Item 4(ii) LRB-2022-58

Perth and Kinross Council · 13 February 2023
Back to Local Review Body — 13 February 2023 and its agenda

Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.

Original council PDF · Download plain text

Page 1

4(ii)
LRB-2022-58
LRB-2022-58
22/00773/FLL – Extension to dwellinghouse, 58 Fairies
Road, Perth, PH1 1LZ
INDEX
(a) Papers submitted by the Applicant (Pages 67-98)
(b) Decision Notice (Pages 101-102)
Report of Handling (Pages 103-108)
Reference Documents (Pages 109-126)
(c) Representations (Pages 127-132)
65

Page 2

Page 3

4(ii)(a)
LRB-2022-58
LRB-2022-58
22/00773/FLL – Extension to dwellinghouse, 58 Fairies
Road, Perth, PH1 1LZ
PAPERS SUBMITTED
BY THE
APPLICANT
67

Page 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. 
69

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:
70

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. 
71

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
W J BEATSON ARCHITECT
72

Page 9

PROPOSED EXTENSION TO HOUSE AT 58 FAIRIES ROAD PERTH PH1 1LZ
-
STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL TO
THE LOCAL REVIEW BODY AGAINST REFUSAL
OF PLANNING PERMISSION REF 22/00773/FLL
Introduction
The enclosed statements, photographs and images are submitted in response to the
comments and reasons made for justifying the Refusal of Planning Permission laid
out in the Perth & Kinross Council Planning Officer’s Report of Handling dated
21/07/22.
The conclusions and reasons given by the Perth & Kinross Council Planning Case
Officer under delegated powers dated 21/07/22 are as follows -
- - - - - - - - - - -
DELEGATED REPORT 
CONCLUSION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
The proposal is refused on the grounds identified below.
“ The proposed extension by virtue of its scale, height, design, imposing wrap around
effect and poor relationship to the existing dwellinghouse would appear visually
incongruous and out of keeping with the character and appearance of the host
building and surrounding area. “
“ The proposals as submitted would result in a cramped and over-intensive
development of the site to the extent that the space around the dwellinghouse and
between adjoining properties would be impinged to an unacceptable degree, to the
detriment of the amenity of the house and surrounding area.”
- - - - - - - - - - -
We strongly disagree with the foregoing Planning Officer’s reasons and conclusions
and aim to demonstrate in enclosed statements, photographs and illustrations why
those reasons for refusal are unfounded and completely unjustified.
- - - - - - - - - - -
 William James Beatson Dip Arch (Mackintosh) RIBA ARIAS Chartered Architect 2 Island View Dundee Road Perth PH2 7HS
 tel/fax. 01738 633659  ~  e-mail - wjbeatson@gmail.com
 Royal Scottish Academy Gold Medal for Architecture 1989 ~ Dundas and Wilson Architectural Award Commendation - 1989
P1
RIAS Energy Design Certification Scheme Approved Body
Approved Certifier of Design (Section 6 - Energy) Domestic
New Build Domestic Energy Assessor
- w j beatson - architect - 
73

Page 10

No.58 FAIRIES ROAD - EXISTING STREET VIEW A
No.58 FAIRIES ROAD - EXISTING STREET VIEW B
No.56 FAIRIES ROAD - EXISTING STREET VIEW 
 William James Beatson Dip Arch (Mackintosh) RIBA ARIAS Chartered Architect 2 Island View Dundee Road Perth PH2 7HS
 tel/fax. 01738 633659  ~  e-mail - wjbeatson@gmail.com
 Royal Scottish Academy Gold Medal for Architecture 1989 ~ Dundas and Wilson Architectural Award Commendation - 1989
P2
RIAS Energy Design Certification Scheme Approved Body
Approved Certifier of Design (Section 6 - Energy) Domestic
New Build Domestic Energy Assessor
No.58 FAIRIES ROAD -
EXISTING STREET VIEW
WHITE PAINTED COURSED
ASHLAR TO STREET VIEW
No.58 - WHITE PAINTED
COURSED ASHLAR TO
STREET VIEW
No.60 - WHITE PAINTED
ROUGHCAST TO STREET
VIEW
NOTE DISTANCE
BETWEEN NO.56 AND
NO.58
74

Page 11

NO.60 FAIRIES ROAD GABLE WALL - OVERLOOKING NO.58
NO.60 FAIRIES ROAD GARDEN VIEW TOWARDS NO.58
 William James Beatson Dip Arch (Mackintosh) RIBA ARIAS Chartered Architect 2 Island View Dundee Road Perth PH2 7HS
 tel/fax. 01738 633659  ~  e-mail - wjbeatson@gmail.com
 Royal Scottish Academy Gold Medal for Architecture 1989 ~ Dundas and Wilson Architectural Award Commendation - 1989
P3
RIAS Energy Design Certification Scheme Approved Body
Approved Certifier of Design (Section 6 - Energy) Domestic
New Build Domestic Energy Assessor
No.60 - WHITE PAINTED
ROUGHCAST GABLE
WALL -
NOTE 5.50M TO EAVES
LEVEL
NO.60 FAIRIES ROAD
GARDEN VIEW TOWARDS
EXISTING EXTENSION
No.58 -
3.50M TO EXISTING EAVES
LEVEL AND 36deg. ROOF
PITCH WITH NATURAL
SLATES
NO.60 FAIRIES ROAD
GARDEN VIEW TOWARDS
EXISTING EXTENSION
No.58 -
3.50M TO EXISTING EAVES
LEVEL AND 36deg. ROOF
PITCH WITH NATURAL
SLATES
75

Page 12

 William James Beatson Dip Arch (Mackintosh) RIBA ARIAS Chartered Architect 2 Island View Dundee Road Perth PH2 7HS
 tel/fax. 01738 633659  ~  e-mail - wjbeatson@gmail.com
 Royal Scottish Academy Gold Medal for Architecture 1989 ~ Dundas and Wilson Architectural Award Commendation - 1989
P4
RIAS Energy Design Certification Scheme Approved Body
Approved Certifier of Design (Section 6 - Energy) Domestic
New Build Domestic Energy Assessor
3D1 - EXISTING
NO.60 GARDEN VIEW TO
EXISTING EXTENSION
No.58 -
3.50M TO EXISTING EAVES
LEVEL AND 36deg. ROOF
PITCH.
SLATED ROOF AND WHITE
WEATHERBOARDING TO
MATCH EXISTING
3D1 - PROPOSED
NO.60 GARDEN VIEW TO
PROPOSED EXTENSION
No.58 -
4.30M TO EXISTING EAVES
LEVEL AND 36deg. ROOF
PITCH - (RAISED 800mm) 
SLATED ROOF AND WHITE
WEATHERBOARDING TO
MATCH EXISTING
3D2 - EXISTING
EXISTING AERIAL VIEW TO
No.58
SHOWING EXISTING ROOF
3D2 - PROPOSED
PROPOSED AERIAL VIEW
TO No.58
SHOWING PROPOSED
NEW ROOF HEIGHT
REMAINS LOWER THAN
EXISTING HOUSE ROOF
76

Page 13

 William James Beatson Dip Arch (Mackintosh) RIBA ARIAS Chartered Architect 2 Island View Dundee Road Perth PH2 7HS
 tel/fax. 01738 633659  ~  e-mail - wjbeatson@gmail.com
 Royal Scottish Academy Gold Medal for Architecture 1989 ~ Dundas and Wilson Architectural Award Commendation - 1989
P5
RIAS Energy Design Certification Scheme Approved Body
Approved Certifier of Design (Section 6 - Energy) Domestic
New Build Domestic Energy Assessor
3D3 - EXISTING
No.58 - WHITE PAINTED
COURSED ASHLAR TO
STREET ELEVATION
No.60 - WHITE PAINTED
ROUGHCAST TO STREET
ELEVATION
3D3 - PROPOSED
No.58 - WHITE PAINTED
COURSED ASHLAR TO
STREET ELEVATION
No.60 - WHITE PAINTED
ROUGHCAST TO STREET
ELEVATION
3D4 - EXISTING
No.58 - WHITE PAINTED
COURSED ASHLAR TO
STREET ELEVATION
No.60 - WHITE PAINTED
ROUGHCAST TO STREET
ELEVATION
3D4 - PROPOSED -
No.58 EXTENSION SITS
COMFORTABLY WITHIN
THE STREET ELEVATION
No.60 REMAINS THE
DOMINANT BUILDING
77

Page 14

 William James Beatson Dip Arch (Mackintosh) RIBA ARIAS Chartered Architect 2 Island View Dundee Road Perth PH2 7HS
 tel/fax. 01738 633659  ~  e-mail - wjbeatson@gmail.com
 Royal Scottish Academy Gold Medal for Architecture 1989 ~ Dundas and Wilson Architectural Award Commendation - 1989
P6
RIAS Energy Design Certification Scheme Approved Body
Approved Certifier of Design (Section 6 - Energy) Domestic
New Build Domestic Energy Assessor
3D5 - EXISTING
No.60 IS THE DOMINANT
BUILDING -
NOTE DISTANCES
BETWEEN Nos.56/58 AND
58/60
3D5 - PROPOSED - 
No.58 EXTENSION SITS
COMFORTABLY WITHIN
THE STREETSCAPE
No.60 IS THE DOMINANT
BUILDING
NOTE DISTANCES
BETWEEN Nos.56/58 AND
Nos.58/60 REMAIN EQUAL
78

Page 15

STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
The following statements are submitted in support of this Appeal in response to the
Planning Officer’s comments made under the paragraph headings contained in the
Delegated Report of Handling dated 21 July 2022 which are identified as follows -
Perth & Kinross Council Planning Officer - “PKC RoH“ -
W J Beatson Architect - “WJB Architect” -
- - - - - - - - - - -
“PKC RoH“ -
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 are visible
from the street and 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.”
“WJB Architect” -
1. It is quite lazy and irresponsible for a planning officer to believe that a simple
“drive-by” or “streetview” can provide sufficient evidence to determine a planning
application of such importance.
2. The latest “Streetview” images of Fairies Road referred to are dated 2009 and are
distorted views captured by wide angle “fish-eye” lenses for the purposes only to
create street images and should not be relied upon for planning assessments.
3. It is not clear where “photographs submitted by interested parties” have come from
as the Report makes no references to the actual source.
- - - - - - - - - - -
“PKC RoH“ -
PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION
“Pre-Application Reference: 21/00331/PREAPP raised concerns with enlargement
proposals. The plans forwarded have not addressed all of the concerns or issues
raised.”
“WJB Architect” -
1. We strongly refute that we have not addressed every the concerns raised
previously in the Pre-Application Ref.21/00331/PREAPP as we listed them in the
Planning Design Statement submitted with the Planning Application
Ref.22/00773/FLL together with all relevant drawings.
- - - - - - - - - - -
 William James Beatson Dip Arch (Mackintosh) RIBA ARIAS Chartered Architect 2 Island View Dundee Road Perth PH2 7HS
 tel/fax. 01738 633659  ~  e-mail - wjbeatson@gmail.com
 Royal Scottish Academy Gold Medal for Architecture 1989 ~ Dundas and Wilson Architectural Award Commendation - 1989
P7
RIAS Energy Design Certification Scheme Approved Body
Approved Certifier of Design (Section 6 - Energy) Domestic
New Build Domestic Energy Assessor
79

Page 16

“PKC RoH“ -
OTHER POLICIES
“Perth & Kinross Council Placemaking Guide 2020: Technical Guidance Householder
Applications. Advises that extensions should respect the shape, scale and proportions
of the existing building and relate to the roof pitch and original building depth. Further,
that an extension should be a subordinate addition in all respects and of a depth
which respects traditional building forms and alterations should fit in with the local
street character.”
“WJB Architect” -
1. We very strongly contend that the proposed extension does respect the shape,
scale and proportions of the existing building and relates sympathetically to the
roof pitch and original building depth. The extension is very much not the
dominant element but instead compliments the existing dwelling by use of white
painted ashlar stone and weatherboard cladding to match the existing house. The
proposed street elevations submitted with this appeal clearly demonstrate that the
proposals are sympathetic to the local street character and compliment the
existing house (see attached drawings 536/57 and 59 and 3D1 - 3D5)
2. It is notable that no objections or representations were received from Consultees
or from any neighbours.
- - - - - - - - - - -
“PKC RoH“ -
Policy Appraisal
“As the property is located within the defined settlement boundary, key policy
considerations seek to ensure that new development is in keeping with the
surrounding area and does not result in any adverse impacts. In this instance the
proposals are considered unsuitable in terms of scale, massing, form and design and
will have a detrimental impact upon established amenity levels.”
“WJB Architect” -
1. The street elevation drawings 536/57 and 59, and images 3D1 - 3D5 clearly show
that the “scale, massing, form and design” are perfectly sympathetic and
compatible with existing and have absolutely no detrimental impact upon existing
levels of amenity.
- - - - - - - - - - -
“PKC RoH“ -
Layout, Design and Visual Amenity
“ The property has been subject to various past alterations and has likely reached its
limit of acceptable development. A rear addition which is half the depth of the original
house has been created which extends past the northern gable of the house to within
1 metre of the boundary. The setback nature of the addition and open, ground floor,
carport type structure of the northern section, helps to mitigate its impact. A number of
dormer windows have been installed and the roofspace has been converted to
provide 2 additional bedrooms and an office space.”
 William James Beatson Dip Arch (Mackintosh) RIBA ARIAS Chartered Architect 2 Island View Dundee Road Perth PH2 7HS
 tel/fax. 01738 633659  ~  e-mail - wjbeatson@gmail.com
 Royal Scottish Academy Gold Medal for Architecture 1989 ~ Dundas and Wilson Architectural Award Commendation - 1989
P8
RIAS Energy Design Certification Scheme Approved Body
Approved Certifier of Design (Section 6 - Energy) Domestic
New Build Domestic Energy Assessor
80

Page 17

“WJB Architect” -
1. It is unclear whether the planning officer is referring to the existing house
extension or the proposed house extension?
2. The existing house has only two first floor bedrooms and the existing office space
is contained outwith the main house in the extension ancillary to the main house
only accessible by way of an external stair and not directly from the main house.
3. It is subjective whether it is “likely” that the acceptable limit of development has
already been reached. The proposals will require removal of the existing
previously constructed extension to allow for a replacement which is explained
clearly in the Planning Design Statement submitted with the planning application.
- - - - - - - - - - -
“PKC RoH“ -
“ The current proposals will effectively more than double the original accommodation
and result in a large, imposing, mansard type roof with dominant flat roof section and
lantern detail. The rear aspect of the roof will overhang the building line to create a
covered area which will feature a steeper roof pitch. A double garage will be formed,
just shy of the main frontage. Additional dormer roof windows and skylights will be
installed with the roof. The north facing, side elevation, will extend to over 14 metres in
depth within 1 metre of the boundary. The access door at the side will contain an open
sided canopy type structure that is about 30cm from the boundary. The roof detailing
and eaves height on this side of the extension is different, given the proximity to the
boundary.”
“WJB Architect” -
Several of those foregoing points need to be addressed -
1. It is a gross exaggeration and very misleading to say the accommodation will be
more than doubled.
2. The existing accommodation contains 5 ground floor rooms and 2 first floor
bedrooms rooms plus the ancillary office space making a total of 8 rooms.
3. The proposed alterations and extension will contain one additional ground floor
room and one additional first floor room making a total of 10 rooms which does not
add up to a total of 16 rooms suggested.
4. The Planning Design Statement submitted with the planning application
Ref.22/00773/FLL clearly explains that the existing accommodation is a very
unsatisfactory arrangement for a young family. It is the existing accommodation
that is disjointed and dysfunctional and the design strategy and purpose of the
new extension is to make all of the accommodation accessible for the whole family
from within the main house.
5. The rear west elevation roof is not a “mansard roof” by any definition and the use
of that terminology is very misleading. A mansard roof has a lower pitch of 70deg
with the upper top pitch of at least 30deg. Therefore it must be strongly
emphasised that all roofs will have a pitch of 36deg. to match the existing house
except only for the rear enclosed garden elevation where the roof pitch of 45deg.
provides more comfortable headroom within the rear first floor bedrooms. A 9deg.
difference is not perceptible from any view point around the house.
6. The flat roof cannot possibly be considered “dominant” as it cannot be seen from
any viewpoint which renders that argument irrelevant in the context of this
 William James Beatson Dip Arch (Mackintosh) RIBA ARIAS Chartered Architect 2 Island View Dundee Road Perth PH2 7HS
 tel/fax. 01738 633659 ~ e-mail - wjbeatson@gmail.com
 Royal Scottish Academy Gold Medal for Architecture 1989 ~ Dundas and Wilson Architectural Award Commendation - 1989
P9
RIAS Energy Design Certification Scheme Approved Body
Approved Certifier of Design (Section 6 - Energy) Domestic
New Build Domestic Energy Assessor
81

Page 18

planning application as it has no impact whatsoever upon private amenity and
therefore cannot be detrimental to the existing levels of amenity.
7. It should be noted that the depth of the extension has already been established by
the existing house extension and it is only the vacant area at the north side of the
house - an area of only 40sq.m - which is to be infilled.
- - - - - - - - - - -
“PKC RoH“ -
“Overall, the changes are substantial and will cumulatively appear visually disjointed,
top heavy and lacking any uniformity or integration with the host unit. The proposals
by reason of their excessive scale and proportions will engulf what remains of the
original bungalow and erode its distinctive character and charm, to the detriment of
the wider street scene.”
“WJB Architect” -
1. The foregoing statements are completely unjustified as the attached street
elevations 536/57 and 59 and images 3D1 - 3D5 clearly illustrate that the opposite
is true and completely refute these statements.
- - - - - - - - - - -
“The development proposals are not subordinate to the existing house and would be
incongruous and overbearing, to the detriment of the visual amenity and character of
the application site and environs. A suitable compromise may be achieved if a revised
and substantially reduced extension was considered. Cognisance should be given
however that some sites – for whatever reason, have limitations which restrict their
redevelopment potential.”
“WJB Architect” -
1. The attached street elevations Drgs.536/57 and 59 and images 3D1 - 3D5 clearly
illustrate that the proposals are complimentary to the existing house and its
neighbours.
2. 3D5 shows that the original bungalow with room-in-roof still retains its original
identity and character with projecting bay windows and large traditional roof
dormer window.
3. The proposed new extension is sympathetic to the host dwelling with a more
modest room-in-roof dormer window to match the main roof dormer and the double
garage doors at ground level draw the eye down to emphasise the reduced scale
of the extension.
4. We enclose for the attention of the Review Body the drawing
“06_00038_FUL-PART_PLAN-613755” which was the subject of a planning
application approved in January 2006 for extensions to a bungalow not far from
Fairies Road at 7 Murray Place Perth. The issues raised in the refusal of our
planning application seemingly did not apply to this existing 5 apartment bungalow
converted into a two-storey dwelling with 10 rooms, e.g. street frontage, extension
not subordinate to host building, overbearing east elevation towering over its
neighbour across the boundary less than 1.0m at the extension etc, etc,
- - - - - - - - - - -
 William James Beatson Dip Arch (Mackintosh) RIBA ARIAS Chartered Architect 2 Island View Dundee Road Perth PH2 7HS
 tel/fax. 01738 633659 ~ e-mail - wjbeatson@gmail.com
 Royal Scottish Academy Gold Medal for Architecture 1989 ~ Dundas and Wilson Architectural Award Commendation - 1989
P10
RIAS Energy Design Certification Scheme Approved Body
Approved Certifier of Design (Section 6 - Energy) Domestic
New Build Domestic Energy Assessor
82

Page 19

“PKC RoH“ -
Residential Amenity
“Any new development which is large in scale or set close to the boundary is likely to
appear dominant and oppressive in nature and has the potential to impact on
established privacy and daylight levels.”
“ In this instance a shadow cast assessment was not requested given the lack of any
windows within the gable of the nearby house and to avoid the applicant incurring
more costs, given that the proposals would not be supported for other reasons.”
“WJB Architect” -
1. We must refer again to the enclosed drawing “06_00038_FUL-PART_PLAN-613755”
which received planning permission in January 2006 for extensions to a bungalow
at 7 Murray Place Perth and must question the consistency of the planning
department.
2. The proposed development is not large in scale, is not set too close to the
boundary, is not dominant and oppressive in nature and does impact on
established privacy and daylight levels.”
- - - - - - - - - - -
“PKC RoH“ -
“Plans indicate that there is currently 7 metres of space between the applicants’ house
(as built) and the neighbouring property to the north. Infilling the driveway area will
result in an oppressive elevation, mostly devoid of any architectural detailing within
close proximity to the boundary. This will breach guidelines which suggest that
windows should be positioned a minimum of 9 metres from the boundary to protect
privacy levels. The works will as a result, impact negatively on the character and
amenity of the area and the sense of setting that the units within Fairies Road sit
within spacious plots “
“WJB Architect” -
1. The “7 metres of space” referred to is a relatively small vacant space which will
become occupied by the proposed extension with garage at ground level.
2. The proposed north elevation mirrors the elevation and details of the gable wall of
the house at No.60 shown in the photos attached at the beginning of this report.
The achitectural details for the proposed gable wall is shown in the drawings to
have coursed ashlar stone quoins, white painted roughcast (as No.60) and white
weatherboarding to match the existing extension. Architectural detailing also
includes a traditional open porch with glazed roof covering an entrance doorway.
3. Two new windows are shown on the north elevation towards the rear of the
extension enclosed behind a new 2.0m high screen fence which we would have
thought were acceptable but can readily be deleted.
- - - - - - - - - - -
“PKC RoH“ -
“The proposed development also raises concerns in terms of its excessive footprint
and the detrimental impact that will have on the established building pattern in the
area. While the existing usable areas of private amenity space are sufficient for the
needs of the already enlarged household, the development will impact negatively on
 William James Beatson Dip Arch (Mackintosh) RIBA ARIAS Chartered Architect 2 Island View Dundee Road Perth PH2 7HS
 tel/fax. 01738 633659  ~  e-mail - wjbeatson@gmail.com
 Royal Scottish Academy Gold Medal for Architecture 1989 ~ Dundas and Wilson Architectural Award Commendation - 1989
P11
RIAS Energy Design Certification Scheme Approved Body
Approved Certifier of Design (Section 6 - Energy) Domestic
New Build Domestic Energy Assessor
83

Page 20

the current facility and result in a cramped appearance, as viewed from the public
street.”
“WJB Architect” -
1. The foregoing statement is completely unjustified. The existing roof plan “footprint”
is 190sq.m and the proposed roof plan after extension will be 230sq.m - an
increase of 40sq.m. The plot area at No.58 Fairies Road is 757sq.m therefore the
existing footprint/plot has a ratio of 23% and the proposed footprint/plot ratio after
extension will be 30% - an increase of 7% in the footprint/plot ratio.
2. Fairies Road and the Burghmuir district in general contains a multitude of different
house types and so it is quite wrong to suggest there is an established defined
building pattern in the area.
3. The attached street elevations Drgs.536/57 and 59 and images 3D1 - 3D5 views
completely contradict the planning officer’s view that .... “the development will
impact negatively on the current facility and result in a cramped appearance, as
viewed from the public street.”
- - - - - - - - - - -
“PKC RoH“ -
Landscape
“The domestic scale and nature of the proposal does not raise any landscape impact
issues and the impact would be limited to the streetscape.”
Roads and Access
“There are no road or access implications associated with this proposed
development.”
Drainage and Flooding
“There are no drainage and flooding implications associated with this proposed
development.”
“WJB Architect” -
1. All of the above are noted and accepted
- - - - - - - - - - -
“PKC RoH“ -
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.
- - - - - - - - - - -
 William James Beatson Dip Arch (Mackintosh) RIBA ARIAS Chartered Architect 2 Island View Dundee Road Perth PH2 7HS
 tel/fax. 01738 633659 ~ e-mail - wjbeatson@gmail.com
 Royal Scottish Academy Gold Medal for Architecture 1989 ~ Dundas and Wilson Architectural Award Commendation - 1989
P12
RIAS Energy Design Certification Scheme Approved Body
Approved Certifier of Design (Section 6 - Energy) Domestic
New Build Domestic Energy Assessor
84

Page 21

CONCLUSION AND REASONS FOR APPEAL
We have carefully considered the planning officer’s statements and comments and
feel that the issues and concerns identified as reasons for refusal are unjustified. The
majority of these issues bear a strong similarity to the issues raised in Pre-Planning
Enquiry Report dated 21 June 2021 which were previously addressed and explained
in the Planning Design Statement submitted with the application.
We strongly disagree with the planning officer’s conclusion “ The proposed extension
. . . scale, height, design, imposing wrap around effect and poor relationship to the
existing dwellinghouse would appear visually incongruous” . . . . . “ and out of keeping
with the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area. “ and
that “ The proposals as submitted would result in a cramped and over-intensive
development of the site to the extent that the space around the dwellinghouse and
between adjoining properties would be impinged to an unacceptable degree, to the
detriment of the amenity of the house and surrounding area.”
We believe that planning application merited approval for the following reasons-
1. The street elevations Drgs.536/57 and 59 and images 3D1 - 3D5 clearly illustrate
that the proposals are sympathetic, complimentary and clearly subordinate to the
host building and its neighbours.
2. Illustration 3D5 shows that the original bungalow with room-in-roof still retains its
original strong identity with its strong frontage, bold stone-built projecting bay
windows and large traditional dormer window.
3. The proposed extension is sympathetic to the host building by incorporating a
similar but modest traditional room-in-roof dormer window complimentary to the
main roof dormer.
4. The double garage doors at ground level and dormer window above are clearly
subordinate in scale alongside the host building drawing the eye downwards on
that side.
5. The result is an asymmetrical composition which is very pleasing to the eye where
the symmetry of the host building is still clearly evident and external finishes of
white painted coursed ashlar stonework. In this context the extension could easily
be assumed as a part of the original house.
6. The criticism that the proposals are “cramped, over-intensive and oppressive”
cannot be compared to the planning application previously granted for 7 Murray
Place Perth - REF “06_00038_FUL-PART_PLAN-613755” for a 2-storey extension
towering over its neighbour less than 1.0m from the nboundary.
7. We should expect consistency from the Perth & Kinross Council so that all
planning applications are treated equally which does not appear to have
happened in this case.
W J Beatson Architect
 William James Beatson Dip Arch (Mackintosh) RIBA ARIAS Chartered Architect 2 Island View Dundee Road Perth PH2 7HS
 tel/fax. 01738 633659 ~ e-mail - wjbeatson@gmail.com
 Royal Scottish Academy Gold Medal for Architecture 1989 ~ Dundas and Wilson Architectural Award Commendation - 1989
P13
RIAS Energy Design Certification Scheme Approved Body
Approved Certifier of Design (Section 6 - Energy) Domestic
New Build Domestic Energy Assessor
85

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

4(ii)(b)
LRB-2022-58
LRB-2022-58
22/00773/FLL – Extension to dwellinghouse, 58 Fairies
Road, Perth, PH1 1LZ
PLANNING DECISION NOTICE
REPORT OF HANDLING
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 
99

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

REPORT OF HANDLING
DELEGATED REPORT
Ref No 22/00773/FLL
Ward No P10- Perth City South
Due Determination Date 24th June 2022
Draft Report Date 15th July 2022
Report Issued by ab Date 21/7/22
PROPOSAL: Extensions to dwellinghouse
LOCATION: 58 Fairies Road Perth PH1 1LZ 
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 are visible
from the street and 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
103

Page 40

BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
Planning application relates to a long established, detached, “Beat Builders” bungalow
of distinctive hipped roofed period styling, which is located on the western side of
Fairies Road in Perth. 
Plans indicate that the interior layout of the property is to be altered in part and the
house enlarged to create a new pool room, entrance hall and double garage at ground
floor level, with 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms above. Essentially the “courtyard”
driveway area on the northern side of the house will be infilled to create a residential
unit with a larger, square footprint and substantially different roof profile.
SITE HISTORY
04/02516/FUL Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse 22 February 2005
Application Approved. 08/01067/FUL Alterations and extension to dormer 22 August
2008 Application Approved
PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION
Pre-Application Reference: 21/00331/PREAPP raised concerns with enlargement
proposals. The plans forwarded have not addressed all of the concerns or issues
raised.
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.  
104

Page 41

DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Development Plan comprises the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan 2016-2036
and the Perth & 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 17: Residential Areas 
OTHER POLICIES 
Perth & Kinross Council Placemaking Guide 2020: Technical Guidance Householder
Applications. 
Advises that extensions should respect the shape, scale and proportions of the existing
building and relate to the roof pitch and original building depth. Further, that an
extension should be a subordinate addition in all respects and of a depth which
respects traditional building forms and alterations should fit in with the local street
character.
CONSULTATION  RESPONSES
Transport Planning and Scottish Water have made comment, no concerns have been
raised.
REPRESENTATIONS
None received.
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
Screening Opinion Not Required
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not applicable
Appropriate Assessment Not Required
Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Not Required
Report on Impact/Potential Impact eg Flood Risk Assessment Not Required
105

Page 42

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.
Policy Appraisal
As the property is located within the defined settlement boundary, key policy
considerations seek to ensure that new development is in keeping with the surrounding
area and does not result in any adverse impacts. In this instance the proposals are
considered unsuitable in terms of scale, massing, form and design and will have a
detrimental impact upon established amenity levels.
Layout, Design and Visual Amenity
The property has been subject to various past alterations and has likely reached its limit
of acceptable development. A rear addition which is half the depth of the original house
has been created which extends past the northern gable of the house to within 1 metre
of the boundary. The setback nature of the addition and open, ground floor, carport type
structure of the northern section, helps to mitigate its impact. A number of dormer
windows have been installed and the roofspace has been converted to provide 2
additional bedrooms and an office space.
The current proposals will effectively more than double the original accommodation and
result in a large, imposing, mansard type roof with dominant flat roof section and lantern
detail. The rear aspect of the roof will overhang the building line to create a covered
area which will feature a steeper roof pitch. A double garage will be formed, just shy of
the main frontage. Additional dormer roof windows and skylights will be installed with
the roof. The north facing, side elevation, will extend to over 14 metres in depth within 1
metre of the boundary. The access door at the side will contain an open sided canopy
type structure that is about 30cm from the boundary. The roof detailing and eaves
height on this side of the extension is different, given the proximity to the boundary.
Overall, the changes are substantial and will cumulatively appear visually disjointed, top
heavy and lacking any uniformity or integration with the host unit. The proposals by
reason of their excessive scale and proportions will engulf what remains of the original
bungalow and erode its distinctive character and charm, to the detriment of the wider
streetscene.
The development proposals are not subordinate to the existing house and would be
incongruous and overbearing, to the detriment of the visual amenity and character of
the application site and environs. A suitable compromise may be achieved if a revised
and substantially reduced extension was considered. Cognisance should be given
however that some sites – for whatever reason, have limitations which restrict their
redevelopment potential.
106

Page 43

Residential Amenity
Any new development which is large in scale or set close to the boundary is likely to
appear dominant and oppressive in nature and has the potential to impact on
established privacy and daylight levels.
In this instance a shadow cast assessment was not requested given the lack of any
windows within the gable of the nearby house and to avoid the applicant incurring more
costs, given that the proposals would not be supported for other reasons.
Plans indicate that there is currently 7 metres of space between the applicants’ house
(as built) and the neighbouring property to the north. Infilling the driveway area will
result in an oppressive elevation, mostly devoid of any architectural detailing within
close proximity to the boundary. This will breach guidelines which suggest that windows
should be positioned a minimum of 9 metres from the boundary to protect privacy
levels. The works will as a result, impact negatively on the character and amenity of the
area and the sense of setting that the units within Fairies Road sit within spacious plots.
The proposed development also raises concerns in terms of its excessive footprint and
the detrimental impact that will have on the established building pattern in the area.
While the existing usable areas of private amenity space are sufficient for the needs of
the already enlarged household, the development will impact negatively on the current
facility and result in a cramped appearance, as viewed from the public street.
Landscape
The domestic scale and nature of the proposal does not raise any landscape impact
issues and the impact would be limited to the streetscape.
Roads and Access
There are no road or access implications associated with this proposed development.
Drainage and Flooding
There are no drainage and flooding implications associated with this proposed
development.
Natural Heritage and Biodiversity
No issues of concern are noted
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
This application was not varied prior to determination.
PLANNING OBLIGATIONS AND LEGAL AGREEMENTS
None required.
107

Page 44

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
1 The proposed extension by virtue of its scale, height, design, imposing wrap
around effect and poor relationship to the existing dwellinghouse would appear
visually incongruous and out of keeping with the character and appearance of
the host building and surrounding area. Approval would therefore be contrary to
the Perth & Kinross Placemaking Guide 2020 and Policies 1A+1B (parts b, c, &
d) and 17 of Perth & Kinross Local Development Plan 2 2019, which seek to
ensure that new development respects the character and amenity of the place
and does not impact on established amenity levels.
2 The proposals as submitted would result in a cramped and over-intensive
development of the site to the extent that the space around the dwellinghouse
and between adjoining properties would be impinged to an unacceptable degree,
to the detriment of the amenity of the house and surrounding area. Approval of
the application would therefore be contrary to Policy 17 of the Perth and Kinross
Local Development Plan 2 (2019).
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 06 11
02 07 12
03 08
04 09
05 10
108

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

4(ii)(c)
LRB-2022-58
LRB-2022-58
22/00773/FLL – Extension to dwellinghouse, 58 Fairies
Road, Perth, PH1 1LZ
REPRESENTATIONS
127