Item 4(vi) LRB-2022-55
Perth and Kinross Council · 16 January 2023
Back to Local Review Body — 16 January 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
4(vi) LRB-2022-55 LRB-2022-55 22/01083/FLL - Extension to dwellinghouse and formation of raised terrace (revised design), Fermoyle, Glenfoot, Abernethy, PH2 9LS INDEX (a) Papers submitted by the Applicant (Pages 451-476) (b) Decision Notice (Pages 461-462) Report of Handling (Pages 463-468) Reference Documents (Pages 469-475) 449
Page 2
450
Page 3
4(vi)(a) LRB-2022-55 LRB-2022-55 22/01083/FLL - Extension to dwellinghouse and formation of raised terrace (revised design), Fermoyle, Glenfoot, Abernethy, PH2 9LS PAPERS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 451
Page 4
452
Page 5
453
Page 6
454
Page 7
455
Page 8
456
Page 9
457
Page 10
458
Page 11
459
Page 12
460
Page 13
461
Page 14
462
Page 15
REPORT OF HANDLING DELEGATED REPORT Ref No 22/01083/FLL Ward No P9- Almond And Earn Due Determination Date 28th August 2022 Extended to 28th September 2022 Draft Report Date 20th September 2022 Report Issued by DR Date 20th September 2022 PROPOSAL: Extension to dwellinghouse and formation of raised terrace (revised design) LOCATION: Fermoyle Glenfoot Abernethy Perth PH2 9LS 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 The application property is a 1½ storey dwellinghouse situated in the settlement of Glenfoot, to the west of Abernethy. Full planning permission is sought for: 1. the erection of an extension on the west (side) elevation of the dwellinghouse. The extension has two distinct sections. The main section is 1½ storeys in height; the roof height and the roof planes match those of the existing house; and the walls of the front and rear elevations are in line with those of the existing house. The second section is single storey; its roof is lower than that of the house and its walls are set back from those of the house. The roofs and walls of the extension will be finished in materials to match the existing house. 2. the formation of a raised terrace in the form of timber decking with a glass balustrade. This will be formed on the north (rear) elevation of the existing house and the proposed extension. This application is a revised design of a previous planning approval (ref: 22/00173/FLL). SITE HISTORY Planning application (ref: 22/00173/FLL) for ‘Extension to dwellinghouse and formation of raised terrace’, which was approved on 8 June 2022, is relevant to the assessment of the current application. Based on the originally submitted plans, the application (ref: 22/00173/FLL) would have been recommended for refusal. Following discussions with the applicant’s 463
Page 16
agent, the plans were revised to secure a development that better related to the character, appearance, and scale of the existing dwellinghouse. The revisions to make the application supportable were: 1. A narrow flat roof was added to the main section of the extension to allow the maximum height to be reduced by 0.25 metre. 2. The front and rear elevations of the main section of the extension were set back by 0.09 metre from the building line of the existing house. 3. The front elevation of the smaller section of the extension was set back by 0.24 metre from the front elevation of the main section of the extension. 4. A large single window on the front elevation of the extension was changed to two smaller windows. 5. The width of the decking was reduced so that it did not project beyond the westmost elevation of the proposed extension. The revisions were the minimum that were required to make the proposal acceptable. They were not as radical as had been hoped but were an improvement that helped to break up the mass of the overall development. In addition to the planning permission (ref: 22/0173/FLL), a building warrant (ref: 22/00476/DOM3) was approved on 08 September 2022 and the applicant’s agent advised the Building Standards Team that works were due to commence on 12 September 2022. Whatever the outcome of the current application, planning permission and a building warrant are already in place to allow the house to be extended and a terrace to be formed. It is highlighted that the original design of the extension (which had to be revised and which was not approved under 22/00173/FLL) was very similar to the design of the extension that is now under consideration: the ridge height of main section of the extension matched the existing roof, and the walls of the front (south) and rear (north) elevations were in line with the walls of the existing house. 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. 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). 464
Page 17
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 OTHER POLICIES Perth & Kinross Placemaking Supplementary Guidance 2020 CONSULTATION RESPONSES Scottish Water No response received REPRESENTATIONS No representations were received: ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS Screening Opinion EIA Not Required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not applicable 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 465
Page 18
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. Policy Appraisal Alterations and extensions to an existing domestic dwellinghouse are generally considered to be acceptable in principle. Nevertheless, consideration must be given to the scale, form, massing, design, position, proportions, and external finishes of the proposed development, within the context of the application site, and whether it would have an adverse impact upon visual or residential amenity. Assessment of the proposal against the relevant policies is provided below. Design, Layout and Visual Amenity The larger section of the extension has been designed to replicate original house. The roof heights and the roof planes of the extension match those of the existing house, and the roof of the extension will be clad in slate to match the existing. The walls of the front and rear elevations are in line with those of the existing house and will be rendered to match the existing. However, this is not the appropriate design solution for this property. The replication would result in the existing house and the main section of the proposed extension becoming one large solid mass and there would no distinction between the house and the extension. In addition, the replication would unbalance the proportions of the façade (south elevation) of the traditional style of the original house. Given the above assessment, the proposal fails to comply with the Placemaking Supplementary Guidance, which advises that extensions should be a subordinate addition in all respects. The proposed extension is not set back from the frontage of the building, resulting in a lack of subordination to the existing building. The roof ridge level of the extension is not lower than the existing building, resulting in a lack of subordination to the existing building and a lack of a separate identity to the extension. Due to its design and siting, the proposal does not respect the character and visual amenity of the existing dwellinghouse and is therefore contrary to Policy 1A: Placemaking of LDP2. Due to its massing, appearance, height and scale, the proposal does not complement its surroundings and is therefore contrary to Policy 1B(c): Placemaking of LDP2. (It is notable that, under the existing planning permission (ref: 22/00173/FLL), due to the lower height of the extension and the setting back of the walls of the extension from the walls of the house, the original house stands proud of the extension, and the house and extension read as separate masses. For these reasons, that 466
Page 19
application complied with the Placemaking Supplementary Guidance and with Policies 1A and 1B.) Despite the above, some elements of the proposal are acceptable. The smaller section of the proposed extension would be a subordinate addition. The windows on the front (south) elevation of the extension are traditional in proportion and replicate those on the original house. With a flat-roofed dormer, large windows and glazed doors, and the glass balustrade around the decking, the rear (north) elevation of the proposal is more contemporary in appearance; the rear aspect can afford to be more contemporary given its more secluded setting. The decking would not project beyond the side elevation of the proposed extension, and it would be located to the rear of the house and the extension; this would reduce the visual impact of the decking. Residential Amenity Given the floor area of the proposal in relation to the area of the application site, the proposal will not have an adverse effect on the residential amenity of the application property. Given the existing situation, the scale of the proposal and the distances involved, there are no concerns about overlooking or overshadowing of other residential properties. Roads and Access There are no road or access implications associated with this proposed development. Drainage and Flooding The property is served by a private supply. No drainage and flooding implications are anticipated with this proposed development. 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. PLANNING OBLIGATIONS AND LEGAL AGREEMENTS None required. DIRECTION BY SCOTTISH MINISTERS None applicable to this proposal. 467
Page 20
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. Conditions and Reasons 1. The proposed extension, by virtue of its design and siting, does not respect the character and visual amenity of the existing dwellinghouse. Approval would therefore be contrary to Policy 1A: Placemaking of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2. 2. The proposed extension, by virtue of its massing, appearance, height and scale, does not complement its surroundings. Approval would therefore be contrary to Policy 1B(c): Placemaking of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2. 3. The proposed extension, by virtue of its lack of subordination to the existing dwellinghouse, fails to comply with the Perth & Kinross Placemaking Supplementary Guidance 2020. Justification The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. Procedural Notes Not Applicable. PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 468
Page 21
469
Page 22
470
Page 23
471
Page 24
472
Page 25
473
Page 26
474
Page 27
475
Page 28
476
Page 29
4(vi)(b) LRB-2022-55 LRB-2022-55 22/01083/FLL - Extension to dwellinghouse and formation of raised terrace (revised design), Fermoyle, Glenfoot, Abernethy, PH2 9LS PLANNING DECISION NOTICE (included in applicant’s submission, pages 461-462) REPORT OF HANDLING (included in applicant’s submission, pages 463-468) REFERENCE DOCUMENTS (included in applicant’s submission, pages 469-475) 477
Page 30
478