Item 4(vi) LRB-2022-39
Perth and Kinross Council · 24 October 2022
Back to Local Review Body — 24 October 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-2022-39 LRB-2022-39 22/00394/IPL – Erection of a dwellinghouse (in principle), land 10 metres west of The Sycamore, Paterson Place, Longforgan, DD2 5HE INDEX (a) Papers submitted by the Applicant (Pages 509-518) (b) Decision Notice (Pages 521-522) Report of Handling (Pages 523-531) Reference Documents (Pages 515-517) (c) Representations (Pages 533-564) 507
Page 2
508
Page 3
4(vi)(a) LRB-2022-39 LRB-2022-39 22/00394/IPL – Erection of a dwellinghouse (in principle), land 10 metres west of The Sycamore, Paterson Place, Longforgan, DD2 5HE PAPERS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 509
Page 4
510
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 I9 TANT: Please read and follow the guid ance 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 MR D SMITH Address GOWRIE COTTAGE 79 MAIN STREET INVERGOWRIE Postcode DD2 5 E W Contact Telephone 1 Contact Telephone 2 Fax No E-mail* Agent (if any) Name NORMAN MACLEOD Address 18 WALNUT GROVE BLAIRGOWRIE Postcode PH10 6 TH Contact Telephone 1 07884177328 Contact Telephone 2 Fax No E-mail* namacleod@ aol.com Mark this box to confirm all contact should be through this representative: x * Do you agree to correspondence regarding your review being sent by e-mail? x Yes No Planning authority PERTH & K INROSS Planning authority’s application reference number 22/00394/IPL Site address Land 10 Metres West Of The Sycamore Paterson Place Longforgan Description of proposed development Erection of a dwellinghouse (in principle) Date of application 9TH MARCH 2022 Date of decision (if any) 26 T H APRIL 2022 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. 511
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 x 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 x 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 x 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? x Yes No 2 Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely, and without barriers to entry? x If there are reasons why you think the Local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here: 512
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. Other Planning applications have been approved for houses in Paterson Place such as 16 Z ERO ONE SIX SIX SIX FLL and 20/0045 7/FLL where it is the rear garden area of the existing properties on Main Street. Additionally, the applicant had previous approval for the erection of a fence and detached garage 17/01839/FLL which sub-divides the rear garden and associated land to the rear of 79 Main Street, therefore, the reason given for refusal is at odds with the previous approval to erect a fence and garage which are now built. To suggest in item 1 of the refusal that there is a loss of linear garden ground is simply inappropriate or the approval for the fence and garage should have been refused. If item 2 for refusal is fundamental, why was the planning application validated for assessment rather than this information being provided on refusal. Any application submitted in principle is to establish just that, that the proposal of developing the site is feasible or otherwise. If item 2 for refusal is the case the applicant should have been refunded the Planning fee. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the determination on your application was made? x 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. 513
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. LOCATION PLAN GOOGLE MAP EX ISTING BLOCK PLAN AND INDICATIVE PROPOSED BLOCK PLAN x x x 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 Norman A Macleod Date 24TH J U L Y 2022 514
Page 9
11/02/2022 79 GOWRIE COTTAGE, MAIN STREET, LONGFORGAN, DD2 5EW Scale: 1:1250 | Area 2Ha | Grid Reference: 331045,730086 | Paper Size: A4 Mapping contents © Crown copyright and database rights 2022 Ordnance Survey 100035207 SITE 515
Page 10
516
Page 11
517
Page 12
518
Page 13
4(vi)(b) LRB-2022-39 LRB-2022-39 22/00394/IPL – Erection of a dwellinghouse (in principle), land 10 metres west of The Sycamore, Paterson Place, Longforgan, DD2 5HE PLANNING DECISION NOTICE REPORT OF HANDLING REFERENCE DOCUMENTS (included in applicant’s submission, Pages 515-517) 519
Page 14
520
Page 15
521
Page 16
522
Page 17
1 REPORT OF HANDLING DELEGATED REPORT Ref No 22/00394/IPL Ward No P1- Carse Of Gowrie Due Determination Date 8th May 2022 Draft Report Date 25th April 2022 Report Issued by JW Date 25 April 2022 PROPOSAL: Erection of a dwellinghouse (in principle) LOCATION: Land 10 Metres West Of The Sycamore Paterson Place Longforgan 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 523
Page 18
2 BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Planning permission in principle is sought for the erection of a dwellinghouse within the rear garden ground and to the north of 79 Main Street in Longforgan. The application site is rectangular in footprint extending to 334 sqm and fronts onto Paterson Place. The application site is bound on three sides by existing residential development and to the north by Paterson Place. The site currently serves as part of the private garden ground of 79 Main Street, Longforgan. The site is located within and the boundaries form the edge of the Longforgan Conservation Area. 524
Page 19
3 There is a history of planning refusals on this site from 2000-2003 including an appeal dismissal by the Scottish Government DPEA which are detailed in the history section below. SITE HISTORY 01/01026/OUT - Erection of a house (in outline) – Refused 14 September 2001 02/00753/OUT Erection of house (in outline) at Refused 10th July 2002 03/01691/FUL Erection of single-storey dwellinghouse Refused 18 December 2003 and appeal subsequently dismissed by Scottish Government DPEA. PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION Pre application Reference: Not Undertaken 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. 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 2: Design Statements Policy 5: Infrastructure Contributions 525
Page 20
4 Policy 6: Settlement Boundaries Policy 17: Residential Areas Policy 28A: Conservation Areas: New Development Policy 40B: Forestry, Woodland and Trees: Trees, Woodland and Development 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 CONSULTATION RESPONSES INTERNAL Transport Planning – no objection Development Contributions Officer – condition recommended EXTERNAL Scottish Water – no objection Dundee Airport Ltd – no objection REPRESENTATIONS The following points were raised in the 8 representations received: • Road safety • Lack of car parking • Land ownership • Loss of privacy • Loss of daylight/overshadowing • Planning history • Effect on visual amenity • Contrary to Development Plan • Excessive height • Flood Risk 526
Page 21
5 • Inappropriate housing density • Inappropriate land use • Light pollution • Loss of open space • Traffic congestion • Impact on adjacent Conservation Area • Impact on trees The above issues are addressed within the appraisal section of this report. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS Screening Opinion EIA Not Required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not Required Appropriate Assessment Habitats Regulations Ap AA Not Required Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Not Submitted 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. In this instance, section 14(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 places a duty on planning authorities in determining such an application as this to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Section 64(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 is relevant and requires planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the designated conservation area. 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. Principle The site is located within the Longforgan 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 within the existing built environment. Proposals will be encouraged where they satisfy the criteria set out in the policy in particular criteria a) 527
Page 22
6 Infill residential development at a density which represents the most efficient use of the site while respecting its environs 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. They also require development to respect an existing established building line. The site is also located within the Longforgan Conservation Area where Policy 28A is applicable. This requires new development to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The application site extends to 334 sqm and is considered to form an important part of the linear, narrow garden ground of 79 Main Street and this long linear garden is a prominent feature of the character of the area and there are numerous other properties fronting onto Main Street with similar garden grounds extending to Paterson Place. The presence of linear gardens of this nature therefore forms part of the established character of this part of Longforgan and whilst these have been partly lost through some development, however some of these linear gardens remain giving reference to the historic character of the area. The site is considered to be one of these areas. Therefore approval of new development on this site would result in the loss of this linear garden ground feature to the detriment of the character of the area, contrary to policies 1A, B, 17 and 28A of the LDP2. Furthermore, Policy 28A relating to Conservation Areas also states that applications for planning permission in principle will not be considered acceptable without detailed plans including elevations, which show the development in its setting. Whilst an indicative layout has been provided, no detailed elevations, which show the proposal in its setting have been submitted. As such, it cannot be concluded that any development on the site will preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 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 which is referenced above. 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 this is an application in principle no detailed design or scale of dwelling has been submitted, however the principle of development is considered to be contrary to the Local Development Plan for the reasons outlined above. 528
Page 23
7 Residential Amenity The site is limited in its scale which means that there is very limited scope to position a dwelling on the site whilst respect the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. Given the limited depth and scale of the site it is likely that any dwelling on this site could result in overlooking and overshadowing concerns to adjacent properties. Furthermore the indicative site plan which has been provided indicates a garden depth of 7.5m which falls below the Council's Placemaking Standards as outlined within the Placemaking Supplementary Guidance and referred to in policies 1A and B of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019. This application is in principle and it is not possible to assess the impact on adjacent properties in any detail. The orientation of the house and its height, together with the window positions would be an important consideration should any detailed application be submitted. Nevertheless the principle of developing this site is considered to be contrary to the LDP2. Roads and Traffic The site is capable of being accessed from Paterson Place and any proposal will be subject to a further detailed application which will require to comply with the LDP2 and National Roads Development Guide in terms of parking provision, turning facilities, road safety and access. Transport Planning have been consulted on the application and offered no objection and consider the site to be capable of being accessed from the public road and that it could accommodate adequate parking within the site. Full details of the access arrangements can be assessed during any detailed application along with further consultation with PKC Transport Planning. The principle of development is considered to comply with Policy 60B of the LDP2 and the National Roads Development Guide. Drainage The application form indicates that the site is to connect to the public drainage system with surface water system catered for through a SUDS system. This is in accordance with Policy 53B and C of the LD2. The proposal for a sustainable urban drainage system is considered to be sufficient to cater for surface water drainage at the site. The specific location of the drainage system will require to be indicated in the detailed application and its location relative to neighbours and existing trees can be assessed further should any detailed application be submitted. Flood Risk The site is not considered to be at risk from flooding. Developer Contributions 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 529
Page 24
8 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 Longforgan Primary School. Therefore a condition should be attached to any planning permission which ensures that a contribution is paid should a detailed application be received. Land Ownership Any issues regarding land ownership are a private civil matter and have no bearing on the overall assessment of this application. 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. Reasons for Refusal The proposal is contrary to Policies 1A, 17 and 28A the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) which to seek to ensure that new development respects the character and amenity of the area and preserves and enhances the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal results in the loss of the linear garden ground of 79 Main Street which extends to Paterson Place and is considered to form an important part of the historic character of the Longforgan Conservation Area. Therefore development of the site would be of detriment to the surrounding built and natural environment and fails to enhance or preserve the character of the Longforgan Conservation Area. 530
Page 25
9 The proposal is contrary to Policy 28A: Conservation Areas of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) which, amongst other requirements, states that applications for Planning Permission in Principle in Conservation Areas will not be considered acceptable. The submission includes indicative plans which fail to provide detailed information regarding the design, materials and form of the dwelling to demonstrate that the dwelling will respect the character and appearance of the Longforgan Conservation Area and fail to show the development in its setting. 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 03 531
Page 26
532
Page 27
4(vi)(c) LRB-2022-39 LRB-2022-39 22/00394/IPL – Erection of a dwellinghouse (in principle), land 10 metres west of The Sycamore, Paterson Place, Longforgan, DD2 5HE REPRESENTATIONS 533
Page 28
534
Page 29
535
Page 30
536
Page 31
537
Page 32
538
Page 33
539
Page 34
540
Page 35
Mrs Karen Rees (Objects) Comment submitted date: Tue 29 Mar 2022 OBJECTION 29/03/2022 We wish to object to application Ref 22/00394/IPL on the grounds that : There are road access issues with building a house at this location and the associated parking. This part of the road is extremely narrow and the bin lorry struggles to get past, especially if there are cars parked. My driveway has already been damaged by the bin lorry having to cross it which has resulted in Perth Council having to pay for considerable repairs. The bin lorry and any other large vehicles would have to cross the access proposed for this house and over time heavy vehicles will cause damage. Parking is at a premium in Paterson Place and adding an additional household which would generate any number of additional vehicles is something the street is not equipped to deal with in its current form. Currently the grass at the access to this plot is cut by the Council, therefore if the applicant does not own this part of the ground how can this be shown as part of the whole plot and as the access? There are also road safety issues in that Paterson Place is regularly used as a 'rat run' by cars which don't adhere to any speed limit. The sight lines at this very narrow part of the road are obscured and it would be problematic, especially driving out onto the road. The proposed dwelling will be very close to our boundary, as well as the house at 1 Beech Hedges and as such will result in a considerable loss of light. Both the bedroom windows at these properties will be completely blocked as well as being overlooked. Also in broader terms we are led to believe that loss of open space, development of garden ground and overdevelopment are all generally against planning policy at this time. I trust this is sufficient. Kind regards Karen and Tony Rees 541
Page 36
542
Page 37
543
Page 38
544
Page 39
545
Page 40
546
Page 41
Mrs Leigh Hunter (Objects) Comment submitted date: Mon 04 Apr 2022 There is a narrowing in the street and no room for additional housing, parking, congested area and hazardous for residents. Also conservation area. 547
Page 42
548
Page 43
549
Page 44
550
Page 45
551
Page 46
552
Page 47
553
Page 48
554
Page 49
555
Page 50
556
Page 51
557
Page 52
558
Page 53
559
Page 54
560
Page 55
CDS Planning Local Review Body From: reeskaren Sent: 18 August 2022 21:29 To: CDS Planning Local Review Body Subject: RE: LRB-2022-39 Attachments: 20220807_180924.jpg; 20220807_180917.jpg; 20220807_180904.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from an external organisation. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. This message has been scanned and removed active content which may contain possible security risks to the council and yourself. Should you require the original message, phone the IT Technical Helpline on 76677 option 1. Good afternoon Further to your email of 05/08/22 I wish to comment further as follows: I have enclosed photographs showing the true reflection of parking within Paterson Place. These photos were taken from the entrance at the proposed plot, the gaps in the road are entrances to driveways. As previously mentioned this part of the road is narrow, vehicles can only park on one side of the road and at points they have to park partly on the pavement otherwise the road would be blocked to other vehicles. This is extremely concerning, especially as at the moment there are already 3 empty houses within Paterson Place (one being directly opposite the proposed site and does not have a driveway), this does not include a potential 4th which planning permission was granted for. When these houses are occupied this will inevitably generate more vehicles and further parking issues. Granting permission for another house would make an already overdeveloped area more congested and could potentially create another vacant property. Regards Karen Rees Tony Rees Sent from my Galaxy 561
Page 56
562
Page 57
563
Page 58
564