Item 4(viii) LRB-2022-65

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(viii)
LRB-2022-65
LRB-2022-65
22/01088/FLL - Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse,
formation of vehicular access and driveway, erection of
gates and associated works, 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth,
PH1 1DD
INDEX
(a) Papers submitted by the Applicant (Pages 959-1012)
(b) Decision Notice (Pages 1015-1016)
Report of Handling (Pages 1017-1022)
Reference Documents (Pages 1009-1011 and 1023-
1045)
(c) Representations (Pages 1047-1064)
957

Page 2

Page 3

4(viii)(a)
LRB-2022-65
LRB-2022-65
22/01088/FLL - Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse,
formation of vehicular access and driveway, erection of
gates and associated works, 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth,
PH1 1DD
PAPERS SUBMITTED
BY THE
APPLICANT
959

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. 
Craig & Maggie Smith
2 Oakbank Crescent
Perth
PH1 1DD
Katie Crerar
37 High Street
Grantown-on-Spey
PH26 3EG
07730601996
kcplanning@outlook.com
Perth & Kinross Council
22/01088/FLL
2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth, PH1 1DD
Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse, formation of vehicular access
and driveway, erection of gates and associated works
5 September 202215 June 2022
961

Page 6

Notice of Review
Page 2 of 4
Nature of application
1. Application for planning permission (including householder application)
2. Application for planning permission in principle
3. Further application (including development that has not yet commenced and where a time limit
has been imposed; renewal of planning permission; and/or modification, variation or removal of
a planning condition)
4. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions
Reasons for seeking review
1. Refusal of application by appointed officer
2. Failure by appointed officer to determine the application within the period allowed for
determination of the application
3. Conditions imposed on consent by appointed officer
Review procedure
The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any
time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them
to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures,
such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land
which is the subject of the review case.
Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the
handling of your review. You may tick more than one box if you wish the review to be conducted by a
combination of procedures.
1. Further written submissions
2. One or more hearing sessions
3. Site inspection
4 Assessment of review documents only, with no further procedure
If you have marked box 1 or 2, please explain here which of the matters (as set out in your statement
below) you believe ought to be subject of that procedure, and why you consider further submissions or a
hearing are necessary:
Site inspection
In the event that the Local Review Body decides to inspect the review site, in your opinion:
1. Can the site be viewed entirely from public land?
Yes No
2 Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely, and without barriers to entry?
If there are reasons why you think the Local Review Body would be unable to undertake an
unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here:
X
X
X
X
X
The applicants' request to meet with the LRB at the site visit and request to be informed of the date. They would like the opportunity to
allow the committee the chance to see inside to appreciate the very small size of the existing property. They will also spray out the
footprint of the proposals as a point of reference as well as having the chance to answer any questions. If for any reason this is not
possible, the outside of this house can be seen unaccompanied. Further contact details can be provided if required.
962

Page 7

Notice of Review
Page 3 of 4
Statement 
You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application.  Your statement must set out all
matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review.  Note: you may not
have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date.  It is therefore essential that
you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish
the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review.   
If the Local Review Body issues a notice requesting further information from any other person or body,
you will have a period of 14 days in which to comment on any additional matter which has been raised by
that person or body. 
State here the reasons for your notice of review and all matters you wish to raise.  If necessary, this can
be continued or provided in full in a separate document.  You may also submit additional documentation
with this form. 
Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the
determination on your application was made? 
Yes No 
If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising new material, why it was not raised with
the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should now be
considered in your review. 
Please see Notice of Review Appeal Statement (1).
X
963

Page 8

Notice of Review
Page 4 of 4
List of documents and evidence
Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with
your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review.
Note. The planning authority will make a copy of the notice of review, the review documents and any
notice of the procedure of the review available for inspection at an office of the planning authority until
such time as the review is determined. It may also be available on the planning authority website.
Checklist
Please mark the appropriate boxes to confirm you have provided all supporting documents and evidence
relevant to your review:
Full completion of all parts of this form
Statement of your reasons for requiring a review
All documents, materials and evidence which you intend to rely on (e.g. plans and drawings
or other documents) which are now the subject of this review.
Note. Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or
modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval
of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved
plans and decision notice from that earlier consent.
Declaration
I the applicant/agent [delete as appropriate] hereby serve notice on the planning authority to
review the application as set out on this form and in the supporting documents.
Signed Date
X
X
X
K Crerar
2. Applicant’s Personal Statement
3. Existing and proposed visualisations of the extension (Jpeg files of the proposed visualisations also
attached separately)
4. Neighbourhood Plan
5. Urban Grain Plan
6. Photoset
7. Zipped file containing plans and elevations submitted with the planning application
29/11/2022
964

Page 9

29 November 2022 
kcplanning@outlook.com     
K C P l a n n i n g
Notice of Review Appeal Statement
Application: 22/01088/FLL for alterations and extension to dwellinghouse, formation of
vehicular access and driveway, erection of gates and associated works 
Location: 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth, PH1 1DD
For: Maggie and Craig Smith
Contents  Page
1. Introduction  2
2. Proposal  3
3. Policy appraisal  5
4. Conclusion  16   
APPENDIX 1: Design precedent   18   
965

Page 10

2 
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. This Supporting Statement has been prepared on behalf
of Maggie and Craig Smith and should be read in
conjunction with the Notice of Review appeal submitted
to Perth and Kinross Council. 
1.2. This Notice of Review relates to the refusal of planning
application 22/01088/FLL issued on 7th September 2022
for alterations and extension to dwellinghouse,
alterations to vehicular access and driveway, erection of
gates and associated works at 2 Oakbank Crescent,
Perth. 
1.3. The Planning Officer concluded that: ‘The proposals, by
virtue of their competing form, inappropriate design and
excessive scale, massing and proportions, would
dominate, overdevelop and overwhelm the existing
bungalow, resulting in an adverse impact upon the
character and visual amenity of the area. 
Approval would therefore be contrary to Perth & Kinross
Council's Placemaking Guide 2020 and Policies 1A,
1B(c) and 17(c) of Perth and Kinross Local Development
Plan 2 2019, which seek to ensure 
that development contributes positively to the quality of
the surrounding built environment in terms of design,
proportions and appearance, in order to respect the
character and amenity of the place’. 
1.4. Therefore, this supporting statement along with the
additional material submitted requests that the Local
Review Body kindly reconsider this decision. 
1.5. Along with the plans and elevations submitted as part of
the planning application (7), the following additional
documents have been presented to support this
application for review (with document numbers in
brackets): 
 Applicant’s Personal Statement (2)
 Visualisations of the extension from the west (front)
and south-east (rear aerial) elevations (3)
 Neighbourhood Plan (4)
 Urban Grain Plan (5)
 Photoset (6) 
966

Page 11

3 
2. PROPOSAL 
2.1. 2 Oakbank Crescent is a modest two-bedroom 1930’s
detached bungalow (as shown in photo to the right)
located within a residential area of Perth. The existing
living accommodation has a footprint of 86m² with an
internal floor space of just 73m² and sits within a
generous plot of 744m² (0.18 acres). 
2.2. A planning application was submitted in June 2022 for
alterations to the existing bungalow and a 1¾ storey
extension to the rear (eastern elevation) with small flat
roofed single storey ‘wings’ either side. The lower
ground floor level will form living accommodation which
opens out into the garden and a master bedroom on the
upper floor of the extension (see Proposed floor and
roof plans). It should be noted that due to the nature of
the slope on the site, the roof level is not being raised to
accommodate the proposal. 
2.3. The proposal will add two additional bedrooms to the
property to accommodate the applicants growing family
(see Applicant’s Supporting Statement) and would 
replace an existing raised patio and conservatory (which
have now been removed – see photo overleaf). 
Front Elevation
Photo: DX2 Consultancy
967

Page 12

4 
2.4. This proposal has sought to utilise the topography of the
plot which slopes to the rear (east facing) and maximise
the internal size of the property. The existing developed
footprint including the garage and patio is 145m² (19%
of the total plot area) and the proposed developed
footprint including summerhouse will be 208m² (28% of
the total plot area), creating an additional developed
footprint of 63m². The lower ground floor will sit 1.7
metres below the original bungalow. 
2.5. The existing bungalow will be re-rendered in a white
roughcast with new high-spec, replacement windows
and external doors being installed. The extension itself
will be finished in the same render on the side (north
and south) elevations with sections of timber cladding
on the gable end (eastern elevation) to break up the wall
space. It should be emphasised that the roof of the
extension maintains the same ridge height and pitch as
the bungalow and will also be finished in slate. 
2.6. The applicants are also building a summer house in the
rear garden which is allowed under householder
permitted development rights. In the interests of
transparency, the 28m² for this summerhouse has been
included in any figures used to describe the proposed
developed footprint. 
Rear Elevation
Photo: DX2 Consultancy
968

Page 13

5 
3. POLICY APPRAISAL 
3.1. As required by Section 25 of The Town and Country
Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the
Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, all planning decisions
should accord with the development plan unless
material considerations indicate otherwise. 
3.2. In this instance, the planning application was assessed
against TAYplan (2016-2036) as the Strategic
Development Plan and the Perth and Kinross Local
Development Plan (2019). In addition, the Perth and
Kinross Placemaking Guidance (2020) is also taken into
account. 
TAYplan Strategic Development Plan (2016-2036) 
3.3. The Report of Handling states that there are no policies
in TAYplan that are of specific relevance to this
application but reference its vision: “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 
3.4. 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.” 
3.5. This proposal has sought to make best use of the size of
the plot to create a comfortable, highly energy efficient
and sustainable family home whilst retaining a large
private rear garden which is significantly greater in size
than many others in the area. The additional space is not
only required to accommodate the applicant’s young
family but also enable working from home (and to
reduce commuting). 
3.6. Energy efficiency is central to the renovation of the
bungalow. The improvements to the existing house plus
the new extension will make the property significantly
more energy efficient – even as a larger home – than the
original bungalow. It will be highly insulated with new
windows and external doors, a stove and a heat-
recovery system. In addition, solar panels will be
installed on the extension.  These measures will
transform a largely uninsulated house into a low carbon,
energy efficient home.
969

Page 14

6 
3.7. In addition, it is considered that the external
improvements to the bungalow itself (new roughcast
rendering and replacement doors and windows) along
with the modern extension to the rear will result in a
home that is more attractive than the current neglected
state of the exterior. 
Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (LDP,
2019) 
3.8. Whilst all LDP policies apply, in this instance, Policy 1:
Placemaking (specifically parts A and B) and Policy 17
(Residential Areas) were key policies in the
determination of this application. 
Policy 1A & 1B: Visual Amenity 
3.9. Policy 1A requires development proposals to contribute
positively to the quality of the built environment and
‘planned and designed with reference to climate change
mitigation and adaptation’. It adds that the ‘design,
density and siting of the development should respect the
character and amenity of the place’. 
3.10. Part 1B requires development proposals to meet the
criteria set out which include respecting the sites
topography (b); complementing its surroundings in
respect of appearance, height, scale, massing and
materials (c); respect existing building lines (d) and the
need to integrate ‘future adaptability, climate change
and resource efficiency in mind wherever possible’ (f). 
Policy 17: Residential Areas 
3.11. Policy 17: Residential Areas supports proposals which
are compatible with the amenity and character of the
area. It sets out criteria which proposals should fall into,
including ‘Proposals which will improve the character
and environment of the area or village’. 
Discussion / Appraisal 
3.12. The Planning Officer has stated that ‘The proposals by
virtue of their competing form, inappropriate design and
excessive scale, massing and proportions, would
dominate, overdevelop and overwhelm the existing
bungalow, resulting in an adverse impact upon the
character and visual amenity of the area’. 
970

Page 15

7 
3.13. Significant effort has been put into designing an
extension that reflects the principles set out in the above
policies whilst creating a functional and energy efficient
family home that meets the applicants needs whilst
utilising the generous plot of 744m². As the boundary
lines widen towards the rear of the plot, this has given
scope for the proposed single storey areas (comprising
essential functionality such as: storage, shower room,
utility room, entrance area) whilst retaining a large rear
garden space. 
3.14. In terms of the form and design of the extension, careful
consideration was given to creating additional space that
meet the needs of the family whilst retaining and
improving the existing bungalow. The rationale for
creating the principal living space to the lower ground
floor of the extension is to better connect the house with
the garden to make the property more family friendly
and enable the applicants to more safely utilise and
enjoy the generous garden space. Furthermore, it
ensures that the extension is barely visible from the
roadside as the design follows the sloping site (see
Visualisations) therefore maintaining the “character
and visual amenity of the area”.
Design and proportions 
3.15. In respect of the overall design and layout of the
proposal, the Report of Handling is of the view that ‘As
the bungalow is 8 metres in depth and the ridge length
of the proposed two-storey extension is 10.75 metres,
the extension would appear excessive and dominant,
rather than a subordinate addition’. For clarification, the
extension is 1¾ storey. 
3.16. The Placemaking Guide (2020) adds that ‘Extensions
should respect the shape, scale and proportions of the
existing building… In most cases an extension should be
a subordinate addition in all respects’ which is
referenced in the Report of Handling. 
3.17. It is argued that considerable effort has been made to
ensure the extension respects the shape, scale and
character of the existing bungalow. There is no policy
requirement within any LDP policy (including 1A, 1B or
17) that state an extension must be a subordinate
addition to an existing house. The Placemaking Guide
states that extensions ‘in most cases’ should be a
subordinate addition however, this is not absolute. Every
proposal should be assessed on its merits and the view
971

Page 16

8 
that the extension is unacceptable because it is not a
subordinate addition is challenged. The measurements
referred to above do not mention the eaves length of
8.7m which are only marginally longer that the original
bungalow and should be noted. 
3.18. The stated areas (footprints, floor, etc.) in the
“Residential Amenity” section of the Handling Report are
to varying degrees either inaccurate or ambiguously
worded, and the summary that “the proposed
extensions would more than triple the floor area of the
bungalow, bringing it up to 235m²” is incorrect.  The
ground and lower ground floor area would be 159m²,
with another 44m² on the upper floor, totalling only
203m² of internal floor space. It should also be noted
that the proposals will result in only 63m² larger
developed footprint than currently. 
3.19. However, the size of the extension or its measurements
should not solely determine its acceptability but rather
its relationship and how it connects with the existing
bungalow, the capacity of the plot and its impact on its
surroundings. The current size of the house is
exceptionally small and well below modern space
standards which should be taken into account. The
applicants have sought to retain the existing bungalow
and use the extension to create a comfortable,
reasonably sized family home. This approach creates a
more coherent dwelling than building multiple smaller
extensions or piecemeal additions, which can be seen
on some neighbouring properties. In addition, the
principal elevation of the house will not be dramatically
altered – there will be minimal visual impact on the
principal elevation (see Visualisation). 
3.20. The alternative of extending the bungalow is to demolish
and replace it with an entirely new house that achieves
modern space standards (which has been done at 32
Oakbank Crescent nearby). However this not only has
greater potential to result in a more significant visual
impact but is a less sustainable option which would be
contrary to the relevant LDP policies which require
proposals to be ‘planned and designed with reference to
climate change mitigation and adaptation’ (Policy 1A)
and integrate ‘future adaptability, climate change and
resource efficiency in mind wherever possible’ (Policy
1B). 
972

Page 17

9 
3.21. The Placemaking Guide (2020) states that ‘Retaining
existing buildings can be more sustainable than
demolishing and rebuilding, which has associated
embedded carbon emissions. Further, sustainable
design and construction lends itself easily to
refurbishment schemes, offering cost effective
opportunities for development’ (Page 46). This proposal
has sought to utilise the existing house whilst improving
and extending it to create a home that meets modern
space standards and significantly improves its energy
efficiency. 
3.22. In respect of the design and visual impact of the
proposal, visualisations of the extension have been
prepared showing the front elevation of the bungalow
(west) and from the south-east (see Visualisations). 
3.23. These illustrate that whilst the extension will indeed
increase the size of the overall property, it fits well within
its surroundings and does not dominate the plot, impact
adversely on neighbouring properties or overwhelm the
bungalow. The design and materials intend to reflect
and complement the existing bungalow and merge the
two parts to create an attractive dwelling. 
3.24. The roof of the extension has been maintained at the
same ridge height and pitch as the bungalow to provide
a seamless connection between the bungalow and the
extension and will also be finished in the same slate.
Much of the lower level of the extension will also be
finished in the same render (consistent with the
bungalow) along with sections of more contemporary
timber cladding. 
3.25. It is argued that the design of this proposal is not
inappropriate. Whilst the extension is of considerable
size in relation to the existing bungalow, this is only
because its current size is incompatible with modern
standards for a family home. The proposal’s form, scale
and use of materials complement and work with the
character of the existing house to create a footprint on
28% of the plot (inclusive of the extension and summer
house) which is not dissimilar to the developed footprint
of the immediately surrounding plots in the area as can
be seen from Table 1 on page 11. The comparison table
also clearly points out that the directly neighbouring
properties at 20 Fraser Terrace and 4 Oakbank
Crescent have either the same or a much larger
developed footprint to plot ratio.
973

Page 18

10 
Impact on the character and visual amenity of the
area 
3.26. The extension is entirely located to the rear (eastern
elevation) of the existing bungalow, the majority of which
will not be visible from Oakbank Crescent. Only 1.5m of
height from the small, ‘wing’ extensions will be visible
(see Visualisations and Proposed elevations and
sections) limiting any impacts on visual amenity. 
3.27. The original bungalow will remain largely unchanged
apart from having new, more efficient windows and front
door and being rendered in a white roughcast in
keeping with other houses on the street. The main
volume of the extension is narrower than the original
bungalow to ensure it will not dominate the appearance
of its principal elevation which is visible from the street
or affect its character. 
3.28. Oakbank Crescent comprises a considerable variety of
house sizes, facades and forms (see Appendix 1:
Design precedent). Even those similar to 2 Oakbank
Crescent consist of many different external colours,
window proportions and window locations (including
dormer windows on the front elevation / side elevations
and extensions). This proposal will retain the character
of the existing street facing principal elevation of the
bungalow and enhance the current tired external finish.
The extension will have minimal impacts on the front of
the bungalow and the small section of the extensions
‘wings’ that will be visible will not affect the visual
amenity any more than other extensions or garages that
are evident along the street. 
3.29. The extension has sought to utilise the sloping
topography of the plot to create a reasonably sized
family home whilst minimising the overall footprint. The
Report of Handling states that ‘Whilst the property
benefits from having spacious garden grounds, this
excessive footprint increase constitutes over-
development of the bungalow’. It should be pointed out
that the proposed developed footprint, as previously
stated in 3.17 is only 63m² (or 1.4 times) larger than the
current developed footprint. The total floor area should
not by itself be a basis for not complying with policy and
it is unreasonable to say that it constitutes over
development when the actual footprint is only marginally
bigger than the conservatory and patio area that were
there before and does not extend as far as the
974

Page 19

11 
neighbouring extension at 4 Oakbank Crescent which
sits on a considerably smaller plot. 
3.30. With the addition of the extension, the footprint of the
proposed extended house (including summerhouse)
comprises 28% of the plot and is consistent with many
neighbouring properties in the area. Table 1 below
compares footprints as a proportion of the total plot area
for the immediately surrounding houses (see
Neighbourhood Plan). From this list and Graph 1 on
page 13 it is evident that the 28% at 2 Oakbank
Crescent is similar to or a smaller developed ratio, than
that of many surrounding plots and therefore not an
overdevelopment of the site.   
975

Page 20

12 
TABLE 1
976

Page 21

13 
GRAPH 1
977

Page 22

14 
3.31. The foot of Table 1 includes two rows of information
which clearly show that 2 Oakbank Crescent currently
has, at 12%, the most underused plot in the area. Even
to include the raised patio and garage in this calculation,
brings the developed footprint to only 19% of the plot –
well below the average of 24% for the immediately
surrounding area. This information highlights how
underdeveloped the plot clearly is. 
3.32. This point is further reinforced by the Planning Officer
who states that ‘… taking the position, height and
orientation of the proposed development and
intervening boundary treatments into account, the
proposals would not have a detrimental overshadowing
impact on neighbouring properties’. The Planning
Officer further states that overlooking and loss of privacy
are not a concern for this proposal. This acknowledges
that the plot is more than adequate to accommodate an
extension of this size without having a detrimental
impact on neighbouring properties and amenity. 
3.33. To better assess and explore how this extension relates
to and compares with the footprints of other homes in
the surrounding area, an Urban Grain Plan has been
prepared (see Urban Grain Plan). It shows that this
proposal does not stand out when seen in the context of
its neighbours and appears entirely average in terms of
its form, scale and orientation. 
3.34. A further Neighbourhood plan (see Neighbourhood
Plan) is also provided which illustrates the building
footprints and garden areas of properties in the
immediate neighbourhood. As with the Urban Grain
Plan, the development site does not stand out in any
respect - be it the size or shape of the footprint or
garden. Both plans illustrate that the extension at 2
Oakbank Crescent is not disproportionate and barely
detectable amongst surrounding properties. 
3.35. In conjunction with the Urban Grain Plan and
Neighbourhood Plan, the aerial photograph (overleaf)
further shows the pattern of development and
surrounding house types/plots which clearly vary in
shape and size. 
978

Page 23

15 
3.36. There are also huge variations in the size and form of
extensions in the area. It is clear from the photograph
that 2 Oakbank Crescent is currently one of smallest
houses, on a plot that has capacity to accommodate a
considerably bigger house. 
3.37. Therefore, it is argued that the scale and massing of the
extension is not excessive and is proportionate to the
size of the plot and comparable with neighbouring
properties. The Planning Officer stated that the proposal
would not have a detrimental overshadowing impact and
that overlooking or loss of privacy were not a planning
concern in this instance. The reason that it was not
considered to comply with Policy 17: Residential Areas
was entirely due to the ‘excessive footprint increase’
which as raised in para. 3.28 is unjustified. 
3.38. Whilst Policy 17c is listed within the reason for refusal, it
is argued that the proposed extension and
improvements to the existing bungalow constitute an
improvement to the existing bungalow, particularly the
rear raised patio which has minimal aesthetic value and
also in terms of energy efficiency, utilising the generous
size of the plot and overall will not have a significant
impact on the visual or residential amenity of the area.
Photo: DX2 Consultancy
979

Page 24

16 
Other material considerations 
3.39. Despite a significant amount of work going into the plans
and planning process, there was no engagement or
communication from the Planning Officer during the
planning process. As such the refusal came as quite a
surprise and there was no opportunity for the applicants
to provide additional information in support of the
application or discuss the merits of the proposal directly.   
4. CONCLUSION 
4.1. As has been set out in the applicants supporting
statement, the intention of this proposal is to create a
forever home for a family and enable them to live and
contribute to their local area. 
4.2. This proposal has sought to create a comfortable,
modern and energy efficient home that continues to
retain the character of the original bungalow. It is
acknowledged that the proposal does comprise a
substantial increase in the size of the overall property,
however – as highlighted the figures in the Report of
Handling were all incorrect - this alone is not an
acceptable reason for concluding that the proposal does
not comply with policy. 
4.3. As set out through this supporting statement, there is
considerable evidence in terms of comparisons with
neighbouring properties, footprint analysis and the
visualisations which demonstrate the proposal is not of
an excessive scale in relation to its surroundings. The
Report of Handling agrees that the ‘position, height and
orientation of the proposed development and
980

Page 25

17 
intervening boundary treatments…would not have a
detrimental overshadowing impact on neighbouring
properties’ nor result in any overlooking or privacy
impacts yet is unacceptable just because of its size.  In
addition, the extension will have no negative impacts on
the visual amenity of the area as the principal elevation
of the bungalow will be retained. 
4.4. The property will be an energy efficient building with
high levels of insulation, new windows and external
doors, a stove and a heat-recovery system. In addition,
solar panels will be installed on the extension to utilise
the south-facing aspect and create both hot water and
generate electricity from sunlight. Despite the resultant
house being substantially larger, its impact on the
environment will be a fraction of the current bungalow,
with a lower contribution to carbon emissions and no
reliance on fossil fuels. 
4.5. Therefore, it is argued that this proposal does meet the
policy principles set out in Policy 1A, 1B and 17c and
that this proposal can be delivered without having an
adverse impact on the visual and residential amenity
and character of the area. 
981

Page 26

18 
APPENDIX 1: Design precedent
Along Oakbank Crescent there are is a large variety of houses of differing scale, shape and form as shown in the following
images. Whilst a number are bungalows, the majority have had some form of alteration, and many have additions that are
visible from the street including extensions and garages. 
982

Page 27

19 
983

Page 28

20 
32 Oakbank Crescent (above) is an example of a
house with a continuous ridgeline and is
comparable in form to that of the proposal at No.
2. The footprint to plot ratio of No. 32 is 29% -
again, comparable to 28% at No. 2. 
Images: Google (2022) Available at: http://maps.google.co.uk (Accessed: October 2022) 
984

Page 29

Applicant’s Supporting Statement. 
With kind regards,
Maggie and Craig Smith 
985

Page 30

We are a young family who have grown up and always worked in the Perth area. I’m a primary school teacher at Oakbank and my husband owns a
growing local business. Our 1-year-old son is enrolled at a nearby nursery, with plans to go to Viewlands Primary School, just across the road from our
home. When we first saw 2 Oakbank Crescent, after 6 months of looking, we felt this was ‘meant to be’. What had once been a much-loved home had,
over time, deteriorated and was now damp and unliveable. We understood it would mean a long process and a lot of hard work to transform it into our
‘forever family home’. We hope to raise our family here, enjoying the benefits of Perth as well as continuing to work and contribute to the local
community.
To help save for our new home, we moved in with parents in Spring 2021, with our new baby son. We soon realised that to achieve our forever home
we were going to have to find a project. There was clearly no way we could afford what we needed, as well as continuing to fund and re-invest in the
growing ReNu business.
We had a few disappointments, as the competition for houses was fierce but when we saw Oakbank Crescent, this became our dream and we
desperately wanted to live there. It was perfect; the size of garden, the position, proximity to work and good schools, a truly lovely area to bring up
children. The feeling that this was meant-to-be was reinforced when the then-owners chose us out of the many bidders to live in what had been their
family home since their grandparents built it in the 1930’s. This was despite offers at the closing date which were considerably more than ours. They
wanted us, because we were a family who continued their history and involvement in primary teaching and local business.
Over the next few months, we spent our spare time figuring out a layout which would fit well with the existing bungalow and site boundaries, and could
meet our growing family needs. A home which we honestly thought would be accepted - we were leaving the public-facing side virtually unchanged,
looked carefully at what other houses along the street had done and were extending the back footprint only by a length of 1 metre (taking into account
the conservatory and the patio which had been part of the existing house). We visited each of our neighbours to explain our plans and were given a
lovely welcome. One proviso was to agree to build or upgrade the 6-foot fence, which seemed to have been a long-term request to the previous
owners. We were more than happy to comply and were excited and so hopeful when we submitted our plans to PKC.
We were so disappointed to receive an outright refusal. We have been living with our supportive, patient parents/in-laws for almost 18 months but they
are due to retire in 2023. We want to build this wonderful, energy-efficient, future-proof family home in Perth, in this lovely area of Oakbank, close to our
workplaces and our son’s school. We want to contribute and get involved in the community here. We are not property-developers, as some of the other
bidders were. We hope this appeal can succeed and you are able to support us.
Figure 3: existing front elevation Figure 4: proposed front elevation as architectural visualisation (note the barely visible extension)
Figure 1: showing the damp in the
existing house (main bedroom)
Figure 2: Existing raised patio area
(1.7m above garden level)
986

Page 31

We understand the need for a formal appeal document and review of the Planning Officer’s conclusion. We would love to be able to discuss these in person, as it is such an important life-altering
decision being made about our plans, and we also understand this discussion may not be possible.
We have thought carefully about our proposal and how it fits with the local area. We have looked at surrounding houses and their plots to ensure that we are not developing anything larger or out of
keeping. As seen in the architectural visualisations, to any passer-by, the house will remain virtually unchanged.
With an internal floorspace of only 73m2, the current living accommodation of 2 Oakbank Crescent is incompatible with modern standards for a family home. It was only feasible as a family home for
the previous owners as they converted the roof space into an uninsulated, unsafe and unapproved bedroom for 2 of their children over 50 years ago.
The main points we would like to communicate through this appeal are:
• We are taking a house that, in size, is unsuitable for a growing family and extending it to suit a modern family in a way that will be imperceptible to the public, whilst retaining the character
of a mid-20th century bungalow in the Oakbank area. Therefore, we would argue that this does not have “an adverse impact on the character and visual amenity of the area” but instead
enhances it.
• The size of the plot is 744m2. The planned extended footprint of the house (including the summerhouse) will utilise 28% of that; similar to or a smaller developed ratio than that of many
surrounding plots. We would argue that this is not an “excessive scale, massing and proportions” and that it makes best use of a fabulous plot.
• The existing bungalow is being retained in our design, rather than knocked down. We have taken time to design an extension that fits well and preserves what is currently there, rather than
adding multiple smaller extensions or piecemeal additions. We will freshen it up by re-rendering and replacing old windows and doors. We will insulate it and change it from a damp, cold,
inefficient house to an energy efficient, practical, lovely family home. We therefore believe that this is neither a competing form or inappropriately designed proposal.
• Other than the concern regarding light from our southerly neighbour (rejected by the Planning Officer) and the concern about being overlooked from the bedroom from our east neighbour
(addressed when we agreed to erect a 6-foot fence as per her request), our neighbours have been supportive of our plans.
We hope you will be able to visit the house to fully understand its current, tiny proportions and our proposal. We appreciate the scale of the proposed extension may look large or “dominant” in the
drawings, however on visiting the site, we hope it is more obvious this is only in comparison to what is a very small existing building. Our proposal creates a functional, up-to-date, attractive family
home that fits with the boundaries and sloping ground to utilise the plot, allows safe access for our young family to the garden area, aims to be significantly more energy efficient and remains largely
visually unaltered from the road.
Ultimately, we understand the Planning Officer assigned to us has rejected our plans. However, with a site visit and greater understanding of the plot and our proposals, we hope you can see the
merit in them and approve our plans. Thank you.
Figure 5: existing rear of property with surroundings Figure 6: proposed rear of property with architectural visualisation of proposal
987

Page 32

Page 33

EXISTING AND PROPOSED VISUALISATIONS – 2 Oakbank Crescent 
1
REAR AERIAL ELEVATION - PROPOSED (Image DX2 Consultancy)
REAR AERIAL ELEVATION - CURRENT (Image DX2 Consultancy)
REAR AERIAL ELEVATION – PROPOSED (Image DX2 Consultancy)
989

Page 34

EXISTING AND PROPOSED VISUALISATIONS – 2 Oakbank Crescent 
2
FRONT ELEVATION - CURRENT (Image DX2 Consultancy)
FRONT ELEVATION - PROPOSED (Image DX2 Consultancy)
FRONT ELEVATION - PROPOSED (Image DX2 Consultancy)
990

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Proposed extension to dwelling
at 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth
Supporting photo set 
© DX2 Consultancy Ltd Page 1 of 13 
993

Page 38

Proposed extension to dwelling
at 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth
Supporting photo set 
© DX2 Consultancy Ltd Page 2 of 13 
994

Page 39

Proposed extension to dwelling
at 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth
Supporting photo set 
© DX2 Consultancy Ltd Page 3 of 13 
995

Page 40

Proposed extension to dwelling
at 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth
Supporting photo set 
© DX2 Consultancy Ltd Page 4 of 13 
996

Page 41

Proposed extension to dwelling
at 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth
Supporting photo set 
© DX2 Consultancy Ltd Page 5 of 13 
997

Page 42

Proposed extension to dwelling
at 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth
Supporting photo set 
© DX2 Consultancy Ltd Page 6 of 13 
998

Page 43

Proposed extension to dwelling
at 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth
Supporting photo set 
© DX2 Consultancy Ltd Page 7 of 13 
999

Page 44

Proposed extension to dwelling
at 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth
Supporting photo set 
© DX2 Consultancy Ltd Page 8 of 13 
1000

Page 45

Proposed extension to dwelling
at 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth
Supporting photo set 
© DX2 Consultancy Ltd Page 9 of 13 
1001

Page 46

Proposed extension to dwelling
at 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth
Supporting photo set 
© DX2 Consultancy Ltd Page 10 of 13 
1002

Page 47

Proposed extension to dwelling
at 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth
Supporting photo set 
© DX2 Consultancy Ltd Page 11 of 13 
1003

Page 48

Proposed extension to dwelling
at 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth
Supporting photo set 
© DX2 Consultancy Ltd Page 12 of 13 
1004

Page 49

Proposed extension to dwelling
at 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth
Supporting photo set 
© DX2 Consultancy Ltd Page 13 of 13 
1005

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

4(viii)(b)
LRB-2022-65
LRB-2022-65
22/01088/FLL - Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse,
formation of vehicular access and driveway, erection of
gates and associated works, 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth,
PH1 1DD
PLANNING DECISION NOTICE 
REPORT OF HANDLING 
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS (part included in
applicant’s submission, pages 1009-1011)
1013

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

REPORT OF HANDLING
DELEGATED REPORT
Ref No 22/01088/FLL
Ward No P10- Perth City South
Due Determination Date 13th September 2022
Draft Report Date 31st August 2022
Report Issued by KS Date  31st August 2022
PROPOSAL: Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse, formation
of vehicular access and driveway, erection of gates
and associated works
LOCATION: 2 Oakbank Crescent Perth PH1 1DD 
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 PHOTOGRAPHS
BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
2 Oakbank Crescent is a modest detached bungalow which is located within a
residential area in Perth. This application seeks detailed planning permission for
alterations and extensions to the rear (east) of the house.
SITE HISTORY
None
PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION
Pre application Reference:  Not Applicable.
1017

Page 62

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 17: Residential Areas 
OTHER POLICIES AND GUIDANCE
The Perth & Kinross Placemaking Guide 2020 states that;
“Extensions should respect the shape, scale and proportions of the existing
building… In most cases an extension should be a subordinate addition in all
respects”
CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Scottish Water
No objections – informative note recommended.
INTERNAL COMMENTS
Transport Planning
No objections – informative notes and planning conditions recommended.
1018

Page 63

Environmental Health (Smoke/Odour/Glare)
No objections – informative note recommended.
Environmental Health (Contaminated Land)
No objections – informative note recommended.
REPRESENTATIONS
The following matters were raised in the two representations received:
 Loss of light
 Overdevelopment
 Excessive height
 Overlooking and loss of privacy
Additionally, it was noted that the proposed bathroom window was not shown on the
south elevation. Whilst this alteration does not require planning permission, the issue
was nevertheless resolved through the submission of an updated drawing on 7th
August 2022.
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
Screening Opinion Not Applicable
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
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 appearance of
1019

Page 64

the proposed development, within the context of the application site, and whether it
would have an adverse impact upon visual or residential amenity.
Design and Layout
2 Oakbank Crescent is a detached bungalow which is located within a residential
area in Perth. The property is a two-bedroomed hipped roof bungalow which has
modest proportions. This application seeks detailed planning permission for
alterations and extensions to the rear (east) of the house, to form enlarged and
additional living accommodation and to provide a third and fourth bedroom. An
existing raised patio and conservatory would be removed to accommodate the
proposed development. The garden ground to the rear of the house is shown as
being approximately 1.7 metres lower than the internal floor level of the existing
house.
Visual Amenity
A two-storey gabled extension is proposed to project from the rear elevation of the
hipped roof bungalow. As the bungalow is 8 metres in depth and the ridge length of
the proposed two-storey extension is 10.75 metres, the extension would appear
excessive and dominant, rather than a subordinate addition. This dominant
appearance would be exacerbated by the drop in ground level, which would result in
an extension of excessive bulk, scale and visual massing.
Flat roofed single storey wing extensions are proposed to either side of the proposed
two-storey gabled extension. The wings would over-spill to both sides of the
bungalow. Again, the overall width proposed east elevation (16 metres) far exceeds
the width of the existing house (9.3 metres).
Accordingly, the proposals, by virtue of their competing form, excessive proportions
and inappropriate design, would result an extension which is unsympathetic to the
existing bungalow. The proposals would have a dominating effect on the bungalow
and an adverse impact upon the character and visual amenity of the area.
Approval would therefore be contrary to Perth & Kinross Council's Placemaking
Guide 2020 and Policies 1A, 1B(c) and 17(c) of Perth and Kinross Local
Development Plan 2 2019, which seek to ensure that development contributes
positively to the quality of the surrounding built environment in terms of design,
proportions and appearance, in order to respect the character and amenity of the
place.
Residential Amenity
Overshadowing calculations are done on the basis of a 45-degree shadow line,
taken from the nearest proposed high point towards the neighbouring properties. The
high point of the single storey extension is 2.85 metres, which is offset from the
southern boundary by 1.65 metres and the northern boundary by 1.25 metres.
Accordingly, taking the position, height and orientation of the proposed development
and intervening boundary treatments into account, the proposals would not have a
detrimental overshadowing impact on neighbouring properties.
1020

Page 65

To prevent unacceptable overlooking issues, a minimum separation distance of 9
metres between habitable rooms and the boundary is typically sought. The distance
from the proposed windows to the eastern boundary is 14 metres, which is adequate
to ensure that overlooking and loss of privacy is not an issue of planning concern.
The original bungalow measures 77.25sqm, with the conservatory (which is to be
removed) measuring an additional 10.25sqm. The proposed extensions would more
than triple the floor area of the bungalow, bringing it up to 235sqm (183sqm at
ground floor level with an additional 52sqm at first floor level). Whilst the property
benefits from having spacious garden grounds, this excessive footprint increase
constitutes over-development of the bungalow.
The Council’s Environmental Health Officers have requested that the applicant’s
attention be brought to their advice in the event of any planning approval.
Roads and Access
An additional vehicular access is shown on the proposed application drawings, with
a view to forming a driveway loop within the front garden. The Council’s Transport
Planning Officer has requested that planning conditions and informative notes be
included on any planning approval. Whilst the formation of a vehicular access would
not require planning permission in this instance, it has presumably been shown on
the application drawings in the interests of transparency.
Drainage and Flooding
There are no significant drainage and flooding implications associated with this
proposed development. However, Scottish Water has requested that the applicant’s
attention be brought to their advice in the event of any planning approval.
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.
1021

Page 66

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
1 The proposals, by virtue of their competing form, inappropriate design and
excessive scale, massing and proportions, would dominate, overdevelop and
overwhelm the existing bungalow, resulting in an adverse impact upon the
character and visual amenity of the area.
Approval would therefore be contrary to Perth & Kinross Council's
Placemaking Guide 2020 and Policies 1A, 1B(c) and 17(c) of Perth and
Kinross Local Development Plan 2 2019, which seek to ensure that
development contributes positively to the quality of the surrounding built
environment in terms of design, proportions and appearance, in order to
respect the character and amenity of the place.
Justification
The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no
material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan.
Informative Notes
Not Applicable.
Procedural Notes
Not Applicable.
PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION
01
02
03
04
06
07
08
09
1022

Page 67

Page 68

Page 69

Page 70

Page 71

Page 72

Page 73

Page 74

Page 75

Page 76

Page 77

Page 78

Page 79

Page 80

Page 81

Page 82

Page 83

Page 84

Page 85

Page 86

Page 87

Page 88

Page 89

Page 90

Page 91

4(viii)(c)
LRB-2022-65
LRB-2022-65
22/01088/FLL - Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse,
formation of vehicular access and driveway, erection of
gates and associated works, 2 Oakbank Crescent, Perth,
PH1 1DD
REPRESENTATIONS
1047

Page 92

Page 93

Page 94

Page 95

Mr and Mrs Law
1051

Page 96

Page 97

Page 98

Page 99

Page 100

Page 101

Page 102

Page 103

Page 104

Page 105

CDS Planning Local Review Body
From:
Sent: 20 December 2022 14:52
To: CDS Planning Local Review Body
Subject: Re: LRB-2022-65
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.
Our feelings remain the same. We feel it’s an overdevelopment, which will completely overwhelm the site and not
in keeping with the area,as well as blocking light out of my property. .Yours Mr & Mrs Law
Sent from my iPhone
1061

Page 106

Page 107

1
CDS Planning Local Review Body
From: Katie Crerar <kcplanning@outlook.com>
Sent: 02 January 2023 19:35
To: CDS Planning Local Review Body
Subject: RE: LRB-2022-65
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
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.
Dear Audrey,
Many thanks for your email of 22 December.
In response to the representation, the applicants’ and myself wish to respond as follows:
We strongly contest the points raised and hope that the committee feels the counterpoints are sufficiently
covered in the appeal documents.
“We feel it’s an overdevelopment which will completely overwhelm the site”
Please refer to the comparison table on page 12 of the Review Statement. The proposal will result in a total
developed footprint of 28% of the site (including the summerhouse). This is comparable with many of the
surrounding plots, with the directly neighbouring properties at 20 Fraser Terrace and 4 Oakbank Crescent
having a developed footprint of 28% and 35% respectively. We would also point out that the footprint of our
proposal will not extend as far into the garden as that of the neighbouring property at 4 Oakbank Crescent.
We hope that the committee view this direct comparison (seen in the visualisation and comparison table)
as a clear case that our proposal is not an overdevelopment.
“…and not in keeping with the area…”
Please refer to the visualisation and appendix images. The existing property is retained, freshened up and
the proposed extension is imperceptible to the public, therefore having a very limited visual impact on the
area. There is a considerable variety in the street facing facades along the Crescent (seen in the appendix
images), many of which have been extended on the street elevations (such as garages, dormers etc) and
are clearly visible to the passing public.
“…as well as blocking light out of my property.”
Please refer to the delegated report. As stated in this report: "Overshadowing calculations are done on the
basis of a 45-degree shadow line, taken from the nearest proposed high point towards the neighbouring
properties. The high point of the single storey extension is 2.85 metres, which is offset from the southern
boundary by 1.65 metres and the northern boundary by 1.25 metres. Accordingly, taking the position,
height and orientation of the proposed development and intervening boundary treatments into
account, the proposals would not have a detrimental overshadowing impact on neighbouring
properties.” Therefore it has been concluded there would be no overshadowing/blocking of light to 4
Oakbank Crescent.
Kind Regards
Katie
Katie Crerar MRTPI BA (Hons) MA
Planning Consultant KC Planning
1063