Item 4(vi) LRB-2022-32
Perth and Kinross Council · 20 September 2022
Back to Local Review Body — 20 September 2022 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
4(vi) LRB-2022-32 LRB-2022-32 22/00013/FLL – Erection of a garage, land 15 metres north of 20 Greystane Terrace, Invergowrie INDEX (a) Papers submitted by the Applicant (Pages 603-626) (b) Decision Notice (Pages 629-630) Report of Handling (Pages 631-639) Reference Documents (Pages 615-617, 620 and 623- 624) (c) Representations (Pages 641-664) 601
Page 2
602
Page 3
4(vi)(a) LRB-2022-32 LRB-2022-32 22/00013/FLL – Erection of a garage, land 15 metres north of 20 Greystane Terrace, Invergowrie PAPERS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 603
Page 4
604
Page 5
605
Page 6
606
Page 7
607
Page 8
608
Page 9
Notice of Review Planning application ref: 22/00013/FLL Statement submission / information for consideration by review body In response to letter dated 31st March 2022, issued by David Littlejohn – Head of Planning Item 1 – reason for refusal The proposal is contrary to Policy 17 – Residential Area “over development of the site” The applicant contests – The size of the site is sufficient for the location of the garages as drawn as it affords clear access of 1m around all elevations of the proposed garage. Further the land directly behind the advised site location is also owned by the applicant, it is currently covered with trees / bushes providing screening to the rear effectively hiding / softening the presence of the garages. “is incompatible with the character and amenity of the area” The applicant contests – There are a number of garaged nearby / adjacent within Greystane Terrace that are of similar design / finish, hence the applicant has attempted to tie in with the established “character”. The drawings submitted at the time of planning identify the finish is to match adjacent structures. Please refer to marked up aerial view which shows the presence of other lock up garages within Greystane Terrace. “Furthermore, the proposal results in the loss of a small open area of open space which is considered to have some amenity value to the area.” The applicant contests – the statement “to have some amenity value” given that it retains an existing concrete platt / hardstanding which is largely overgrown with gorse / thorns and other invasive species, further the proposed site is currently fenced off preventing access, thereby there is no amenity value and actually represents more of an eyesore which the applicant wishes to change for the better by the use of a redundant gap site. With direct reference to Policy 17 of the Local Area Development Plan – the applicant contests that the planning submission accords with the desire under Policy 17 (a) where “infill residential development at a density which represents the most efficient use of the site whilst respecting its environs has been achieved, and also item 17(c) “Proposals which will improve the character and environment of the area of village.” Further with respect to the Perth Area Strategy (page 256) it identifies 3 strategic development areas – namely “North West Perth, Oudenarde and Invergowrie”, where it then also identifies, “in addition, the strategy firstly seeks to utilise brownfield land within settlements and secondly, land adjacent to existing settlements. (Refer to hand marked copy (attached)), again the applicant contests that the application accords within this policy statement. Further the applicant would draw the attention to the planning review body of an earlier planning submission for a 2 storey detached house site which was also refused, hence the current submission was seeking the best use of the site in absence of a house. Ref: 08/00492/OUT Continued.. 609
Page 10
Continued.. Item 2 – reason for refusal “The proposal is contrary to Policy 1A – Placemaking”… “as the development would not contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding environment. The design, scale and siting of the development does not respect the character and amenity of the place.” The applicant contests that the removal of an overgrown, under-used brownfield gap site which has an existing concrete hardstanding does indeed contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding environment”. Item 3 – reason for refusal “The proposal is contrary to criterion within Policy 1B… …as the proposed development does not create safe, accessible, inclusive places for people, which are easily navigable, particularly on foot as required by criterion (e). The garage will conflict with use of the adjacent footpath and will result in the significant loss of on street parking for adjacent dwellinghouses” The applicant applicants proposal accords with policy items 1B – (a) as it is provides a “coherent structure” Further the applicants proposal accords with policy items 1B – (c) – “The design and density should complement its surroundings in terms of appearance, height, scale, massing, materials, finishes and colours” all of which were addressed within the planning submission to tie in with adjacent structures yet remain softened by reference to the existing trees / shrubs the lie to the back of the proposed site. Further the applicants proposal accords with policy items 1B – (d) – “Respects an existing building line where appropriate, or establish one where non exists. Access, uses, and orientation of principle elevations should reinforce the street or open space. Further the applicants proposal accords with policy items 1B – (e) – insofar as a dropped kerb / footpath access is identified in line with the requirements of access planning as detailed within Perth & Kinross’s own guidelines. Further the current presence of a standard kerb bounded by uneven paving slabs is in itself an access issue and if anything the creation of a drop kerb access would enhance the accessibility. However what should be considered by the planning review body is the fact that the short section of return pavement which runs along the proposed front elevation of the garages leads nowhere, it terminates against a brick wall / garden boundary to the adjacent property. As such this raises the question as to whether or not any loss of accessibility is actually real, genuine or a complete misrepresentation of the truth. With respect to the potential loss of car parking to the adjacent dwellinghouses, the applicant argues that only one space would be affected where the proposed current access is shown as a standard parking space is 2.5 x 5m, thereby would encroach in part across the proposed garage elevation. However the suggestion that multiple spaces are compromised is misleading as any car would have to park nose to tail along the frontage which would then impact upon the access of the property to the immediate right of the proposed development when viewed face on. Continued… 610
Page 11
Continued… Response to item 3 – “Contrary to Policy 1B” However, the applicant does not require full 24 hour clear access, and as such the impact upon the adjacent dwelling would be minimal as the applicant wishes to create additional storage space for his private collections. At no point has there been any dialogue by the planning officer to discuss these concerns with the applicant to identify what (if any) the impact upon the adjacent property would be and if any mitigation could be identified. Item 4 – reason for refusal “The proposal is contrary to Policy 53C : Surface Water Drainage”… “as no information has been presented which indicated how surface water will be catered for on-site”. The applicant contests that this statement is factually incorrect as the application does identify that surface rainwater will be taken to a soakaway which is the preferred course of action when considering SUDS. Re: Page 332 – SUDS “A range of techniques for managing the flow of surface water run-off from a site by attenuation, settlement or treatment on site”. The applicant would also have expected the details of the soakaway to be fully described and detailed within the subsequent Building Warrant should planning have been approved. However again, no discussion with the planning officer has been had / query received as to the intent. We would remind the Local review body that the applicant owns the ground immediately to the rear and all the ground from that point following the Invergowrie Burn up to and including the boundary of Cedar Cottage, 28 Greystane Road, Invergowrie, hence the ability to provide suitable and appropriate drainage mitigation measures exist. Separate comments in respect to the Planning Department generally and historical issues relating to both the applicant and agent. Applicant: Site in question. There is currently a long-standing argument as to the presence, positioning and lack of notification on the creation of a footpath and bridge which cross the applicants land. Despite repeated attempts to get to the bottom of when it was created, by whom etc have fallen on deaf ears, the presence of this path / bridge & handrails serving both currently prevents the applicant from accessing the ground in question. There is a legal case in respect to burns to a child who came into contact with Giant Hogweed (taking access from the path formed / created by PKC) onto the applicant’s private property. Other property. Planning Ref: 07/00295/FUL affecting Nethermuir of Pittendreich, A longstanding disagreement with both PKC Planning Department and SEPA over the approval of multiple chicken sheds built at the above, adjacent to the farm owned by the applicant without any formal neighbour notification from planning despite in constituting a bad neighbour development. 611
Page 12
The presence of the sheds rendering the existing farmhouse uninhabitable and effectively sterilising the property of any potential development potential and value. Agent: Planning reference 03/02067/FUL in respect to fencing, the initial application being returned to the applicant as the red line around the site border wasn’t thick enough. Not that it wasn’t present, but not thick enough. Question for the panel – where does it define the thickness of the red line? Summary It is the view of both the Applicant and Agent that the Local Planning Department and / or elements within those departments are biased and prejudiced against the applicant and / or agent for reasons unknown and that irrespective to the completeness and appropriate application of planning guidelines accorded with, the department will seek to frustrate and refuse the application no matter what. With respect to the review of the Local Review Body / Panel, if in it’s review it decides that the planning submission in respect to the garages – 22/00013/FLL is still refused, then it is effectively ruling out any potential use and or benefit of the ground to the applicant / owner and as such dialogue should then be taken to the potential purchase of said ground at market value with the proviso that it shall remain in perpetuity in its current form / state and never developed by any other entity and / or person. 612
Page 13
"AYQ;SeQAf Q@AU\QBgQUN\PAWYAZAU=AVB\PAW;\P<YQ@NAQUXdAZ\QVUƒYABAY\VZdTT;Yg=VTTAU\Z€ 613
Page 14
"DbX=^nXDo ‹XCD`eXEpX`U=C[=?D`eU=b=UDcoXeWX`eWDc=_DcebDDeŠ"cXeDŽ‰D^D_D`ec_=b]DCX`>^mDoXeW$Ž>DX`UaeWDbU=b=UDcŠ 614
Page 15
615
Page 16
616
Page 17
617
Page 18
2/22/2022 Submission Summary https://www.eplanning.scot/ePlanningClient/CustomPages/ViewSubmittedForm.aspx 1/2 Home My Proposals Sharing My Account Logout 'Which Form?' Wizard Fee Calculator eDevelopment Services eDevelopment eBuilding Standards Success! Your application has been submitted! Submission Details This page contains a summary of the submission Download submission archive View Form PDF (opens in a new window) Online Reference: 100531288-008 Form: Post Submission Additional Documents Payment Method: Authority Name: Perth and Kinross Council Authority Address: Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street Perth PH1 5GD 618
Page 19
2/22/2022 Submission Summary https://www.eplanning.scot/ePlanningClient/CustomPages/ViewSubmittedForm.aspx 2/2 This website is maintained by The Scottish Government (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built- Environment/planning) | Accessibility (accessibilityhelp.aspx) | Site Map (Sitemap.aspx) | Privacy Notice (PrivacyNotice.aspx) | Terms and Conditions (TermsAndConditions.aspx) Supporting Documentation Title View Document Type Size 22 00013 FLL AFPP pg1 pdf View (opens in a new window) Attached 1.5 Mb 22 00013 FLL AFPP pg2 pdf View (opens in a new window) Attached 1.2 Mb 22 00013 FLL AFPP pg3 pdf View (opens in a new window) Attached 1.4 Mb 22 00013 FLL AFPP pg4 pdf View (opens in a new window) Attached 1.3 Mb 22 00013 FLL AFPP pg5_1 pdf View (opens in a new window) Attached 1.5 Mb 22 00013 FLL AFPP pg6 pdf View (opens in a new window) Attached 1.2 Mb Fees Item Cost Fee £0.00 Back To Proposal Summary Authority Telephone: Tel: 01738 475300 Authority Fax: Fax: 01738 475310 Authority Email Address: onlineapps@pkc.gov.uk Agent Name: Mark Brambles Applicant Name: Lindsay Brambles Location: Easting: 334682- Northing: 730585 Description: Redundant plot / existing hardstanding adjacent to 20 Greystane Terrace, Invergowrie, DD2 5RH 619
Page 20
620
Page 21
Proposed garages, Greystane Terrace, Invergowrie Supplemental information in support of planning reference 22/00013/FLL It should be noted that this section of pavement is largely unused as it is at the end of a culdesac and the right hand corner of the site terminates into a boundary wall / hedging. Excerpt from Google maps – showing extent of ‘pavement’ area in question. This is currently concrete slabs, not Hot Rolled Bitument as per the proposed standard to replace. 621
Page 22
Excerpts taken from Perth & Kinross planning portal – guidance for footpath alterations. Type B junction is similar to what would be intended, albeit the number of dropped kerbs would be 10 nr to account for the overall width of the proposed garage development of 1 single / 1 double garage. 622
Page 23
Proposed Garages –Supporting Statement The intentionistomakeuseofanexistingbrownfieldgapsite located within GreystaneTerrace to provide 3 new additional garages (1 double, 1 single). The sitehaslaidunused for several years and is currently overgrown with weeds and thornbushes. The proposed development will therefore tidy up this unsightly and unused area and provide necessary garaging for the applicant. Thereisanexistingconcreteplat / hardstanding which is obscured by the overgrowth,however this is largely the position of the proposed garage location. The intended wall finish will be to tie in with adjacent houses / garages, which is a roughcast / harled render. The adjacent property to the right has an external garage on the opposing side of the hedge, hence this will be cohesive in respect to same. The rear elevation of the proposed garage location is bounded by existing native broadleaf trees which will remain thereby softening the visual aspects from both front elevation and the rear when viewed from Alastair Souter Crescent to the east. 623
Page 24
X = Proposed site of garages 1. Bottom left hand existing garage block 2. Bottom righthand existing garage block <1 2> 624
Page 25
625
Page 26
626
Page 27
4(vi)(b) LRB-2022-32 LRB-2022-32 22/00013/FLL – Erection of a garage, land 15 metres north of 20 Greystane Terrace, Invergowrie PLANNING DECISION NOTICE REPORT OF HANDLING REFERENCE DOCUMENTS (included in applicant’s submission, pages 615-617, 620 and 623-624) 627
Page 28
628
Page 29
629
Page 30
630
Page 31
REPORT OF HANDLING DELEGATED REPORT Ref No 22/00013/FLL Ward No P1- Carse Of Gowrie Due Determination Date 21st April 2022 Draft Report Date 30th March 2022 Report Issued by JW Date 30 March 2022 PROPOSAL: Erection of a garage LOCATION: Land 15 Metres North Of 20 Greystane Terrace Invergowrie 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. SITE VISIT: In line with established practices, the need to visit the application site has been carefully considered by the case officer. The application site and its context have been viewed by a variety of remote and electronic means, such as aerial imagery and Streetview, in addition to photographs submitted by interested parties. This information has meant that, in this case, it is possible and appropriate to determine this application without a physical visit as it provides an acceptable basis on which to consider the potential impacts of this proposed development. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 631
Page 32
BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a garage on an area of open space at the western end of Greystane Terrace to the north of 20 Greystane Terrace in Invergowrie. Whilst the application site is located to the immediate north of 20 Greystane Terrace it is not linked in anyway to this dwelling and has been submitted separately by a third party. Following a discussion with the agent, the garage is proposed to be utilised for domestic purposes associated with another residential dwelling in the nearby vicinity and is not to be used for commercial purposes. The garage is proposed to occupy almost the entirety of the application site, being 7.8m in depth and 10.8m in length. The garage is proposed to have a monopitch roof design, extending to 4.1m at its highest point fronting onto Greystane Terrace on its eastern side and 2.4m at its lowest point on the western side. Two garage doors are proposed on the south east facing elevation and there is space within the garage to accommodate three vehicles. SITE HISTORY 08/00492/OUT - Construction of two storey detached dwellinghouse (in outline) – Application Refused PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION Pre application Reference: None 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. 632
Page 33
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.” 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 6: Settlement Boundaries Policy 14A: Open Space Policy 17: Residential Areas Policy 40B: Forestry, Woodland and Trees: Trees, Woodland and Development Policy 41: Biodiversity Policy 52: New Development and Flooding 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 Open Space Provision for New Developments Supplementary Guidance 2021 633
Page 34
CONSULTATION RESPONSES INTERNAL Transport Planning – concerns regarding loss of car parking and impact on use of footway EXTERNAL Dundee Airport Ltd – no objection REPRESENTATIONS The following points were raised in the 6 representations received: • Impact on visual amenity and character • Impact on residential amenity • Loss of car parking on street • Surface water drainage • Contrary to Development Plan • Loss of open space • Loss of daylight and sunlight • Over intensive development • Road safety concerns • Stability of land • Use of building The above issues are addressed within the appraisal section of the report below. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS Screening Opinion EIA Not Required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not Required Appropriate Assessment Habitats Regulations AA Not Required Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Not Required Report on Impact or Potential Impact eg Flood Risk Assessment Not Required 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 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. 634
Page 35
Planning Principle Invergowrie is identified as a settlement within the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019. The application site is identified as "white land" within the plan where Policy 17 applies. The placemaking policies 1A and 1B are also of relevance, these require proposals to contribute positively to the surrounding built and natural environment and to respect the character and amenity of the place. Policy 17: Residential Areas of the adopted Local Development Plan 2 is applicable, and this notes that small areas of private and public open space will be retained where they are of recreational or amenity value. The general principle of erecting a domestic garage within a residential area is considered to be acceptable, however there are concerns with the scale and design of the proposed garage, the loss of a small area of amenity open space and the impact which it may have on existing parking and access arrangements and these will be considered in more detail below. Policy 14A: Open Space Retention and Provision: Existing Areas, Policy 39: Landscape, 40B Trees and 60B Transport are also applicable Land Use and Placemaking The land use issue on this case is whether this amenity land/open space should be utilised for a domestic garage associated or whether it should be retained as amenity land for the wider public to benefit. While the site may not be afforded the same protection as zoned open space it is nevertheless a resource that has recreational and amenity value as it acts as an open area at the end of Greystane Terrace looking onto the woodland associated with the Invergowrie Burn. The area of open space, whilst currently overgrown is considered to contribute in a small way to the character and visual amenity of the area. Its loss is considered to be contrary to policy 17 which seeks to retain public open space where it is of recreational or amenity value. 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. There are a number of domestic garages located in the immediate vicinity, including to the immediate north of the site where a single garage is positioned which serves the 56 Greystane Terrace. The garage to the north is a small scale garage which is 635
Page 36
seen as a subservient structure to the main dwelling house to the north. Whilst the proposed garage is not associated with 20 Greystane Terrace it is visually associated with the dwelling and will be seen in context with the dwelling on approach to the western end of Greystane Terrace. Given the monopitch roof design of the garage and the fact that it occupies the entirety of the site frontage the east facing elevation onto Greystane Terrace will be overly dominant and result in a large scale oppressive structure from the public domain and from the dwelling to the south. The garage is of a scale and footprint which dominates the site and fails to respect the character and visual amenity of the area as required by policy. There also appear to be discrepancies with the layout of the site and how this correlates with the submitted elevations. The submission appears to suggest that the garage will occupy the site with a 1 metre buffer around it but the width of the site is 11.5 metres and the garage is 10.8m in width. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies 1A and B and Policy 17 of the LDP2. Road Safety and Transport The importance of movement within the environment is discussed in the Scottish Government's document on Designing Streets: A policy Statement for Scotland. This notes that:- Providing for movement along a street is vital, but it should not be considered independently of the street's other functions. The need to cater for motor vehicles is well understood by designers, but the passage of people on foot and cycle has often been neglected. Walking and cycling are important modes of travel, offering a more sustainable alternative to the car, making a positive contribution to the overall character of a place, public health, social interaction and to tackling climate change through reductions in carbon emissions. This issue is identified with criteria (e) of Policy 1B of the LDP2 which seeks to ensure that all buildings, streets and spaces should create safe, accessible, inclusive places for people which are easily navigable, particularly on foot. As mentioned above the site is located immediately adjacent to the footway at the corner of Greystane Terrace next to no.20. The footway is approximately 1.6 metres in depth and is located to the front of 16 to 20 Greystane Terrace. Given the location of the proposed garage any vehicle attempting to access the single garage at the southern end will struggle to gain access given that approximately 0.8 metres of the garage door would cover over this footway. This would mean that any cars accessing the single garage would have to mount the footway to gain access. This is not considered to be acceptable from a road safety perspective and will result in a conflict between pedestrians and vehicular movements. It is also noted that a number of the residents park perpendicular to the footway outside 16 to 20 Greystane Terrace and this proposal would reduce the amount of available on street car parking as the full kerb width is being devoted to a vehicle access. The loss of on street parking for these houses is not considered to be acceptable as these properties do not benefit from any off street car parking. It is also noted that garage is not intended for use for the adjacent houses so this loss of car parking is not being compensated for on site. 636
Page 37
The proposal is therefore contrary to policy 1B criteria (e) which seeks to ensure that all buildings, streets and spaces should create safe, accessible, inclusive places for people which are easily navigable, particularly on foot. The proposal is also contrary to Policy 1A as the scale and footprint of the development results in the loss of on street car parking for adjacent dwellings, detrimentally impacting upon their amenity. Residential Amenity Impacts on adjoining properties The formation of 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. Given the proposal is a garage there are not considered to be any overlooking concerns. Daylight/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. The scale of the garage may result in some overshadowing to the front garden ground of 20 Greystane Terrace but this is not considered to be significant. It is noted that concerns have been expressed by other neighbours further away from the site but the distance between the site and these properties is sufficient to negate any loss of daylight or overshadowing to these properties in accordance with the above 25 degrees rule. Stability of the Bank The stability of land upon which a development is to be erected is not a material planning consideration and therefore has no bearing on the assessment of this application. Impact on Existing Boundary Walls Any impact which the development may or may not have on existing boundary treatments would be a private civil matter between the parties involved and not a matter which the Planning Authority can take into account. 637
Page 38
Construction Impact Any impact from construction operations would be temporary and therefore this is not considered to be a significant issue in the assessment of the application. Drainage and Flood Risk The application form indicates that the site will make provision for surface water drainage. However, no information has been presented in the submitted plans which details how surface water run off from the building would be dealt with. Policy 53C of the LDP2 requires applications to detail how surface water would be catered for. Given the lack of information on how surface water drainage is to be catered for the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy 53C. Ecology The site is currently occupied by scrub bushes and trees which are not considered to have any significant ecological value. There is no evidence of protected species on this site. The proposal is therefore not considered to impact on protected species. Developer Contributions The Developer Contributions Guidance is not applicable to this application and therefore no contributions are required in this instance. Economic Impact The economic impact of the proposal is likely to be minimal and limited to the construction phase of the development. VARIATION OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 32A There have been no variations to the application. 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 adopted 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 adopted Development Plan. Accordingly the proposal is refused on the grounds identified below. 638
Page 39
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 and surrounding character as a consequence the development is incompatible with the character and amenity of the area. Furthermore, the proposal results in the loss of a small area of open space which is considered to have some amenity value to the area. The proposal is contrary to Policy 1A 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 design, scale and siting of development does not respect the character and amenity of the place. The proposal is contrary to criterion within Policy 1B of the Perth and Kinross Council Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as the proposed development does not create safe, accessible, inclusive places for people, which are easily navigable, particularly on foot as required by criterion (e). The garage will conflict with use of the adjacent footpath and will result in the significant loss of on street car parking for adjacent dwellinghouses. The proposal is contrary to Policy 53C: Surface Water Drainage of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) as no information has been presented which indicates how surface water drainage will be catered for on site. 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 02 03 04 05 639
Page 40
640
Page 41
4(vi)(c) LRB-2022-32 LRB-2022-32 22/00013/FLL – Erection of a garage, land 15 metres north of 20 Greystane Terrace, Invergowrie REPRESENTATIONS 641
Page 42
642
Page 43
643
Page 44
644
Page 45
Dr Scott Lilley (Objects) Comment submitted date: Fri 11 Mar 2022 If the erection of a garage were to take place as described in planning application 22/00013/FLL I would object. Such a large structure (4.08m tall) would significantly block sunlight from our back garden and the rear of our home. The west-facing position of our home, which lies northeast of the site, means that our conservatory and garden receive minimal sun in the afternoon or evening. This issue is exacerbated because our house is some metres below the ground level of the proposed garage on the opposing bank. Moreover, the opposing bank is already flanked on both sides by houses that occlude the sun. The garage would block the only area on the bank which permits light through. As such, the proposed garage would shield us from the sun in the morning, particularly in the spring and autumn. The bank itself obscures the mid- winter sun. With the garage in place, we would only be sure of sunlight around solar noon and only for part of the year. There are three major negative impacts of reducing the little sunlight we currently enjoy: i) This would seriously and negatively impact our quality of life and is especially damaging given the importance of sunlight in this latitude in terms of vitamin D deficiency and seasonal affective disorder. ii) In the past two years, we invested in our garden, building vegetable and flower beds, buying plants, hiring professional landscapers and gardeners and purchasing garden games for our young son. Removing light from our garden would reduce both light and warmth, making plant cultivation challenging and preventing our family from enjoying the space. iii) We anticipate a reduction in home resale value due to the degradation of our garden area through loss of light. Further, we have concerns about the stability of the bank to the rear of the proposed garage. There is a large tree stump rotting at the base of the bank and the supporting wall is very old. We are concerned that any additional rain runoff from the garage roof might adversely affect the bank. The proposed garage would significantly impact our quality of life. Thus we object to its construction. We strongly urge the council to withhold permission for such a large construction. 645
Page 46
646
Page 47
647
Page 48
648
Page 49
649
Page 50
650
Page 51
651
Page 52
652
Page 53
653
Page 54
654
Page 55
Comments to the Development Quality Manager on a Planning Application Planning Application ref. 22/00013/FLL Comments provided by Lachlan MacLean Project Officer – Transport Planning Service/Section Transport Planning Contact Details TransportPlanning@pkc.gov.uk Description of Proposal Erection of a garage Address of site Land 15 Metres North Of 20 Greystane Terrace Invergowrie Comments on the proposal The applicant is proposing to erect a three car garage on vacant piece of land at the end of Greystane Terrace. The vehicle access to the public road network cross the footway at Greystane Terrace. The applicant has advised that a distance of 1 metre will be provided on the side elevations of the garage to the neighbouring properties, but measuring the width of the plot of the site, the width of the plot is approximately 11.5 metres and the garage is a width of 10.8 metres, so this does not look like it can be achieved. The site plan shows that from the adjacent property boundary of 56 Greystane Road to the southern gable of the garage is 10.8 metres, therefore it is unclear how a 1 metre buffer is being provided, given the garage is 10.8 metres in width. Clarity to be provided on the plot width as the drawing supplied when scaled show the garage will not fit with the one metre buffer to adjacent properties. Notwithstanding the issue above, the scaled drawings show that there is a footway of approximately 1.6 metres to the front of the 16 to 18 Greystane Terrace, which would mean that any vehicle accessing the single garage will struggle to access the garage given that approximately 0.8 metres of the garage door would cover this footway. It is also noted that a number of the residents park perpendicular to the footway outside 16 to 18 Greystane Terrace and this proposal would reduce the amount of available on street car parking as the full kerb width is being devoted to a vehicle access. Transport Planning require further clarity for this application before this application can be supported. Recommended planning condition(s) Recommended informative(s) for applicant Date comments returned 16 March 2022 655
Page 56
656
Page 57
Mr Michael Money (Objects) Comment submitted date: Sat 19 Mar 2022 I strongly object to the application . We have lived at this address for 27 years and the cul de sac , which is at the rear of our house and adjacent to the intended site, has always provided a safe place for children to play. I would be concerned the building of the garages would cause neighbours cars to be displaced from their normal parking spaces and the additional vehicles causing an increase in traffic and dangers to younger children. 657
Page 58
658
Page 59
Mr Alasdair Bailey (Objects) Comment submitted date: Sun 20 Mar 2022 I wish to put on record an objection to this application. My reasons are as follows: 1. The homes to the south are down a slope, therefore this development will be level with their second storey and block light to the garage of number 20. 2. The plot currently gives a view out of the end of the road towards trees. In new housing developments, we require that developers provide such glimpses of nice views. To approve this application would therefore go against that policy. 3. There is concern locally that the development wouldn't be used for residential purposes and would instead be used for trade/commercial use which goes against policy. If this has to be approved, a condition requiring residential use rather than commercial/trade would be appropriate given the residential location. 4. The wide frontage of the development and wide drop kerb will significantly impact on residents' ability to park outside their houses therefore this application would therefore represent over-development of this planned suburban neighbourhood 659
Page 60
660
Page 61
FROM: Mr J & Mrs C McDermott, REF: LRB-2022-32 (Review of Planning Application 22/00013/FLL) ADDRESS: Land 15 metres north of 20 Greystane Terrace, Invergowrie PROPOSAL: Erection of Garage (Refused) Further to the Council’s decision relating to Planning Application 22/00013/FLL and the applicant’s request for a review we wish to provide further comments to the Local Review Body in support of the decision to refuse this application. We understand that our original objection document will be made available to the Local Review Body. We would draw attention to the submission from Transport Planning dated 16th March which was issued after we lodged our objection. The author declined to support the application on a number of transport related issues and also stated the following: “The applicant has advised that a distance of 1 metre will be provided on the side elevations of the garage to the neighbouring properties, but measuring the width of the plot of the site, the width of the plot is approximately 11.5 metres and the garage is a width of 10.8 metres, so this does not look like it can be achieved”. It would be interesting to hear the applicant’s response to this as it would seem to confirm that the decision to refuse because of overdevelopment was correct. In their Reasons for Refusal the Planning Dept made a positive case for retaining this small area of open land as it is considered to have some amenity value to the area. We agree that this site should remain undeveloped. We disagree that the site is an “eyesore” as has been stated, although the small fence at the front has partially collapsed and weeds from the site have been allowed to spread onto the public footpath. Nevertheless, the site is gradually becoming covered in plants and small trees which is improving its appearance and it offers a view of the trees above Invergowrie Burn which we believe improves the visual character of the area. We note that if the decision to refuse is upheld the applicant might consider entering into negotiations with the Council regarding the Council’s purchase of the land in accordance with Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. We would support this course of action as a change of ownership would remove any concerns about inappropriate development and allow ongoing upkeep of the site. The applicant has responded to the various reasons for refusal which we do not believe are sufficient to warrant overturning the Council’s Decision Notice. 661
Page 62
The applicant has also made an allegation that this and other historical decisions against him have been decided not by Planning considerations but because the Council and its officials have a personal animus towards the applicant. This is a serious matter but we question whether this review is the proper forum for it to be raised. We would hope that the Local Review Body would confine its considerations to purely Planning matters and refer the applicant to the relevant authorities to investigate any evidence of misconduct by Council office holders. Finally, because the proposed building is so much larger than nearby garages the applicant compares it to, doubts persist about its eventual use. If the Local Review Body does decide to overturn the Council’s Decision Notice we would request that it applies conditions to the development to allay concerns which could include: 1. That the unit will only be used for private garaging or storage. 2. That there will be no noise from machinery emanating from the building inconsistent with private garaging or storage, either by the applicant or any future tenant. 3. That the building will not be permitted to be used in the future for industrial or commercial activities. We look forward to the Local Review Body upholding the Council’s Decision Notice. Regards, Mr J & Mrs C McDermott 26th July 2022 662
Page 63
663
Page 64
664