWING: Existing Site Plan With House & Plot Areas SCALE: DATE: DRAWN: as noted @ A3 Mar 2024 sgr JOB NO: DWG NO: REV: 23-018 (PL)011 . Crossings House Design Ltd. The Old Dairy, 54 Comrie Street Crieff, Perth & Kinross PH7 4AX tel: 07920 067411 steve@crossingshouse.co.uk Refusal states: ''..proposal is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site when taking account of the areas environs, established building heights and surrounding house types as a consequence the development is incompatible with the character and amenity of the area.'' An analysis was undertaken to establish the existing house to plot ratio in the environs (21 - 52 Muirend Road) to see if the proposal was an 'overdevelopment of the site' as stated. The house and plot sizes of 23 neighbouring properties in Muirend Road were measured from OS data and averaged. The average house to plot size was found to be 20%. The existing house to plot ratio at 42 Muirend Road is 24%. The proposed house to plot ratio is 20%. So, the proposal reduces the house to plot ratio from 24% to the environs average of 20%. This shows that (in plan), the proposal is not 'overdevelopment of the site' in any way. Refer plan and notes above. Please refer to drawing 23-018(PL)012 for analysis of elevations. House to Plot Ratio Plan Muirend Road (not to scale)
Page 19
28 32 34 361614864 7.4m height 7.4m height 7.4m height 7.4m height 7.4m height 7.4m height 7.4m height7.4m height 7m height5.5m heightheight height5.5m height 5.5m height 5.5m height utility building 5m height height 5m height height 5m height height 5m height height 5m height height 5m height MUIREND ROAD (south side) 5m0 10m 50m25m 22 28 34 36 40 44 46168642 utility building MUIREND ROAD 5m0 10m 50m25m MUIREND ROAD (north side) 7000 7000 3537 5m0 3m1m 2m 4m MUIREND ROAD (north side) 7000 4237 7126 6406 5m0 3m1m 2m 4m 4234 7126 64067090 MUIREND ROAD (south side) 5m0 3m1m 2m 4m original @ A2 size Revisions CLIENT: Crawford Allan PROJECT: Proposed Development of 42 Muirend Road, Perth, PH1 1JU DRAWING: Contextual Elevations SCALE: DATE: DRAWN: as noted @ A2 Apr 2024 sgr JOB NO: DWG NO: REV: 23-018 (PL)012 . Crossings House Design Ltd. The Old Dairy, 54 Comrie Street Crieff, Perth & Kinross PH7 4AX tel: 07920 067411 steve@crossingshouse.co.uk Refusal states: ''...proposal is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site when taking account of the areas environs, established building heights and surrounding house types as a consequence the development is incompatible with the character and amenity of the area.'' ''The design and resultant height of development does not respect the character of development in the locality.'' An analysis was undertaken to establish the building heights, house types and relationships of the existing neighbouring properties in the environs (numbers 2 - 52 Muirend Road) to see if the proposal was indeed an 'overdevelopment of the site' and 'does not respect the character of development in the locality' as stated. The front elevations of the properties at 2 - 52 Muirend Road (south side) were assessed (and a number measured) and a contextual south elevation created, see above. The key points to note: 1. Muirend Road has a number of house types: single storey, two storey, detached and semi-detached, integrated and stand-alone garages. Some are gable fronted, others with roof ridges running parallel to the road. Most have been extended in some form. 2. Within numbers 2 - 52 on the south side of Muirend Road, the single storey adjacent to double storey relationship exists at 5 locations. 3. Within numbers 2 - 52 on the south side of Muirend Road, the tallest property is 7.4m above the adjacent ground level, which is in turn approx 600mm above pavement level. This is higher than the proposals for 42. 4. Within numbers 2 - 52 on the south side of Muirend Road, there are 11 properties (out of 27) that are as high or higher, than the proposals for 42. 5. 10 of these properties sit closer to the pavement than the proposals for 42, thereby increasing their perceived height from the street. 6. Number 34 on the south side of Muirend Road is almost identical to the proposals in both width and height, see comparative elevation below. We would suggest that this shows that (in elevation), the proposal is not 'overdevelopment of the site' and is of a similar scale and in some cases lower than the neighbouring properties. Please refer to drawing 23-018(PL)011 for analysis of environs in plan. An analysis was also undertaken of the existing properties on the north side of Muirend Road close to the proposals. The key points to note: 1. Numbers 35 and 37 Muirend Road (almost directly opposite the proposals) are 7m in height. This is the same as the proposals for 42, see comparative elevations above. 2. As with the properties on the south side of Muirend Road noted above, these properties sit closer to the pavement than the proposals for 42. We would suggest that this shows that, in elevation also, the proposal is not 'overdevelopment of the site' and is of a similar scale and in many cases lower than the neighbouring properties. In summary, the proposals for 42 Muirend Road are no bigger than the neighbouring properties. In plan, the house to plot ratio sits exactly on the average of 20%. In elevation, the proposals for 42 Muirend Road are no bigger than many of the neighbouring properties. The grounds for the refusal would suggest that if some of the existing neighbouring two storey properties on Muirend Road were to burn down (heaven forbid), then they would not be granted planning approval to re-build, as they would be deemed 'overdevelopment'. Contextual elevation of numbers 2 to 52 Muirend Road 1:1000 @ A2 Plan of numbers 2 to 52 Muirend Road 1:1000 @ A2 Front elevations of 35 and 37 Muirend Road 1:200 @ A2 Comparative elevation of number 37 and proposals at 42 Muirend Road 1:200 @ A2 Comparative elevation of number 34 and proposals at 42 Muirend Road 1:200 @ A2