Item 4(i) LRB-2023-15
Perth and Kinross Council · 3 July 2023
Back to Local Review Body — 3 July 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
4(i) LRB-2023-15 INDEX (a) Papers submitted by the Applicant (Pages 3-100) (b) Decision Notice (Pages 82-83) Report of Handling (Pages 84-93) Reference Documents (Pages 22-81) (c) Representations (Pages 103-122) LRB-2023-15 – 22/02168/FLL - Erection of a dwellinghouse, land 25 metres north of 94 South Street, Milnathort
Page 2
2
Page 3
4(i)(a) LRB-2023-15 LRB-2023-15 – 22/02168/FLL - Erection of a dwellinghouse, land 25 metres north of 94 South Street, Milnathort PAPERS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 3
Page 4
4
Page 5
Notice of Review 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 Address Postcode Contact Telephone 1 Contact Telephone 2 Fax No E-mail* Agent (if any) Name Address Postcode Contact Telephone 1 Contact Telephone 2 Fax No E-mail* 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 No Planning authority Planning authority’s application reference number Site address Description of proposed development Date of application Date of decision (if any) 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. Marion Stirling philip@felshampd.co.uk Philip Neaves Felsham Planning & Development 1 Western Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5 philip@felshampd.co.uk 07446897144 x x Perth & Kinross Council 22/02168/FLL Land 25 Metres North of No 94 South Street, Milnathort Erection of a Dwellinghouse 9 December 2022 7 February 2023 5
Page 6
Notice of Review 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 tick 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: 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 No 2 Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely, and without barriers to entry? If there are reasons why you think the Local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here: X X X X X This is a private dwelling and the Applicant would appreciate sufficient notice of the visit before it is undertaken. 6
Page 7
Notice of Review 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. 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. Please see the attached Appeal to Local Review Body Against Refusal document. x N/A 7
Page 8
Notice of Review Page 4 of 4 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. 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 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 Date X X X 27 March 2023 Philip Neaves Location Plan X1604 EX 01B X1604 GA 01B X1604 GA 02B X1604 GA 03B X1604 GA 04B X1604 GA 05B X1604 GA 06B X1604 IL 01B X1604 IL 02B Design Statement Design Statement - Appendix A Planning_Permission-2.pdf Application_Summary.pdf Planning Permission-003.xml Report of Handling 6 February 2023 Decision Notice 7 February 2023 Appeal to Local Review Body Against Refusal Statement Cont... Response to Objections along with Appendix B (Traffic + Parking Study) 8
Page 9
9
Page 10
1 Western Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5QF T +44 (0) 131 337 9640 1.0 Introduction Felsham Planning & Development Ltd (FPD) are planning advisor to Mrs Marion Stirling (the Appellant). We are instructed to submit a challenge by requesting a review by the council's local review body against the refusal of planning permission on 7 February 2023 in respect of planning application ref 22/02168/FLL for: Erection of a dwellinghouse . at Land 25 Metres North Of No 94 South Street Milnathort. The application was submitted on 9 December 2023 and registered on the same day. The application was determined under delegated powers on 7 February 2023, refusing the application. The Council refused the application on the following grounds:- 1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 17 Residential Areas of the Perth and Kinross Council Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as the proposal is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site when taking account of the areas environs, established building line and surrounding density as a consequence the development is incompatible with the character and amenity of the area. 2. The proposal is contrary to Policies 1A and 1B Placemaking of the Perth and Kinross Council Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as the development would not contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding built environment. The density and siting of development does not respect the character and amenity of the place. Furthermore, the proposal fails to respect the established building line along South Street. 3. The position of the dwelling and the close proximity of the north elevation to the existing site boundary will result in a very dominant built form which is considered to be oppressive when viewed from the private garden ground of the property. An elevation of this scale in such close proximity to the boundary is contrary to Policy 1A of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) which seeks to ensure that new development respects the visual and residential amenity of the area. Important Points to Note about the Application ™ No Statutory Consultees have objected to the proposals. 2.0 The Site The application site is isolated within a residential area in Milnathort and within the curtilage of 90 South Street owned by the applicant. The application site is bound to all sides by residential properties and their associated amenities. The main road (South Street) is to the east and there is a community orchard adjoining the site to the south with houses beyond. Topographically the site is relatively flat- it slopes gently up from the front of the site to the back and also from the south of the site to the north 10
Page 11
1 Western Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5QF T +44 (0) 131 337 9640 Figure 1 Site Context The site is enclosed on the eastern and south eastern boundary. Planting is mature and dense. All proposed development is located to the rear of the main building. 3.0 Need for New Dwelling The need for the proposal is to enable the current resident to remain at the property location is a manageable and energy efficient new home with a manageable garden. - it is the home they grew up in and after inheriting the property in 2009 they moved back in 2010. The existing building is a two storey property with a large garden and while there is an overwhelming desire to continue living at the keen gardener the vast scale of the garden makes its maintenance difficult. The applicant therefore hopes to create a new dwelling within their current ownership area and this would become their new home. The site area will be divided with an area of land left with 90 South Street. The applicant requires level access and a manageable area of garden. Internally the requirements for accommodation are modest. Our client wishes to create a home that sits comfortably and modestly on the site. Subtle divisions between public and private space are to be created - secluded external areas are to be provided without compromising the relationship with the street and neighbouring houses. 11
Page 12
1 Western Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5QF T +44 (0) 131 337 9640 4.0 The Proposal Figure 2 The Site Location showing proposed dwelling & existing structures) The Design Statement submitted in support of the application clearly demonstrates the evolution of Milnathort and in particular the history of the streetscape of South Street and the surrounding network of streets. The proposal will only be partially visible from the main road and should only be considered as a structure that is secondary to the main street frontage. There is no desire to reflect the existing building line but to reflect the structures build to the rear of many properties in the area and along the neighbouring streets. Figure 3 View from South Street 12
Page 13
1 Western Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5QF T +44 (0) 131 337 9640 Figure 4 View from South Street Figure 5 View from North Figure 6 View from South 4.0 Planning History 22/00041/FLL Erection of a dwellinghouse 21 February 2022 - Application Refused. This application is a re-submission following the refusal of a similar application (ref:22/00041/FLL). The previous application was refused and this application aims to address the issues raised. The current proposal has reduced the overall site area with the footprint of the dwelling reduced from 126sqm to 85sqm and massing also reduced. 13
Page 14
1 Western Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5QF T +44 (0) 131 337 9640 5.0 Basis for Determining a Planning Application Section 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states: Development Plan that determination shall be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise Section 37 should be read alongside Section 25. Section 37 (2) states: the Development Plan so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations. The House of Lords in its judgement in the City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland case 1998 (SLT120) ruled that if a proposal accords with the Development Plan and no other material considerations indicate that it should be refused, planning permission should be granted. It ruled that: Although priority must be given to the Development Plan in determining a planning application, there is built in flexibility depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The judgement set out the following approach to determining a planning application: 1. Identify any provisions of the Development Plan that are relevant to the decision; 2. Consider them carefully looking at the aims and objectives of the plan as well as the detailed wording of policies; 3. Consider whether or not the proposal accords with the Development Plan; 4. Identify and consider relevant material considerations for and against the proposal; and 5. Assess whether these considerations warrant a departure from the Development Plan. This judgement sets out a clear and methodical approach to determining a planning application and clarifies how the Development Plan should be used. The determining authority must first consider whether the proposal accords with the Development Plan. It is important to consider not only the detailed wording of policy, but the aims and objectives of the policy maker. If a proposal is considered to accord with the Development Plan, it follows that consent should be granted unless any site-specific matters preclude consent. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) further clarifies this point. Paragraph 8 sets out the which should underpin the . The third core principle states: preparation of plans and handling of applications; transparency in decision making and reliable enforcement of the law and planning decisions. The House of Lords has ruled that material considerations must satisfy two tests: 1. They must be planning considerations, in other words, they must have consequences for the use and development of land or the character of the use of the land; and 2. They must be material to the circumstances of the case and they must relate to the proposed development. There may be circumstances where the achievement of one policy objective requires another policy to be waived or reduced in impact. 14
Page 15
1 Western Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5QF T +44 (0) 131 337 9640 In assessing this proposal would be successful, we believe that it is also relevant to refer to two further court decisions Tesco Stores v. Dundee [2012] PTSR 983. Paragraph 18 of the Dundee decision states: The development plan is a carefully drafted and considered statement of policy, published in order to inform the public of the approach which will be followed by the planning authority in its decision making unless there is good reason to depart from it. It is intended to guide the behaviour of developers and the planning authority... the policies which it sets out are designed to secure consistency and direction in the exercise of discretionary powers, whilst allowing a measure of flexibility to be retained. Paragraph 19 continues: The development plan should be interpreted objectively in accordance with the language used...that is not to say that such statements should be construed as if they are statutory or contractual provisions. Although a development plan has a legal status and legal effects it is not analogous in its nature or purpose to a statute or contract... development plans are full of broad statements of policy many of which may be mutually irreconcilable, so that in a particular case one must give way to another... many of the provisions of the development plan are framed in language whose application to a given set of facts requires the exercise of judgement. Such matters fall within the jurisdiction of planning authorities. The Court ruled that the interpretation of planning policy is a matter of law but the application of planning policy is a matter of planning judgment, therefore provided the planning authority demonstrates a proper understanding of policy in its reasoning it can proceed as it sees fit and weigh one policy against another and/or give weight to factors other than policy in its determination. The key is that the Courts have confirmed that the development plan provides the planning authority with discretionary powers and these can be used flexibility. It is not sufficient to conclude that in the planning authority cy. Instead the Courts require the 5- step procedure set out in the 1998 City of Edinburgh Council House of Lords case to be followed. The planning authority must take a view on a case by case basis with the development plan the starting point for its assessment but not the concluding point. It may be the case that a policy intended to apply across the Local Plan area is clearly not applicable to specific circumstances of a particular site. If the conclusion is that the proposal will contribute towards sustainable development, the decision-maker is then expected to test the proposal against the development plan and other relevant material considerations and, in doing so, to attach significant weight to the presumption that planning permission should be granted on the basis that the development is sustainable. 6.0 Planning Policy & Assessment The Council refused the application on the grounds stated in Section 1 above. We will address each reason for refusal in turn below. 1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 17 Residential Areas of the Perth and Kinross Council Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as the proposal is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site when taking account of the areas environs, established building line and surrounding density as a consequence the development is incompatible with the character and amenity of the area. 15
Page 16
1 Western Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5QF T +44 (0) 131 337 9640 Appellants Comment: Policy 17 States:- encouragement is given to proposals which fall into one or more of the following . This encouragement has not been present in the consideration of this application. The appellant has taken the time and expense of learning from the previous application (Ref: 22/00041/FLL) submitted and considered by the Council and altered this application to reflect the comments received. Only one of the Policy criteria requires to be fulfilled to meet the requirements for the Council to be encouraging the proposals. The proposals fulfil criterion (a). The proposal is an infill development that represents an appropriate density of development and respects the established building line onto South Street. The density of the proposal is less than that of neighbouring properties and the wider surrounding plots. It is also set back from the South Street facades replicating the garage and ancillary structures that exist set back from the main residential property frontages. The new dwelling would be discrete and would not impact the local environs. The Design Statement considers in detail the size / area of the proposed dwelling in relation to its associated curtilage (as well as the curtilage that would be apportioned to the existing property on 90 South Street). Properties in the immediate surrounding area generally occupy around 25-35% of their site area the proposed dwelling has an area 24% of its site area and the existing dwelling 26% its site area. Report of Handling (Officers Comments) states:- which has a build to plot ratio of 18%. There is considered to be a general consistency across build to plot ratios in this part of Miln The examples chosen by the case officer (one of which, 90 South Street (Application site), being the and is considerably lower in plot to build ratio. The new proposal brings the plot ratio more in line with the local context. The Design Statement considered in great detail the general consistency of build to plot ratios and the figures noted are more reflective of this. 16
Page 17
1 Western Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5QF T +44 (0) 131 337 9640 The Design Statement includes a number of examples to support this. The Design Statement states (footnote of Page 20 ) that: 72 - 76 South Street - 36%; 82 South Street - 32%; 84 South Street - 25%; 86 South Street - 22%; and 94 South Street - The Design Statement also confirms that both properties have garden space in excess of the . The proposed dwelling has a plot ratio of 24% of its site area. 2 The proposal is contrary to Policies 1A and 1B Placemaking of the Perth and Kinross Council Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as the development would not contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding built environment. The density and siting of development does not respect the character and amenity of the place. Furthermore, the proposal fails to respect the established building line along South Street. Appellants Comment: Policies 1A and 1B Placemaking states:- The development would contribute positively to the surrounding built and natural environment by providing structure and cohesion to the rear and side of 90 South Street. The existing garden is a variety of garden structures, hard landscaping, greenhouse, a garage, patios, split over 2 long and narrow plots (88 and 90 South Street). The new dwelling would not differ greatly to the passing visual impression of the existing garage structure. The existing garage is set back from the street building line and establishes the building line at this point of the site further back from the main road. 17
Page 18
1 Western Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5QF T +44 (0) 131 337 9640 Figure 7 Existing view of Application Site Entrance While there is a defined building line along South Street there are a number of properties which are set back from the road - these are highlighted on the layout opposite and are a mixture of old and new structures including 32 South Street (approved 2008 - Planning Reference 07/02467/FUL); 80 South Street; 89A South Street and 127 South Street. In addition to this a number of properties have ancillary buildings such as garages which are similar size and position to the proposed new dwelling. As mentioned in relation to Policy 17 and the density of the development of the plot (Reason for Refusal 1) Properties in the immediate surrounding area generally occupy around 25-35% of their site area the proposed dwelling has an area 24% of its site area and the existing dwelling 26% its site area. The density of development is consistent with the surrounding area. 3 The position of the dwelling and the close proximity of the north elevation to the existing site boundary will result in a very dominant built form which is considered to be oppressive when viewed from the private garden ground of the property. An elevation of this scale in such close proximity to the boundary is contrary to Policy 1A of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) which seeks to ensure that new development respects the visual and residential amenity of the area. Appellants Comment: The proposed building is 1.6m from the north boundary at its closest point and increases to 1.9m from the same boundary at the north west corner of the property. As can be viewed in Figure 2 above, the garage structure at 80 South Street is of very similar footprint and relationship to the plot boundary as the proposals. Figure 1 above also shows that the Garage at 80 South Street is built on the boundary of the plot. It does not have a standoff to the property boundary to the south east. The garage is a building with velux roof windows. 18
Page 19
1 Western Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5QF T +44 (0) 131 337 9640 The proposed dwelling will have a natural slate roof and be in keeping with the style, character, materials and built form of the neighbouring properties that are built up to the boundary edges of the plots. Dwellings are tall and imposing and development behind the front line buildings is not unusual as demonstrated by the Design Statement. The Daylight Survey submitted in support of the application has proven that there is no significant impact on the daylight of the neighbouring properties. This demonstrates that the building cannot be an oppressive and overbearing structure. If it was the impact on the daylight of the neighbours would be compromised. 7.0 The appellant s agent prepared a response to the objections received to the application in February 2023. It is important to consider the response to these objections and therefore we have included the response within this section to ensure the issues are addressed in the challenge to the council's local review body. At 1st February 2023 there had been 4 Public Comments submitted to Perth & Kinross Council one neutral and three objecting to the proposals. We have grouped our response into issues key to each objection and responded in whole under each heading. Some objections that have been submitted make statements but do not justify or explain the comments made and therefore cannot be examined in detail. The objections are dealt with below in no particular order and no implied significance should be taken from the order. Where points are covered in application supporting information we have not repeated our previous points and have directed to the relevant document Size + Massing Objectors object to the proposed dwelling being double storey and comment has also been made about the size of development relative to the site area. The proposed second floor accommodation is located within the roofspace and the overall mass is more comparable to a single storey dwelling we note that the previous application (22/00041/FLL) was for a proposed single storey dwelling and the current application proposes a dwelling with a reduced plan size and reduced mass when compared to the previous proposal. The Design Statement considers in detail the size / area of the proposed dwelling in relation to its associated curtilage (as we all as the curtilage that would be apportioned to the existing property on 90 South Street). As noted in the Design Statement properties in the immediate surrounding area generally occupy around 25-35% of their site area the proposed dwelling has an area 24% of its site area and the existing dwelling 26% its site area. The Design Statement also confirms that both properties have garden space in excess of the Position The objection regarding position is on the basis that the proposed location of the dwelling would not be in keeping. The Design Statement considers in detail the proposed location of the dwelling and demonstrates there is contextual precedent (recent and historic) for buildings set back from the road. The Design Statement also considers the position in terms of the massing proposed this being similar to existing adjacent garages (i.e. 80 South Street) with an overall form that contextually would be set back from the building line. 19
Page 20
1 Western Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5QF T +44 (0) 131 337 9640 Privacy + Daylight Objectors consider the new dwelling will negatively affect daylight and privacy to neighbouring properties. The Design Statement deals with Privacy (page 19) and Daylight (page 21 and Appendix A) in detail. In terms of privacy there are no windows to the north or west elevations that overlook neighbouring properties and all openings to the south elevation are at least 9m from the associated boundary. The entrance door and screen proposed to the east elevation serve a non-habitable entrance hall these openings are around 23m from the east boundary / road edge. The Daylight Studies show that there is no impact from the proposed dwelling on the daylight to existing neighbouring buildings. The Daylight Studies Sunlight - be acceptable. Impact on Local Road Network & Parking Objectors object to the proposed dwelling adding to existing traffic and parking issues on South Street. proposal will add to on-street parking. The proposal retains off street parking to the existing 90 South Street property and proposes similar off street parking to the new dwelling this is noted in the Design Statement and shown on application drawings. Further to this we consider the proposed dwelling would improve existing on street parking issues a supplementary diagram has been prepared (Appendix B) which demonstrates that visitors to 90 South Street would no longer be able to park on the street in front of the access to this property as they would obstruct access to the new dwelling. As it is demonstrated that the development requires no on street parking restrictions to on street parking could be implemented by the Local Authority and this would be welcomed by the Applicant. The public comments also refer to potential issues during the construction period including noise pollution and site access. It is acknowledged that there will be limited impact during construction which is an expected result from any housing development in any situation the construction period will be short and managed through a Construction Management Plan. 8.0 Material Considerations Need for the Development A material consideration is the needs of the Appellant. As mentioned above, the need for the proposal is to enable the current resident to remain at the property location is a sustainable, manageable and energy efficient new home with a manageable garden. - it is the home they grew up in and after inheriting the property in 2009 they moved back in 2010. The existing building is a two storey property with a large garden and while there is an overwhelming desire to continue living at the address the house is now oversized The applicant therefore hopes to create a new dwelling within their current ownership area and this would become their new home. The site area will be divided with an area of land left with 90 South Street to reflect the historic 2 plots located at the site. The applicant requires level access and a manageable area of garden. The Appellant wishes to create a home that sits comfortably and modestly on the site. 20
Page 21
1 Western Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5QF T +44 (0) 131 337 9640 Building Line Although the building line on the South Street frontage is directly onto the road the existing garage development to the rear of the dwellings establishes a secondary building line. This is respected by the proposed dwelling. The existing garage will be demolished and replaced with the new dwelling. Development is existing on the application site. 9.0 Conclusions The Planning Act requires development to be in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. We have undertaken our assessment on this basis. There is a policy balance to be made. Having assessed the aims and objectives of the relevant polices and assessed material considerations our conclusions are as follows: ( No statutory Consultees objected to the proposals. ( The proposal complies with the aims, objectives and principles of policy; ( No conflict with established land use the principle of residential development is compatible with the surrounding land uses; ( Respects scale, form, design and materials the design of the proposal has had regard to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The scale, design and materials are appropriate to the area; ( No significant loss of daylight, sunlight or privacy to the surrounding existing residential properties. ( The development can be accommodated within the plot with no impact on its neighbours; ( The proposal would not have an adverse impact on any protected species or habitats; ( Visual impact- the scale, design and materials are appropriate to the area. The design of the scheme has taken account of the characteristics of the area. For these reasons we respectfully request that this challenge to the Councils refusal of the application should be allowed and planning permission be granted. 21
Page 22
% # '*,) ,FD\J"K_a"*\D^^Z^W"-bJ")^\m /NdecMnJNM&p^h]&dNea^ff^cb&Oeca&-eMbHbJN&0neoNq&ˆ'cdqe^[]h&*^JNbfN&,naINe&¤£££¦£¥£‰ & #22
Page 23
% # '*,)+wdlndia $fpeOJgt +PqPch *jvinNfdial&lcjvi&SNlcTS&kTS )jhhtidnx&1kOcNkS -NkNaT /NiS&'lljOdNnTS&vdnc&ª&4jtnc&4nkTTn 4jtnc&4nkTTn /NiS&'lljOdNnTS&vdnc&«&(kdSaTUNtgS&3jNS /NiS&'lljOdNnTS&vdnc&¬&(kdSaTUNtgS&3jNS & #0KJcP"Qfg".cJee`e]"1hP"-ect 23
Page 24
24
Page 25
25
Page 26
26
Page 27
27
Page 28
28
Page 29
29
Page 30
% #
'*,)
*+.$-
-JIbO Peg ,bIdd_d\/hO +dbu
#efug_\^j
& #
*"
,("**'*%
-j_gb_d\
,MhR 5Sln iT ¡ 1ivnb 1nkSSn
-cfhMnbikn
‘2bS)MkRSh *ivlS‘
,gefehON
$tjOgdIb -aOjJ^ 'bbrhjgIj_ed
0_OsON Pgec -erj^ -jgOOj
30Page 31
% #
'*,)
*+.$-
-JIbO Peg ,bIdd_d\/hO +dbu
#efug_\^j
& #
*"
,("**'*%
-j_gb_d\
,MhR 5Sln iT ¡ 1ivnb 1nkSSn
-cfhMnbikn
‘2bS)MkRSh *ivlS‘
,gefehON
$tjOgdIb -aOjJ^ 'bbrhjgIj_ed
0_OsON Pgec %IgNOd
31Page 32
! e Garden House DESIGN STATEMENT Prepared by Crichton Lang, Willis + Galloway Architects 38 Dean Park Mews Edinburgh EH4 1ED www.clwg-architects.com 32
Page 33
PROJECT DETAILS Client / Applicant (961/3. Architect Crichton Lang Willis + Galloway Site Land West of 90 South Street, Milnathort KY13 9XB 33
Page 34
CONTENTS ? &3864,;+943 1.1 Project History i^j 1CN: %:M8LCJOIH i^k /LID:8N "G7COIH 2 Site 2.1 Context 2.2 Site Images 3 Design Proposal 3.1 Development 3.2 Design Proposal k^k $IHN:WN &F:U6OIHM Appendix A Daylight Study Page 5 Page 5 Page 5 Page 8 Page 10 Page 17 Page 24 Page 27 34
Page 35
PREFACE This Design Statement has been prepared by CLWG Architects in support I; NB: 6JJFC86OIH ;IL ;TFF JF6HHCHA J:LGCMMCIH ;IL 6 H:V 9V:FFCHA IH F6H9 to the rear (west) of 90 South Street, Milnathort. This Design Statement explains the research, analysis, concepts and design principles that have informed the proposal. CLWG Architects December 2022 35
Page 36
INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project History i^j 1CN: %:M8LCJOIH i^k /LID:8N "G7COIH 36
Page 37
Page 5 1.1 Project History " /F6HHCHA "JJFC86OIH ;IL NB: :L:8OIH I; 6 9V:FFCHA BITM: V6M MT7GCQ:9 NI Perth & Kinross council in January 2022 (reference number 22/00041/FLL) - NB: 9:8CMCIH HIO8: CMMT:9 7X NB: 8ITH8CF IH ioNB ':7LT6LX jhjj 8IH=LG:9 L:;TM6F I; NB: 6JJFC86OIH^ )H9:N:LGCHCHA NB: 6JJFC86OIHNB: FI86F 6TNBILCNX HIN:9 NB:;IFFIVCHA] -52"<>;<;?.8"6?"0;:@>.>F"@;"*;860F"PTG"+2?612:A.8"#>2.?";3"@52"*2>@5" and Kinross Council Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as the proposal 6?" 0;:?612>21" @;" >2<>2?2:@" .:" ;C2>" 12C28;<92:@" ;3" @52" ?6@2" D52:" @.76:4".00;B:@";3"@52".>2.J?"2:C6>;:?".:1"?B>>;B:16:4"12:?6@F".?"." 0;:?2=B2:02G"@52"12C28;<92:@"6?"6:0;9<.A/82"D6@5"@52"05.>.0@2>".:1" .92:6@F";3"@52".>2.H"" -52"<>;<;?.8"6?"0;:@>.>F"@;"*;86062?"P#".:1"P$"*8.029.76:4";3"@52"*2>@5" and Kinross Council Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as the development D;B81":;@"0;:@>6/B@2"<;?6AC28F"@;"@52"=B.86@F";3"@52"?B>>;B:16:4"/B68@" 2:C6>;:92:@H""-52"12:?6@F".:1"?6A:4";3"12C28;<92:@"1;2?":;@">2?<20@" @52"05.>.0@2>".:1".92:6@F";3"@52"<8.02H""'B>@52>9;>2G"@52"<>;<;?.8"3.68?" @;">2?<20@"@52"2?@./86?521"/B6816:4"86:2".8;:4",;B@5",@>22@H"" -52" <;?6A;:" ;3" @52" 1D2886:4" .:1" @52" 08;?2" <>;E696@F" ;3" @52" :;>@5" 282C.A;:"@;"@52"2E6?A:4"?6@2"/;B:1.>F"D688">2?B8@"6:"."C2>F"1;96:.:@" /B68@"3;>9"D5605"6?"0;:?612>21"@;"/2";<<>2??6C2"D52:"C62D21"3>;9"@52" <>6C.@2"4.>12:"4>;B:1";3"@52"<>;<2>@F"@;"@52":;>@5".:1"D688".8?;">2?B8@" 6:"?B/?@.:A.8";C2>?5.1;D6:4";3"@52"<>6C.@2"4.>12:"4>;B:1"@;"@52":;>@5H"" #:"282C.A;:";3"@56?"?0.82"6:"?B05"08;?2"<>;E696@F"@;"@52"/;B:1.>F"6?" 0;:@>.>F"@;"*;860F"P#";3"@52"*2>@5".:1"(6:>;??");0.8"%2C28;<92:@"*8.:"Q" MQOPVN"D5605"?227?"@;"2:?B>2"@5.@":2D"12C28;<92:@">2?<20@?"@52"C6?B.8" .:1">2?612:A.8".92:6@F";3"@52".>2.H The proposals have been reconsidered. The design development outlined in the previous Design Statement remains in large parts relevant and forms NB: G6CH 7I9X I; NBCM 9I8TG:HN^ /L:UCITM 8IHMC9:L6OIHM VB:L: HI FIHA:L L:F:U6HN B6U: 7::H IGCQ:9^ 5B:L: NB: 9:MCAH B6M 7::H L:UCM:9[ A:H:L6FFX NI L:MJIH9 NI NB: 8IH8:LHM L:A6L9CHA /IFC8X ITNFCH:9 CH NB: JL:UCITM 6JJFC86OIH %:8CMCIH -IO8:[ NB: 699COIH6F 6H9 6MMI8C6N:9 N:WN VCNBCH NBCM 9I8TG:HN B6M been highlighted in yellow. 1.2 (/8- $-7+6/5943 2B:6JJFC86OIHMCN:CMFI86N:9VCNBCH6L:MC9:HO6F6L:6CH,CFH6NBILN6H9VCNBCH NB: 8TLOF6A: I; qh 1ITNB1NL::Nb IVH:9 7X NB: 6JJFC86HN^ 2B: 6JJFC86OIH MCN: CM 7ITH9 NI 6FF MC9:M 7X L:MC9:HO6F JLIJ:LO:M 6H9 NB:CL 6MMI8C6N:9 6G:HCO:M^ 2B: G6CH LI69 c1ITNB 1NL::Nd CM NI NB: :6MN 6H9 NB:L: is a community orchard adjoining the site to the south with houses beyond. 2IJIAL6JBC86FFX NB: MCN: CM L:F6OU:FX ?6Nb CN MFIJ:M A:HNFX TJ ;LIG NB: ;LIHN I; the site to the back and also from the south of the site to the north. 1.3 '640-+8 "2*/943 90 South Street has been in the applicant’s family for decades - it is the home NB:X AL:V TJ CH 6H9 6@:L CHB:LCOHA NB: JLIJ:LNX CH jhhq NB:X GIU:9 768E CH 2010. 2B: :WCMOHA 7TCF9CHA CM 6 NVI MNIL:X JLIJ:LNX VCNB 6 F6LA: A6L9:H 6H9 VBCF: NB:L: CM 6H IU:LVB:FGCHA 9:MCL: NI 8IHOHT: FCUCHA 6N NB: 699L:MM NB: BITM: is now oversized for the applicant’s requirements and though the applicant is 6E::H A6L9:H:L NB: U6MN M86F:I; NB: A6L9:HG6E:M CNM G6CHN:H6H8: 9C>8TFN^ The applicant therefore hopes to create a new dwelling within their current ownership area and this would become their new home. The site area will be 9CUC9:9 VCNB6H6L:6I; F6H9F:@ VCNBqh1ITNB1NL::N^ The brief centred around a requirement for level access and maintaining an area of garden - though this to be more suitably sized. There is a desire for the BITM: NI ;::F IJ:H 7TN M:8TL: VCNB 8IHH:8OIHM NI NB: A6L9:H c7INB JBXMC86F 6H9UCMT6FdbCHN:LH6FFX NB: L:KTCL:G:HNM;IL 688IGGI96OIH 6L:GI9:MN^ Our client wishes to create a home that sits comfortably and modestly on the site. Subtle divisions between public and private space are to be created - secluded external areas are to be provided without compromising the L:F6OIHMBCJVCNB NB:MNL::N 6H9H:CAB7ITLCHA BITM:M^ .TL6G7COIH6M9:MCAH:LMCMNI:W8::9NB:8FC:HN`M:WJ:8N6OIHM6H9NI:HMTL: CHN:LU:HOIHM6L:6JJLIJLC6N:VCNBCH6VC9:L8IHN:WNbNBCML:KTCL:MMCN:MJ:8C=8 9:MCAH6H98IHMC9:L6OIHI; NB: 6<:8N NI:WCMOHA JLIJ:LNX 6H96G:HCNX^ 18IRMB (IU:LHG:HN L:KTCL:G:HNM cCH N:LGM I; NB: 2:8BHC86F 1N6H96L9Md VCFF 7: G:N 6H9VB:L: JIMMC7F: :W8::9:9b J6LO8TF6LFX VCNBL:A6L9NI 688:MMC7CFCNX and sustainability. The house will be constructed to the highest standards. 37
Page 38
Page 6 Image: Six-inch 1st edition, 1843 - 1882. Courtesy of NLS (Application property shown highlighted yellow) 38
Page 39
SITE 2.1 Context 2.2 Site Images 39
Page 40
2.1 Context 40
Page 41
Page 9 2L69COIH6F F6N: ipNB a :6LFX iqNB $:HNTLX BITM:M 6L: 6LL6HA:9 IH 6 9CMOH8N building line along South Street. 90 South Street, built around 1814, is a two MNIL:X 7TCF9CHA IH NB: V:MN MC9: I; NB: LI69 6H9 B6M MXGG:NLC86F :F:U6OIHM JL:M:HN:9 NI 7INB ;LIHN 6H9 L:6Lb NB: CHN:LH6F ?IIL F:U:F CM 7:FIV NB6N I; NB: 69D68:HN J6U:G:HN 6H9 NB: G6CH 9IIL MCNM 6N NB: 7IQIG I; 6 MBILN L6GJ^ Stepped access at the side of the drive provides access to the back door which is generally level with the garden which then slopes gently upwards towards NB: ;6L :H9 I; NB: MCN:^ 2B: 9C<:LCHA F:U:FM 7:NV::H LI69 6H9 9V:FFCHA 6L: also evident to 94 South Street - the neighbouring dwelling to the south and NB: 6MMTGJOIH CM NB6N NB: 8TLL:HN F:U:F I; NB: G6CH LI69 V6M :MN67FCMB:9 6@:L NB: 8IHMNLT8OIH I; NB:M: JLIJ:LO:M^ qh 6H9 ql 1ITNB 1NL::N 6L: 7INB I; MNIH: 8IHMNLT8OIH VCNB 8ITLM:9 6MBF6L NI NB: ;LIHN 6H9 L:6L 6H9 A:H:L6FFX uncoursed rubble masonry to the gables. 86 and 84 South Street to the north of the site are single storey semi detached VCNB I88TJC:9 LII; MJ68:Mb NB:M: B6U: NL69COIH6F 9ILG:LM NI NB: JLCH8CJ6F cMNL::N ;68CHAd :F:U6OIHM 6H9 GIL: L:8:HN F6LA:L :WN:HMCIHM NI NB: L:6L^ 2BITAB MCGCF6L CH 8IHMNLT8OIH NI qh 6H9 ql 1ITNB 1NL::N NB: M6H9MNIH: TM:9 is a more prominent red and the roof pitches steeper. It is understood these JLIJ:LO:M6L: I; 6MFCABNFX :6LFC:L 8IHMNLT8OIH^ 2B: TH8ITLM:9 A67F: :F:U6OIHM MTAA:MN NB6N NB:L: G6X B6U: 7::H 7TCF9CHAM CH=FFCHA A6JM :CNB:L MC9: I; qh 1ITNB 1NL::N 6H9 NBCM 6MMTGJOIH 6JJ:6LM NI be supported by the house numbers with both 88 and 92 missing. There is evidence of at least one former building on historical maps which relates to number 92 to the south - this ‘gap site’ is now a community orchard. However, there is no physical reference to an 88 South Street. On the east side of South Street are three detached single storey houses with 6FN:LH6OHA 9ILG:L 6LL6HA:G:HNM ;68CFCN6OHA ;TLNB:L 688IGGI96OIH VCNBCH NB:LII; MJ68:M^ 46LXCHA CH6A:NB:M: 6L: GIL: L:8:HN 699COIHM NINB: MCN:^ Historical maps show the growth of the village along main roads from the 8:HNL:I;,CFH6NBILNc_2B:$LIMM`dbNB:M:F:69CH6FF;ITL86L9CH6F9CL:8OIHM6H9 the development of property along these arteries as the village expanded is FIAC86F 6H9 A:H:L6FFX ;IFFIVM NB: NL69COIH6F _=MB 7IH:` MNL::N J6Q:LH I; G6HX 18IRMB UCFF6A:M^ #TCF9CHAM FCH: NB: G6CH LI69M VCNB FIHA a FCH:6L A6L9:HM NI the rear. )HN:LLTJOIHMNINBCMJ6Q:LH6L::UC9:HNIHBCMNILC86F G6JMcLCABNd 6H98TLL:HN .1 96N6^ 2BCM CM 8IHMC9:L:9;TLNB:L CH1:8OIHk I; NBCM %:MCAH1N6N:G:HN^ 2INB:MITNBV:MNI;NB:MCN:6GIL:L:8:HNc/IMN56LdL:MC9:HO6F9:U:FIJG:HN 6FIHA #LC9A:;6TF90I69 MCNM IHNB: MCN: I; NB: ;ILG:L _-:V "T8OIH,6LN`b NB: L:6L A6L9:H I; HTG7:L i #LC9A:;6TF9 0I69 69DICHM NB: 6JJFC86OIH MCN: NI NB: west. This boundary is also shared with 80 South Street - a single storey house MCRHAVCNBCHNB: 8:HNL:I; CNMMCN:6H96JJ:6LCHANI7:GC9aF6N:iqNB$:HNTLX^ )NCM8IHH:8N:9NI1ITNB1NL::NNBLITAB6A6J7:NV::Hol6H9pj1ITNB1NL::N IHVBC8Bon6H9op6L:6FMIJIMCOIH:9bNB:M:JLIJ:LO:M:MN67FCMB6JL:8:9:HN ;IL9:U:FIJG:HNMFI86N:97:XIH9NB:9:=H:97TCF9CHAFCH:^2B:MCN:6MMI8C6N:9 with 80 South Street has been developed over a number of years to include M:U:L6F:WN:HMCIHM6H969:N68B:9A6L6A: bNB:F6Q:LCMJIMCOIH:969D68:HNNI NB: 6JJFC86OIHMCN:^ Image: 25-inch 2nd edition, 1892 - 1942. Courtesy of NLS (Application property shown highlighted yellow) 41
Page 42
2.2 Site Images 42
Page 43
Image: Existing Context Photographs - East Elevation / South Street Elevation (90 South Street in centre) 43
Page 44
Image: Existing Context Photographs - East Elevation / South Street Elevation (90 South Street - le! / 86 South Street - right) 44
Page 45
Image: Existing Context Photographs - South Elevation / Bridgefauld Road Elevation (90 South Street - centre to right of image / beyond tree line) 45
Page 46
Image: Existing Context Photographs - Viewed within Application Site (Image taken ! om north west corner looking east) 46
Page 47
Image: Existing Context Photographs - Viewed within Application Site (Image taken ! om centre of site looking west. 80 South Street - Right / Bridgefauld Road - Le! ) 47
Page 48
DESIGN PROPOSAL 3.1 Development 3.2 Design Proposal k^k $IHN:WN &F:U6OIHM 48
Page 49
3.1 Development 49
Page 50
Page 18 Image: South Street ‘Fishbone’ - Existing 80 South Street 89A South Street 32 South Street 127 South Street 50
Page 51
Page 19 Image: South Street ‘Fishbone’ - Proposed 80 South Street Proposed New Dwelling 89A South Street 127 South Street 32 South Street 2B: ;ILG[G6MM 6H9MCOHA I; NB:9V:FFCHA B6U: 7::HCH;ILG:97X a 9:U:FIJ:9 from the previous proposal - comments made by the local authority in the 9:N:LGCH6OIH I; NB:JL:UCITM 6JJFC86OIHB6U: 7::H8IHMC9:L:9^ 2B: JIMCOIH I; NB: 9V:FFCHA IH NB: 6JJFC86OIH MCN: B6M 7::H L:UC:V:9^ 2B: %:8CMCIH-IO8:MN6N:9NB6N NB:MCOHA I; NB:9:U:FIJG:HN9C9HIN_L:MJ:8NNB: character ... of the place’ and commented on the proposals failure to respect the established building line along South Street. " JIMCOIH 7:NV::H NB: A67F:M I; pn 6H9 qh 1ITNB 1NL::N B69 ILCACH6FFX 7::H 8IHMC9:L:9 CH NB: 9:U:FIJG:HN I; NB: JL:UCITM 6JJFC86OIHb 6M HIN:9 CH NB: 6MMI8C6N:9 %:MCAH 1N6N:G:HN NB: MCOHA I; 6 9V:FFCHA B:L: V6M 9CMGCMM:9 6M there were concerns the form and design would be incongruous within the context if sited on the building line. Added to this are concerns regarding 6G:HCNX 6H9688:MM^&WCMOHAI< MNL::N J6LECHA 6H9:WN:LH6F 688:MM NI NB:L:6L A6L9:H I; qh 1ITNB 1NL::N VITF9 7: 8IGJLIGCM:9 7X 6H _CH=FF` 9:U:FIJG:HN 6H9 I< MNL::N J6LECHA CMMT:M :W68:L76N:9^ Pushing the proposal back from this gap into the site along the east west axis CHNLI9T8:M 6 JT7FC8 cMNL::Nd a JLCU6N: c9V:FFCHAd 8IHH:8OIH 6H9 JLIN:8NM NB: I< MNL::N J6LECHA JLIUCMCIH 6H9 6JJLI68B NI NB: :WCMOHA cqh 1ITNB 1NL::Nd JLIJ:LNXb NB: JIMCOIH6FMI 6FFIVM MCGCF6L 6LL6HA:G:HNM NI 7: JLIUC9:9 NI NB: proposed dwelling. 2B: ;ILG 6H9 G6MM I; NB: JL:UCITM JLIJIM6F V6M MT7M:LUC:HN NI NB: :WCMOHA 9V:FFCHABITM:M6H9NB:JLIJIM:9JIMCOIHIHNB:6JJFC86OIHMCN:6JJLIJLC6N: NINBCMbL:?:8OHA NB:MCOHAI; 9:N68B:9A6L6A:M 6FIHA 1ITNB 1NL::N cCH8FT9CHA that which exists / to be removed in the garden of 90 South Street). This JIMCOIH 6FFIVM NB: :WCMOHA 688:MM 6H9 I< MNL::N J6LECHA NI 7: JLIN:8N:9 6H9 MB6L:97:NV::H :WCMOHA 6H9JLIJIM:99V:FFCHAM^ The current proposal has been revised to reduce the overall area and mass- its JIMCOIHL:G6CHM A:H:L6FFXNB: M6G:^ 5BCF: NB:L: CM 6 9:=H:9 7TCF9CHA FCH: 6FIHA 1ITNB 1NL::N NB:L: 6L: 6 HTG7:L I; JLIJ:LO:M VBC8B 6L: M:N 768E ;LIG NB: LI69b NB:M: 6L: BCABFCABN:9 IH NB: layout opposite and are a mixture of old and new structures including 32 1ITNB 1NL::N c6JJLIU:9 jhhpb /F6HHCHA 0:;:L:H8: hoahjlnoa'3+d\ ph 1ITNB 1NL::N\pq"1ITNB1NL::N6H9ijo1ITNB1NL::N^)H699COIHNINBCM6HTG7:LI; JLIJ:LO:M B6U: 6H8CFF6LX 7TCF9CHAM MT8B 6M A6L6A:M VBC8B 6L: MCGCF6L MCY: 6H9 JIMCOIHNINB: JLIJIM:9H:V 9V:FFCHA^ 2B: JIMCOIH B6M 7::H N:MN:9 CH N:LGM I; JLCU68X 6H9 MT7M:KT:HNFX[ 6M J6LN I; G6MMCHA MNT9C:M[ ;IL 96XFCABOHA a IU:LMB69IVCHA^ 2B: 6JJFC86OIH MCN: CM :H8FIM:9 7X H6NTL6F MNIH: LT77F: V6FFM L:F6OU:FX FIV CH B:CABN c6LITH9 iihhGG 67IU: ALITH9 F:U:Fd 6H9 NB:L: V6M 6 A:H:L6F JL:MTGJOIH 6A6CHMN NB: CHNLI9T8OIH I; OG7:L ;:H8:M NI GCOA6N: 6HX JLCU68X CMMT:M 6M NBCM VITF9 generally not be in keeping with the immediate context. Any privacy concerns related to 80 South Street (to the west) and 86 South 1NL::N cNI NB: HILNBd 6M NB: JLIJIM:9 9V:FFCHA CM JIMCOIH:9 NIV6L9M NB: 7ITH96LC:M MB6L:9 VCNB NB:M: JLIJ:LO:Mb :F:U6OIHM ;68CHA NB:M: JLIJ:LO:M are without openings therefore removing any privacy concerns. There are no IJ:HCHAM NI B67CN67F: LIIGM IH NB: :6MN :F:U6OIH 6H9 NB: MITNB :F:U6OIH CM JIMCOIH:9 6N F:6MN qG ;LIG NB: 6MMI8C6N:97ITH96LX^ 51
Page 52
Page 20 The layout responds to this by arranging private spaces, generally not requiring H6NTL6F 96XFCABN a U:HOF6OIHIL :M86J:[ 6FIHA NB:M: :9A:M^ (67F:M I; :WCMOHA JLIJ:LO:M NI 1ITNB 1NL::N 6L: A:H:L6FFX 7F6HE :F:U6OIHM VCNB GCHCG6F IJ:HCHAM 6H9 NB: JL:UCITM 9:MCAH CHN:HOIH6FFX L:?:8N:9 NBCM 6FIHA VCNB 6H 6:MNB:O8 NB6N G6X 7: NXJC86F I; 6H8CFF6LX 7TCF9CHAM MCN:9 CH NB: A6L9:HMJ68: I; :WCMOHA BITM:M^ To improve the visual appearance the current design proposes a more open :F:U6OIH^ " GCWNTL: I; 8IGJF:G:HN6LX G6N:LC6FM 699 UCMT6F CHN:L:MN^ " F6LA: AF6Y:9 M8L::H 6H9 AF6Y:9 :HNL6H8: 9IIL :6M: NB: NL6HMCOIH ;LIG :WN:LH6F NI CHN:LH6F 6H9NB: 8IHH:8OIHI; JT7FC8 NIJLCU6N:^ 2B: FCUCHA MJ68:M 6L: 6LL6HA:9 6FIHA NB: MITNB :F:U6OIH VCNB UC:VM 9CL:8N:9 towards the garden area. 2B: %:8CMCIH -IO8: ;IL NB: JL:UCITM 6JJFC86OIH MN6N:9 NB6N NB: JLIJIM6F V6M considered an over development of the site and therefore contrary to Policy io[ 0:MC9:HO6F "L:6M I; NB: /:LNB 6H9 *CHLIMM $ITH8CF +I86F %:U:FIJG:HN Plan 2 (2019). The revised design has considered this and the overall area of development has been reduced. The previously proposal internal garage has been removed along with the dining room. The second bedroom has been L:GIU:9 ;LIG NB:ALITH9?IIL 6H9FI86N:9 VCNBCHNB: LII; MJ68:^ 2B: JL:UCITM 6JJFC86OIH JLIJIM:9 6 7TCF9CHA 6L:6 I; ijnGrb NBCM B6M 7::H L:9T8:9NIpmGr^ In terms of overall development within the site areas the proposed new 9V:FFCHA CMjlvI; CNM MCN: 6L:6 6H9 NB::WCMOHA 9V:FFCHA jnvI; CNMMCN: 6L:6i Generally within the immediate surrounding area dwelling footprints consume around 25 -35% of their site areaii. The Perth & Kinross Council ‘Placemaking Guide’ (Adopted March 2020) 69UCM:M] I*>6C.@2"?<.02?"9B?@"/2"12?64:21"?;"@5.@">2?612:@?"5.C2".">2.?;:./82" .9;B:@";3"?B:K1.F8645@H"-52F"?5;B81":;@"/2"08;?28F"/;B:121"/F"5645" D.88?";>"/B6816:4?H #?".">B82G"6@"6?"4;;1"<>.0A02"@;"<>;C612"."96:69B9";3"SO"?=B.>2"92@>2?" 3;>"<>6C.@2"?<.02"3;>"."PLQ"/21>;;921"5;B?2".:1"UO"?=B.>2"92@>2?"3;>" RW"/21>;;9?H"&.05"1D2886:4"?5;B81"5.C2"."96:69B9"4.>12:"12<@5";3"V" 92@>2?HJ"iii " JLCU6N: A6L9:H MJ68: I; ijjGr CM JLIUC9:9 NI NB: JLIJIM:9 H:V 9V:FFCHA cNVI 7:9LIIGd 6H9 6 JLCU6N: A6L9:H MJ68: I; ilhGr NI NB: :WCMOHA 9V:FFCHA cqh1ITNB1NL::Nb;ITL7:9LIIGd^#INB:W8::9CHANB:L:8IGG:H96OIHMI;NB: local authority’s adopted ‘Placemaking Guide’ as outlined above. The garden spaces to each property also measure 9m (or more) in depth. i 90 South Street Proposed Site Area 299m² (79m² building) / Proposed New Dwelling Site Area 351m² (85m² building) ii 72 - 76 South Street - 36%; 82 South Street - 32%; 84 South Street - 25%; 86 South Street - 22%; 94 South Street - 22% iii Perth & Kinross Council ‘Placemaking Guide’ (page 21) Image (Le! ): 90 South Street - Garden Space (Site Area Coloured Yellow / ‘Private Garden Space’ hatched) Image (Right): Proposed New Dwelling South Street - Garden Space (Site Area Coloured Yellow / ‘Private Garden Space’ hatched) 52
Page 53
Page 21 "N OG:M VB:H IU:LMB69IVCHA CM CHNLI9T8:9 NBCM CM F:MM NB6H B6F; I; NB: associated garden space. 0:A6L9CHA NB: JLIWCGCNX I; NB: HILNB :F:U6OIH NI NB: :WCMOHA MCN: 7ITH96LX the distance has been increased from the previously proposed 650mm (at its closest point) to 1600mm (at its closest point). The overall height has also reduced - the current proposed ridge around 600mm lower than the previous proposal and the current proposed eaves around 200mm lower (proposed :6U:M HIGIL:NB6HjomhGG 67IU: :WN:LH6F ALITH9F:U:Fd^ )H 9:N:LGCHCHA NB: :6U:M B:CABN L:;:L:H8: B6M 7::H G69: NI /:LGCQ:9 Development rights which allow for ancillary buildings within gardens to have an eaves height up to 3m where the building is more than 1m from the boundary. As with the previous proposal, and due to the sloping site, the proposed 9:MCAH CM J6LO6F MTHE VBC8B 6FMI L:9T8:M NB: IU:L6FF CGJ68N I; :F:U6OIHM NI :WCMOHA MCN:7ITH96LC:M^ 2B: JLIJIM:9 G6N:LC6FM 6L: 9:LCU:9 ;LIG NB: :WCMOHA BITM: 6H9 6H CHN:HOIH NI :HMTL: NB6N H:V CHN:LU:HOIHM 86H 7: :6MCFX L:69 6M GI9:LH 699COIHM b NB: G6N:LC6F J6F:Q: JLIJIM:9 CM MCGJF: VCNB 6 8IHN:GJIL6LX 7C6M^ 'FTN:9 M6H9MNIH: 6H9 MGIINB 6L8BCN:8NTL6F L:H9:L NI NB: BITM: L:?:8N NB: IG7L:9 LT77F: A67F: I; NB: :WCMOHA BITM: VBC8B CM JL:9IGCH6HNFX 7T< M6H9MNIH: b bronze has been introduced to further compliment this and also references L:9 6H9 7LIVH NIH:M 8IGGIH VCNBCH NB: MCN: 8IHN:WNb CH J6LO8TF6L NB: L:9 M6H9MNIH:M NXJC86FFX TM:9NI8IHMNLT8N 69D68:HN JLIJ:LO:M^ 2L69COIH6F MF6N: CM JLIJIM:9NI NB:JCN8B:9LII;^ 2B: JLIJIM:9 ;IINJLCHN I; NB: H:V 9V:FFCHA V6M CH;ILG:9 7X NB: :WCMOHA qh 1ITNB1NL::N 9V:FFCHA b 7INB JLIJ:LO:M B6U: 6 A67F: VC9NBI; onhhGG^ 2B:F:HANBI;NB:JLIJIM:99V:FFCHAB6M7::HCH?T:H8:97XNB:688IGGI96OIH L:KTCL:G:HNM I; NB: 7LC:; 6H9 9:U:FIJ:9 VCNB 8IHMC9:L6OIH I; M86F: VCNBCH the site context. The proposed length is around 11.2m. Similar in length (and width) of the 8FIM:MN69D68:HNMNLT8NTL:bNB::WCMOHAA6L6A:VCNBCHNB:8TLOF6A:I;ph1ITNB Street which measures approximately 10.3m x 6.8m (scaled from OS data). 86 and 94 South Street to the east are both around 11.3m in length - 80 South Street to the west is around 23.8m in length. The approach to the house is via a private drive with private parking. The access runs adjacent to that retained by 90 South Street and a mix of hard and MI@cF6H9M86J:9aJF6HN:9d7ITH96LC:MCMJLIJIM:9NIJ:LG:6N:6HXCHNLI9T8:9 M:J6L6OIHb L:;:L:H8CHA NB: FIV F:U:F LT77F: 7ITH96LX V6FFM NXJC86FFX ;ITH9 VCNBCH NB: MTLLITH9CHA 6L:6 6H9 JLIGIOHA 6 MI8C6F L:F6OIHMBCJ 7:NV::H dwellings. The pitched form is derived from the surrounding buildings - internally this JLIUC9:M UIFTG: NI NB: FCUCHA MJ68:M 6H9 IJJILNTHCO:M ;IL MNIL6A: 67IU: service spaces such as the garage. 2B:M:8IH97:9LIIGcIGCQ:9;LIGNB:(LITH9'FIILdL:G6CHM6L:KTCL:G:HN in the client’s brief - this providing a space for visitors or carers to stay. The design now proposes this also be located within the roof space as the need for F:U:F 688:MM NBLITABITN NB: JLCH8CJ6F F:U:F CM ;IL NB: FIHA N:LG 7:H:=N I; NB: home occupier. Following concerns raised by planning regarding overshadowing and the JLIWCGCNX I; NB: HILNB :F:U6OIH NI NB: :WCMOHA MCN: 7ITH96LX NB: JLIJIM6FM have been developed, area / massing reduced and the proposal has been L:N:MN:9 ;IL 96XFCABN 6H9 IU:LMB69IVCHAb 7INB CGJ68N IH :WCMOHA 7TCF9CHAM and neighbouring gardens spaces. %T: NI NB: JLIJIM:9 MCOHA NB:L: CM HI CGJ68N IH :WCMOHA 7TCF9CHAM 6M demonstrated on the Daylight Studies. In terms of overshadowing to gardens and open spaces the guidance within #0& 9I8TG:HN _1CN: +6XITN /F6HHCHA ;IL %6XFCABN 6H9 1THFCABNb " (TC9: NI (II9 /L68O8:`B6M 7::HL:;:LL:9 NI^ The guidance advises that at least half of adjacent garden spaces should receive at least two hours of sunlight on 21st March. As shown on the daylight MNT9C:Mc86JNTL:9jiMN ,6L8B6N BITLFX CHN:LU6FMVB:L:NB:MTHFCABN6FONT9:CM 67IU: ihed NB: NVI JLIJ:LO:M 6<:8N:9 cph 1ITNB 1NL::N 6H9 pn 1ITNB 1NL::Nd receive in excess of the sunlight to open spaces recommended and are not MCAHC=86HNFX IU:LMB69IV:97X NB: JLIJIM:99:U:FIJG:HN^ "M MBIVH IH NB: JLIJIM:9 %6XFCABN 1NT9C:M NB:L: CM HI 699COIH6F IU:LMB69IVCHA NI pn 1ITNB 1NL::N THOF ii6G 6H9 ;LIG iJG NB:L: CM HI 699COIH6F IU:LMB69IVCHA NIph 1ITNB1NL::N^ 53
Page 54
Page 22 Image: Material Study (Existing) - 90 South Street North Gable 54
Page 55
55
Page 56
3.2 Design Proposal 56
Page 57
Page 25 Image: External Sketch Illustration of Proposal - Viewed ! om South Street 57
Page 58
Page 26 Image: External Sketch Illustration of Proposal - Viewed ! om Garden 58
Page 59
3.3 #438-=8 %1-<)9437 59
Page 60
60
Page 61
61
Page 62
62
Page 63
63
Page 64
64
Page 65
Copyright Crichton Lang, Willis & Galloway (CLWG) Architects 2021 Crichton Lang, Willis + Galloway Architects 38 Dean Park Mews Edinburgh EH4 1ED www.clwg-architects.com + 65
Page 66
APPENDIX A 66
Page 67
21 March at 09:00 Daylight + Sunlight Impact assessment on Gardens + Open Spaces 67
Page 68
21 March at 10:00 Daylight + Sunlight Impact assessment on Gardens + Open Spaces 68
Page 69
21 March at 11:00 Daylight + Sunlight Impact assessment on Gardens + Open Spaces 69
Page 70
21 March at 12:00 Daylight + Sunlight Impact assessment on Gardens + Open Spaces 70
Page 71
21 March at 13:00 Daylight + Sunlight Impact assessment on Gardens + Open Spaces 71
Page 72
21 March at 14:00 Daylight + Sunlight Impact assessment on Gardens + Open Spaces 72
Page 73
21 March at 15:00 Daylight + Sunlight Impact assessment on Gardens + Open Spaces 73
Page 74
21 March at 16:00 Daylight + Sunlight Impact assessment on Gardens + Open Spaces 74
Page 75
Copyright Crichton Lang, Willis + Galloway Architects 75
Page 76
76
Page 77
77
Page 78
78
Page 79
79
Page 80
80
Page 81
81
Page 82
Page 1 of 3 Mrs Marion Stirling c/o CLWG Architects Robert Willis 38 Dean Park Mews Edinburgh EH4 1ED Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street PERTH PH1 5GD Date of Notice:7th February 2023 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT Application Reference: 22/02168/FLL I am directed by the Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts currently in force, to refuse your application registered on 9th December 2022 for Planning Permission for Erection of a dwellinghouse Land 25 Metres North Of No 94 South Street Milnathort David Littlejohn Head of Planning and Development Reasons for Refusal 1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 17 Residential Areas of the Perth and Kinross Council Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as the proposal is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site when taking account of the areas environs, established building line and surrounding density as a consequence the development is incompatible with the character and amenity of the area. 2. The proposal is contrary to Policies 1A and 1B Placemaking of the Perth and Kinross Council Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as the development would not contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding built environment. The density and siting of development does not respect the character and amenity of the place. Furthermore, the proposal fails to respect the established building line along South Street. 3. The position of the dwelling and the close proximity of the north elevation to the existing site boundary will result in a very dominant built form which is considered to be oppressive when viewed from the private garden ground of the property. An elevation of this scale in such close proximity to the boundary is contrary to Policy 1A of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) which seeks to ensure that new development respects the visual and residential amenity of the area. 82
Page 83
2 Justification The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. Notes The plans and documents relating to this decision are listed below and are displayed on Perth and Kinross Council’s website at www.pkc.gov.uk “Online Planning Applications” page Plan Reference 13 14 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 83
Page 84
REPORT OF HANDLING DELEGATED REPORT Ref No 22/02168/FLL Ward No P8- Kinross-shire Due Determination Date 8th February 2023 Draft Report Date 6th February 2023 Report Issued by JW Date 6 Feb 2023 PROPOSAL: Erection of a dwellinghouse LOCATION: Land 25 Metres North Of No 94 South Street Milnathort SUMMARY: This report recommends refusal of the application as the development is considered to be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no material considerations apparent which justify setting aside the Development Plan. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a dwellinghouse within the rear garden ground of 90 South Street, Milnathort. The existing plot at no.90 extends to 642sqm. The proposal seeks to subdivide the garden ground of no.90 to create a plot which is 387sqm in footprint. Therefore, resulting in no.90 having a remaining plot size of 279sqm. The dwelling is proposed to be accessed from South Street through an existing gap between 86 South Street and 90 South Street which currently acts as the driveway for no.90 and is occupied by a small single detached garage which is proposed for demolition. The dwellinghouse is proposed to be located at the end of the driveway with gable ends facing west and east and the majority of the proposed windows facing south. The house is proposed to be single storey with a bedroom located within the roof space, with a pitched roof and gable ends. The majority of the windows are proposed on the south facing elevation with five large rooflights proposed on the south facing roof plane. The finishing materials include a natural slate roof and a mixture of smooth white render and aluminium cladding (bronze colour) on the walls. The east facing gable onto South Street is proposed to have an ashlar natural stone finish. The proposed house is to accommodate a living, dining and kitchen area, master bedroom with ensuite, bathroom and utility area at ground floor level with a study and bedroom at first floor level. The application site is bound to the south by a Community Orchard with private residential garden ground beyond, to the west by the garden ground of two further residential properties and to the north by the garden ground of 86 South Street. This application is a re-submission following the refusal of a similar application (ref:22/00041/FLL). The previous application was refused due to the failure of the 84
Page 85
proposal to contribute to the quality of the surrounding built environment and failure to respect the character and amenity of the area. This was principally due to the concerns with the location of the dwelling to the rear/west of the existing building line along South Street. This further submission seeks to justify the failure to respect the established building line along South Street. The submission seeks to identify other residential properties which exist on South Street remote from the established building line at 32, 80 and 89A South Street. It also identifies ancillary buildings such as garages which are identified as being similar in size to the proposed dwelling. The submission also explains that an alternative location for the proposed house was considered fronting onto South Street but dismissed. The proposal has been reduced in overall site area with the footprint of the dwelling reduced from 126sqm to 85sqm and massing also reduced but the position and proposal overall remains generally similar to the previous refusal. SITE HISTORY 22/00041/FLL Erection of a dwellinghouse 21 February 2022 Application Refused PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION Pre application Reference: n/a NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through The National Planning Framework, the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), Planning Advice Notes (PAN), Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and a series of Circulars. National Planning Framework 4 The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) was approved by the Scottish Parliament on 11 January 2023. NPF4 has an increased status over previous NPFs and is a material consideration in the assessment of this application. DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Development Plan for the area comprises the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2016-2036 and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019). TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2016 – 2036 - Approved October 2017 Whilst there are no specific policies or strategies directly relevant to this proposal the overall vision of the TAYplan should be noted. The vision states “By 2036 the TAYplan area will be sustainable, more attractive, competitive and vibrant without creating an unacceptable burden on our planet. The quality of life will make it a place of first choice where more people choose to live, work, study and visit, and where businesses choose to invest and create jobs.” 85
Page 86
Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 – Adopted November 2019 The Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) is the most recent statement of Council policy and is augmented by Supplementary Guidance. The principal policies are: Policy 1A: Placemaking Policy 1B: Placemaking Policy 2: Design Statements Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions Policy 6: Settlement Boundaries Policy 17: Residential Areas Policy 52: New Development and Flooding Policy 53B: Water Environment and Drainage: Foul Drainage Policy 53C: Water Environment and Drainage: Surface Water Drainage Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals OTHER POLICIES Placemaking Supplementary Guidance 2020 Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing Supplementary Guidance 2020 CONSULTATION RESPONSES EXTERNAL Scottish Water INTERNAL Structures And Flooding – no comments Transportation And Development – no objection Development Contributions Officer – contribution towards education infrastructure required 86
Page 87
REPRESENTATIONS A total of 4 representations were received. The issues raised may be summarised as follows: Inappropriate housing density Lack or loss of car parking Loss of Open space Loss of sunlight/daylight Noise Pollution Affect on visual amenity Contrary to Development Plan Over provision of car parking Road Safety concerns Traffic congestion Overlooking Impact on residential amenity Inappropriate land use Light pollution The above matters are addressed within the appraisal section below. The loss of view and loss of value to properties are not material considerations and therefore not relevant in this assessment. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS Screening Opinion EIA Not Required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not Required Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations Habitats Regulations AA Not Required Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Submitted Report on Impact or Potential Impact eg Flood Risk Assessment Daylight Assessment APPRAISAL Sections 25 and 37 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for the area comprises NFP4, the approved TAYplan and the adopted LDP2. The determining issues in this case are whether; the proposal complies with development plan policy; or if there are any other material considerations which justify a departure from policy. 87
Page 88
Planning Principle The site is located within the Milnathort settlement boundary where Policy 17 of the adopted Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019 applies. This recognises that residential development within existing settlements can often make a useful contribution to the supply of housing land, but acknowledges the potential conflicts new development can have with the existing built environment. Proposals will be encouraged where they satisfy the criteria set out in the policy in particular criteria a) Infill residential development at a density which represents the most efficient use of the site while respecting its environs and c) proposals which will improve the character and environment of the area. Policies 1A and B are also of relevance. These policies require proposals to contribute positively to the surrounding built and natural environment and to respect the character and amenity of the place and also respect an existing building line. They also state that development should have a design, density and siting which respects established character. The Council's associated Placemaking Supplementary Guidance 2020 also provides further guidance on proposals for backland development and indicates that this will generally not be supported due to residential amenity issues, noise and light disturbance, loss of amenity and adverse impact on the character of the area. It is evident that there is a steady rhythm of development along the western side of South Street in this location, principally of detached and semi detached dwellinghouses of either two storeys or 1.5 storeys, all of which front directly on the pavement. The only built development to the rear being smaller scale ancillary buildings such as garages and sheds, although it is noted that there are some properties located in locations remote from the building but this is not considered to be the established character of the street. The application site has a very narrow frontage with South Street, with the majority of the site in a backland location behind the main building line of dwellings on South Street. There is very limited evidence of similar backland development in the surrounding area. The dwelling is proposed to be located within part of the rear garden of no.90 with the proposed house having no physical or visual relationship with South Street unlike the existing properties in the area. This results in the dwelling being shoe-horned into a very small part of the site, with a gable end fronting towards South Street but set back from the established building line. The house is located in a backland location with no relationship to the established street scene or building line on South Street. The introduction of a dwellinghouse on this site fails to respect the relatively uniform streetscape and character of South Street. The limited changes to the scale and form of the dwelling do not alter these conclusions. Furthermore, the changes to the layout which are proposed as part of this revised submission do not address the concerns regarding the principal of developing a dwellinghouse in this backland location. The applicant and their agent clearly have a differing view to the Planning Authority on the development of this site and therefore they would be better to seek a review of the decision by the Council's Local Review Body. Furthermore, any approval would set an unwelcome precedent for backland development in the locality which is completely at odds with the established character 88
Page 89
and density levels in the area. The principle of developing this site therefore remains contrary to policies 1A and B and 17 of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019. The changes to the design and reduction in scale do not alter the Planning Authority's view that the principle of developing this site is contrary to the Local Development Plan. There are other concerns with the proposal which are outlined in more detail below. Design and Layout Generally, the design and scale of development should respect its surroundings and adhere to Policies 1A and B of LDP2, which relate to placemaking. Further guidance is also provided within the associated Placemaking Supplementary Guidance. Furthermore, through Creating Places 2013, Scottish Ministers set out the comprehensive value good design can deliver. It notes that successful places can unlock opportunities, build vibrant communities and contribute to a flourishing economy and set out actions that can achieve positive changes in our places. As outlined above, the plot, including the proposed access extends to 387sqm and the house is now proposed to have a footprint of a 85sqm, reducing the building to plot ratio to 24%. The proposal also reduces the build to plot ratio of the existing house to 26%. Whilst the build to plot ratio has been reduced, it is substantially greater than any of the other plots in the area and therefore fails to relate to the established density levels in the area as required by policy. Other nearby plots include 90 South Street which has a build to plot ratio of 15% and 1 Bridgeauld Road which has a build to plot ratio of 18%. There is considered to be a general consistency across build to plot ratios in this part of Milnathort which the proposed development does not follow. The overall design of the dwelling and the finishing materials proposed are considered to be appropriate and there are no policy concerns in this regard. The dwelling is also smaller in scale than the adjacent dwellings to the east. Nevertheless, the principle of developing the site and the failure to respect the established building line and character of the area is the main policy issue with this proposal which has not been addressed by this revised submission. Residential Amenity Impacts on adjoining properties The formation of residential development has the potential to result in overlooking and overshadowing to neighbouring dwellings and garden ground. There is a need to secure privacy for all the parties to the development those who would live in the new dwellings, those that live in the existing house and those that live in adjoining dwellings. Planning control has a duty to future occupiers not to create situations of potential conflict between neighbours. The Council's Placemaking Guidance seeks to ensure that windows are positioned at least 9 metres from boundaries. The layout of the site results in almost all of the windows located on the south facing elevation of the building, although there are now two north facing high level rooflights which will not result in any overlooking. There are 89
Page 90
no windows proposed on the west or north facing walls of the dwelling which are located close to the boundaries. The majority of south facing windows are also located 9 metres from the boundary which is considered to meet Council guidance and this distance is sufficient to negate overlooking from these windows to neighbouring properties. Nevertheless, the principle of developing the site is contrary to the Development Plan. Overshadowing Although overshadowing is not a matter specifically referred to in ministerial guidance, the protection of neighbouring developments from unreasonable loss of light is a well- established proper planning consideration. The Council's adopted Supplementary Guidance relating to Placemaking includes specific information on how the issue of overshadowing can be assessed. This is known as the 25 degrees rule. Any proposed development should maintain and allow for a reasonable amount of natural daylight to the internal living space of neighbouring residential properties. Established practise determines that 25 degrees is a suitable maximum obstruction path which should be afforded directly to a front or rear aspect. As mentioned above the house is located very close to the north and west boundaries of the site. Beyond these boundaries are the private garden ground of 86 South Street, 80 South Street and 1 Bridgeauld Road. Whilst the proposed dwelling will not result in a loss of daylight to the living space of the neighbouring properties, due to its orientation it will result in overshadowing of the private garden ground of 86 South Street to a significant degree. This was identified as a reason for refusal on the previous application. This revised submission seeks to address that issue by reducing the scale of the dwelling and moving it 1600mm away from the boundary compared with 600mm in the previous application. The dwelling ridge height is now proposed to be 6.1m in height which is a reduction in ridge height of approximately 600mm from the previously proposed dwelling. A daylight calculation has also been submitted. The Council's Placemaking Guidance and BRE Guidance refers mainly to impact on daylight of habitable rooms of adjacent properties and less in relation to garden ground. Nevertheless the proposal, even with the reduction in scale will overshadow the adjacent garden ground to some degree. The BRE Guidance recommends that amenity areas should receive at least two hours of sunlight on 21 March. It suggests that the centre of the amenity area should receive at least two hours of sunlight. The daylight calculation indicates that this would be achieved based upon the revised scale and position of the dwelling. Whilst the daylight/sunlight issue for neighbouring garden ground has been addressed with this revised the proposal, as per the previous application the proposal will still result in there being a large scale and oppressive elevation occupying a significant extent of the boundary at a distance of approximately 1.6m. Whilst this is an increase in distance from the boundary to the previous refusal, this distance is not considered to be significant and the house will still occupy a large portion of the south facing garden boundary of 90 South Street. Whilst the changes which have been submitted do lessen this to some degree the changes are not considered to be sufficient and it is difficult to see how this issue could be resolved satisfactorily given the layout of the site. This 90
Page 91
revised proposals will therefore still completely alter the outlook from the garden of the neighbour to its detriment, and therefore remains contrary to Policy 1A of the LDP2. Private Amenity Space The extent in which private amenity space is used relates specifically to the dwellings occupant. It is therefore particularly difficult to forecast the extent of garden ground required and ultimately overtime this will change with any new inhabitant. Nevertheless it is important to seek an outside area that can perform the minimum to be expected of a garden i.e. clothes drying, dustbin storage and sitting out. The proposed application site extends to 387sqm and the private useable garden ground, including the covered external seating area extends to 130sqm. The Council's Supplementary Guidance on Placemaking provides minimum private amenity space levels. This states that a minimum of 60sqm should be provided for a 2 bedroom dwellinghouse which is met in this instance. It also results in the existing dwelling's private garden ground being reduced to 140sqm. Taking the above levels into account an adequate level of private (rear) amenity space is provided to perform the minimum expected of a garden ground taking account of the proposed dwelling type. There are, however, concerns regarding the impact which the extent of development has on the density levels and overall character of the area as outlined above which are not resolved in this submission. Roads and Access Policy 60B of LDP2 is relevant and requires that new development does not impact on the road safety of the area. The National Roads Development Guide (NRDG) is also considered to be relevant. This provides detail on parking and access requirements. The proposal seeks to utilise an existing driveway access to serve the site with two car parking spaces. Transportation and Development consider the parking solution to be acceptable and have no objections. It is noted that an objection raises concerns regarding the loss of on street parking but this is not considered to be significant. The proposal includes off street parking which is considered to be acceptable and meets the requirements of national guidance and Development Plan policy. Developer Contributions Education Infrastructure The Council Developer Contributions Supplementary Guidance requires a financial contribution towards increased primary school capacity in areas where a primary school capacity constraint has been identified. A capacity constraint is defined as where a primary school is operating at over 80% and is likely to be operating following completion of the proposed development, extant planning permissions and Local Development Plan allocations, at or above 100% of total capacity. This proposal is within the catchment of Milnathort Primary School. 91
Page 92
There is considered to be a capacity constraint here and therefore a contribution is required of £5164. The agent has advised that this would be paid upfront should a recommendation of approval be forthcoming. Drainage and Flooding The applicant has confirmed that the foul drainage will be connected to the existing drainage connection. The site is not in an area subject to river flooding and whilst SEPA flood maps indicate some surface water flood risk to the south this does not include the application site. The Council’s Structures and Flooding Team have sought more information to detail how surface water run off will be managed on site but given the recommendation of refusal, this detail has not been requested. Construction It is likely that there would be disruption during construction operations given the close proximity of the site to neighbouring dwellings, however this issue alone is not considered to be a reason to refuse the application. Economic Impact The economic impact of the proposal is likely to be minimal and limited to the construction phase of the development. Loss of View and Impact on Property Value Neither of the above issues are material planning considerations and therefore have no bearing on this assessment. PLANNING OBLIGATIONS AND LEGAL AGREEMENTS None required. DIRECTION BY SCOTTISH MINISTERS None applicable to this proposal. CONCLUSION AND REASONS FOR DECISION To conclude, the application must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this respect, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the Development Plan. Account has been taken of the relevant material considerations and none has been found that would justify overriding the Development Plan. Accordingly the proposal is refused on the grounds identified below. 92
Page 93
Reasons for Refusal The proposal is contrary to Policy 17 Residential Areas of the Perth and Kinross Council Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as the proposal is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site when taking account of the areas environs, established building line and surrounding density as a consequence the development is incompatible with the character and amenity of the area. The proposal is contrary to Policies 1A and 1B Placemaking of the Perth and Kinross Council Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as the development would not contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding built environment. The density and siting of development does not respect the character and amenity of the place. Furthermore, the proposal fails to respect the established building line along South Street. The position of the dwelling and the close proximity of the north elevation to the existing site boundary will result in a very dominant built form which is considered to be oppressive when viewed from the private garden ground of the property. An elevation of this scale in such close proximity to the boundary is contrary to Policy 1A of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) which seeks to ensure that new development respects the visual and residential amenity of the area. Justification The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. Informatives None Procedural Notes Not Applicable. PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION 01-14 93
Page 94
94
Page 95
95
Page 96
96
Page 97
97
Page 98
98
Page 99
99
Page 100
100
Page 101
4(i)(b) LRB-2023-15 LRB-2023-15 – 22/02168/FLL - Erection of a dwellinghouse, land 25 metres north of 94 South Street, Milnathort PLANNING DECISION NOTICE (included in applicant’s submission, pages 82-83) REPORT OF HANDLING (included in applicant’s submission, pages 84-93) REFERENCE DOCUMENTS (included in applicant’s submission, pages 22-81) 101
Page 102
102
Page 103
4(i)(c) LRB-2023-15 LRB-2023-15 – 22/02168/FLL - Erection of a dwellinghouse, land 25 metres north of 94 South Street, Milnathort REPRESENTATIONS 103
Page 104
104
Page 105
105
Page 106
106
Page 107
107
Page 108
108
Page 109
109
Page 110
Mr Alastair Maclean (Objects) Comment submitted date: Fri 13 Jan 2023 Proposed development will impact massively on an already congested road. During construction there will be noise pollution, major congestion for site access on an already very busy road. When property is built where are they parking as this is already an issue given busy road.Concern over our own street parking due to site access and general road use. May impact on our own property value as we will be overlooked across the street and we will loose our view 110
Page 111
Mrs Gillian Pedn (Objects) Comment submitted date: Mon 16 Jan 2023 This is not going to add any value to the neighbourhood, will overlook gardens, is too high at double story, will impact on already problematic on-street parking, visually will look out of place, the plot is far too small to accommodate this build and the plans are totally inappropriate. 111
Page 112
112
Page 113
113
Page 114
114
Page 115
Mr Christopher Mann (Objects) Comment submitted date: Mon 23 Jan 2023 I do not believe that the planned works are in an appropriate location. By being set back from the road and adjacent to multiple neighbouring homes' gardens, the dwelling house would overlook numerous gardens, impinging on neighbours' privacy as well as blocking both daylight and the natural view, particularly given that the proposed dwelling is over two stories. This would undoubtedly affect the value of neighbouring properties. In addition, the dwelling house would also be out of keeping with the rest of the street, again due to its location adjacent to neighbouring gardens. Traffic on the road is already problematic and there is a high volume of traffic as well as numerous heavy goods vehicles. Any additional on street parking would exacerbate issues already faced concerning traffic flow, congestion and parking for existing residents. I feel that there is not the space to sustain further dwellings in this area as there is already congestion on a busy road, which is only going to get busier due to housing developments in the area as well as the proposed supermarket opening in the village. 115
Page 116
116
Page 117
117
Page 118
CDS Planning Local Review Body From: Gill Peden Sent: 12 April 2023 14:15 To: CDS Planning Local Review Body Subject: Re: LRB-2023-15 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Many thanks Audrey. In terms of further representation, I don't have a great deal to add. However, I will simply, but strongly, reiterate that the plans submitted, as they stand, would significantly overshadow/overlook our garden and home resulting in both a loss of light and a real and substantive loss of privacy. South Street is a traditional, attractive street, with a great deal of character, and the proposed development would most certainly not be in line with the character of the existing properties and would lead to the proposed small plot, being grossly overdeveloped. I am aware there is no support from neighbouring properties for this development, and there is real strength of feeling around this, for very valid and genuine reasons. Given the reasons, clearly outlined, that support the decision made by Perth and Kinross Council Planning and Development to refuse the application for planning permission to erect a dwelling house at 94 North Street, Milnathort, are not going to change in any way I cannot see any justification to reverse or amend this decision. Kind regards, Gill Peden 118
Page 119
1 Western Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5QF T +44 (0) 131 337 9640 Philip Neaves Director of Planning and Development F.A.O Lisa Simpson Perth & Kinross Local Review Body Perth & Kinross Council Council Building, 2 High Street, PERTH, PH1 5PH 15 May 2023 Dear Lisa Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town & Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation & Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Application Ref: 22/02168/FLL - Erection of a dwellinghouse, land 25 metres north of 94 South Street, Milnathort – Mrs M Stirling LRB-2023-15 We refer to the above and the representation received by the Local Authority 2nd May 2023 from Gill Peden. We note our understanding that no further representations have been received and the period for interested parties to submit representations has ended. Our comments on the representation received are noted below. The representation received outlines four points – these are considered in the order presented in the representation. Daylight / Overshadowing The Design Statement submitted in support of the application considers daylight and overshadowing in detail (page 21 and Appendix A ‘Daylight Study’). The Daylight Study submitted proves that there is no significant impact on the daylight to any neighbouring property. Based on the evidence presented in the Daylight Study, the Design Statement (page 21) confirms that ‘due to the proposed siting there is no impact on existing buildings’ in terms of a loss of daylight. This is accepted in the ‘Report of Handling’ prepared by the Planning Officer. The Design Statement also outlines the Appellant’s consideration of overshadowing to gardens and open spaces and refers to the guidance within BRE document ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – A Guide to Good Practice’. As noted in the Design Statement: The guidance advises that at least half of adjacent garden spaces should receive at least two hours of sunlight on 21st March. As shown on the daylight studies (captured 21st March at hourly intervals where the sunlight altitude is above 10°) the two properties affected (80 South Street and 86 South Street) receive in excess of the sunlight to open spaces recommended and are not significantly overshadowed by the proposed development. 119
Page 120
1 Western Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5QF T +44 (0) 131 337 9640 As shown on the proposed Daylight Studies there is no additional overshadowing to 86 South Street until 11am and from 1pm there is no additional overshadowing to 80 South Street. At times when overshadowing is introduced this is less than half of the associated garden space. We note that the ‘Report of Handling’ also confirms agreement with the above and states that daylight / sunlight issues for neighbouring garden ground have been addressed within the proposal and demonstrated in the Daylight Study submitted in support of the application. Privacy The Design Statement submitted in support of the application considers privacy in detail (pages 19-20). There is no loss of privacy to any property. There are no windows proposed to the west elevation (facing 80 South Street) and there are no windows, other than two high level rooflights (which do not result in overlooking), to the north elevation which faces 86 South Street. There are no windows to habitable rooms on the east elevation. All windows proposed to habitable rooms are located on the south elevation of the proposed dwelling and are located at least 9m from the associated boundary – this meets the requirements of the Local Authority’s ‘Placemaking Guidance’. It is accepted in the ‘Report of Handling’ that there are no privacy concerns. Character The representation received states that South Street is a ‘traditional, attractive street, with a great deal of character’ and raises concerns that the proposed development would not be in line with the character of existing properties. The Design Statement submitted in support of the application considers in detail the site context (page 9) and this has informed the proposed development. As highlighted in the Design Statement, and as visually evident along South Street, there are various styles and age of building which form the character of the site. The Design Statement also highlights (page 19) that typically there is a line of taller structures positioned close to the road with a further line of lower buildings set back from the road. The external finishes to the proposed dwelling reflect those typically evident along South Street (masonry walls, slate roofs) and the overall form and height of the building appropriate is to its proposed position within the site. We therefore consider the proposal to be appropriate within its context. Overdevelopment The proposal took into consideration overdevelopment concerns raised in the determination of a previous application and this was outlined in detail in the Design Statement submitted in support of this application (page 20). The design development considered The Perth & Kinross Council ‘Placemaking Guide’ (Adopted March 2020) which advises a minimum of 60 square metres for private space for a 1-2 bedroomed house and 80 square metres for house with 3 or more bedrooms. A private garden space of 122m² is provided to the proposed new dwelling (two bedroom) and a private garden space of 140m² to the existing dwelling (90 South Street - four bedroom). Both exceeding the 120
Page 121
1 Western Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5QF T +44 (0) 131 337 9640 recommendations of the local authority’s adopted ‘Placemaking Guide’ as outlined above. The garden spaces to each property also measure 9m (or more) in depth which is also in accordance with these guidelines. Please See Garden Space Diagrams (Page 20 of Design Statement) In terms of overall build / plot ratio the proposed new dwelling is 24% of its site area and the existing dwelling becomes 26% of its site area. As detailed within the Design Statement within the immediate surrounding area dwelling footprints generally consume around 25 - 35% of plot: 72 - 76 South Street - 36%; 82 South Street - 32%; 84 South Street - 25%; 86 South Street - 22%; 94 South Street - 22% The density of development is therefore consistent with the surrounding area. We believe that the above addresses all of the issues raised in the representation from the Interested party. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Your Sincerely Philip Neaves Philip Neaves Director 121
Page 122
122