Item 4(ii) LRB-2022-68

Perth and Kinross Council · 13 March 2023
Back to Local Review Body — 13 March 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-2022-68
LRB-2022-68
22/01407/FLL – Alterations and extensions to
dwellinghouse, 3 Glencairn Place, Abernethy, PH2 9JG
INDEX
(a) Papers submitted by the Applicant (Pages 69-102)
(b) Decision Notice (Pages 105-106)
Report of Handling (Pages 107-112)
Reference Documents (Pages 99-102)
(c) Representations (Pages 113-118)
67

Page 2

Page 3

4(ii)(a)
LRB-2022-68
LRB-2022-68
22/01407/FLL – Alterations and extensions to
dwellinghouse, 3 Glencairn Place, Abernethy, PH2 9JG
PAPERS SUBMITTED
BY THE
APPLICANT
69

Page 4

Page 5

Page 1 of 5
Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street Perth PH1 5GD  Tel: 01738 475300  Fax: 01738 475310  Email: onlineapps@pkc.gov.uk
Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid.
Thank you for completing this application form:
ONLINE REFERENCE 100611907-001
The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The  Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when
your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application.
Applicant or Agent Details
Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting
on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application)  Applicant  Agent
Agent Details
Please enter Agent details
Company/Organisation:
Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *
First Name: * Building Name:
Last Name: * Building Number:
Address 1
Telephone Number: * (Street): *
Extension Number: Address 2:
Mobile Number: Town/City: *
Fax Number: Country: *
Postcode: *
Email Address: *
Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? *
  Individual    Organisation/Corporate entity
A.S Associates ltd
Alison
Arthur
High Street
85
01337 840 088
KY14 6DA
Fife
Newburgh
info@asassociatesltd.co.uk
71

Page 6

Page 2 of 5
Applicant Details
Please enter Applicant details
Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *
Other Title: Building Name:
First Name: * Building Number:
Address 1
Last Name: * (Street): *
Company/Organisation Address 2:
Telephone Number: * Town/City: *
Extension Number: Country: *
Mobile Number: Postcode: *
Fax Number:
Email Address: *
Site Address Details
Planning Authority:
Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available):
Address 1: 
Address 2:
Address 3:
Address 4:
Address 5:
Town/City/Settlement:
Post Code:
Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites
Northing Easting
Ms
3 GLENCAIRN PLACE
Kirsty
Perth and Kinross Council
Murphy
ABERNETHY
Glencairn Place
3
PERTH
PH2 9JG
PH2 9JG
Perthshire
716087
Abernethy
318880
72

Page 7

Page 3 of 5
Description of Proposal
Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the
application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: *
(Max 500 characters)
Type of Application
What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? *
 Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals).
 Application for planning permission in principle.
 Further application.
 Application for approval of matters specified in conditions.
What does your review relate to? *
 Refusal Notice.
 Grant of permission with Conditions imposed.
 No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal.
Statement of reasons for seeking review
You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement
must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a
separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters)
Note: you are unlikely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce
all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account.
You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at
the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that
time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances.
Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the  Yes  No
Determination on your application was made? *
If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before
your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters)
Alterations and extensions to dwellinghouse.
Please refer to submitted Statement.
A Bat Roost Assessment is now submitted to support the application. The case officer did not require this to be provided during
the assessment of the application, in the interests of avoiding unnecessary additional costs to the applicant, given that the
application was to be refused for reasons of design. The submission of the Bat Roost Assessment addresses Reason for Refusal
3.
73

Page 8

Page 4 of 5
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. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters)
Application Details
Please provide the application reference no. given to you by your planning
authority for your previous application.
What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? *
What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? *
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.
Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other
parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. *
 Yes  No
Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the handling of your review. You may
select more than one option if you wish the review to be a combination of procedures.
Please select a further procedure *
Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it
will deal with? (Max 500 characters)
In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion:
Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? *  Yes  No
Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? *  Yes  No
If there are reasons why you think the local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please
explain here. (Max 500 characters)
Statement of Reasons for Seeking Review. Bat Roost Assessment.
22/01407/FLL
18/11/2022
By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates
Private rear garden of house.
29/08/2022
A site inspection site will enable members of the LRB to fully familiarise themselves with the characteristics of the proposal and
the surrounding area. This will inform the case that has been made in support of the proposal in the Statement, i.e. the proposal
is not detrimental to the character of the existing house or its surroundings.
74

Page 9

Page 5 of 5
Checklist – Application for Notice of Review
Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure
to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid.
Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. *  Yes  No
Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this  Yes  No
review? *
If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name  Yes  No  N/A
and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the
review should be sent to you or the applicant? *
Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what  Yes  No
procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? *
Note: 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. 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.
Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on  Yes  No
(e.g. plans and Drawings) 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 (if any) from the earlier consent.
Declare – Notice of Review
I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated.
Declaration Name: Mrs Alison Arthur
Declaration Date: 30/12/2022
75

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

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

Page 36

Page 37

4(ii)(b)
LRB-2022-68
LRB-2022-68
22/01407/FLL – Alterations and extensions to
dwellinghouse, 3 Glencairn Place, Abernethy, PH2 9JG
PLANNING DECISION NOTICE
REPORT OF HANDLING
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS (included in applicant’s
submission, pages 99-102)
103

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40

Page 41

REPORT OF HANDLING
DELEGATED REPORT
Ref No 22/01407/FLL
Ward No P9- Almond And Earn
Due Determination Date 28th October 2022 Extended to 28th November 2022
Draft Report Date 18th November 2022
Report Issued by DR Date 18th November 2022
PROPOSAL: Alterations and extensions to dwellinghouse
LOCATION: 3 Glencairn Place Abernethy Perth PH2 9JG
SUMMARY:
This report recommends refusal of the application as the development is considered
to be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no
material considerations apparent which justify setting aside the Development Plan.
BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The application property is a 1 ½ storey dwellinghouse situated in a residential area
of Abernethy.  Full planning permission is sought for:
 The erection of two single storey extensions on the rear (south) elevation of
the house, to provide a family room, utility room and WC, and
 The formation of a dormer on the rear (south) roof plane of the house, to
provide an additional bedroom, an enlarged master bedroom, and a shower
room.
To facilitate the proposals, it is proposed to remove an existing conservatory and an
existing dormer containing a shower room.
The submitted drawings include the installation of rooflights on the front (north) roof
plane.  As they can be installed using permitted development rights, these rooflights
do not form part of this assessment.
SITE HISTORY
97/00175/FUL Dormer extension to house at 19 March 1997 Application Approved
PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION
Pre application Reference: n/a
NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE
The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through The National
Planning Framework, the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), Planning Advice Notes
107

Page 42

(PAN), Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and
a series of Circulars.  
SPP Paragraph 214: Protected Species states:
The presence (or potential presence) of a legally protected species is an important
consideration in decisions on planning applications.  If there is evidence to suggest
that a protected species is present on site or may be affected by a proposed
development, steps must be taken to establish their presence.  The level of
protection afforded by legislation must be factored into the planning and design of
the development and any impacts must be fully considered prior to the determination
of the application.
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  
Policy 41: Biodiversity  
OTHER POLICIES 
Perth & Kinross Placemaking Supplementary Guidance 2020
Perth & Kinross Planning for Nature: Development Management and Wildlife Guide
2022
Perth & Kinross Bat Survey Guidance 2021
108

Page 43

CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Scottish Water
No objection and provided advice to the applicant if the application is recommended
for approval.
REPRESENTATIONS
No representations have been received in relation to this proposal.
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
Screening Opinion  EIA Not Required
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA):
Environmental Report
Not applicable
Appropriate Assessment Habitats Regulations
AA Not Required
Design Statement or Design and Access
Statement
Not Required
Report on Impact or Potential Impact eg Flood
Risk Assessment
Not Required
APPRAISAL
Sections 25 and 37 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997
require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the development plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.  The Development Plan for the
area comprises the approved TAYplan and the adopted LDP2.
The determining issues in this case are whether; the proposal complies with
development plan policy; or if there are any other material considerations which
justify a departure from policy.
Policy Appraisal
Alterations and extensions to an existing domestic dwellinghouse are generally
considered to be acceptable in principle.  Nevertheless, consideration must be given
to the scale, form, massing, design, position, proportions, and external finishes of the
proposed development, within the context of the application site, and whether it
would have an adverse impact upon visual or residential amenity or on any protected
species.
Assessment of the proposal against the relevant policies is provided below.
Design, Layout and Visual Amenity 
In terms of their scale, the two proposed ground floor extensions would be
subordinate additions to the existing dwellinghouse.  Due their design, height, scale,
massing, finishing materials, and siting to the rear of the house, the extensions
respect the character and amenity of the application property and are in accordance
with the Placemaking Supplementary Guidance and the Placemaking Policies.
109

Page 44

However, the proposed dormer on the rear (south) roof plane of the house fails to
meet the guidance for dormers set out in the Placemaking Supplementary Guidance
for the following reasons:
 It is a box dormer and is not of a pitched roof form.
 In terms of character, proportion and alignment, the windows on the proposed
dormer do not relate to the windows on the existing ground floor of the house. 
 The front face is not predominantly glazed: timber cladding is proposed for a
significant proportion of the front face of the dormer.
 The dormer extends more than half the length of the roof plane: it would be
approximately 90% of the width of the roof plane.
In terms of its siting, it is welcomed that the dormer would be added to the rear,
rather than the front, of the house.  However, in terms of its box design; the lack of
inter-relationship between the dormer’s windows and the ground floor windows; the
extensive use of timber cladding to the front face; the width of the dormer in
comparison to the roof; and the massing of the dormer, the proposed dormer is
detrimental to the character of the existing dwellinghouse.  As such, the proposal is
contrary to Policy 1A.
In terms of its design, scale and massing, the proposed dormer does not
complement its surroundings and is therefore contrary to Policy 1B(c).
During the application process, concerns about the dormer were raised with the
agent and the agent was offered opportunity to redesign the dormer.  It was
suggested that reducing the width on each side by 0.5 metres and pulling back the
face of the dormer by a further 0.5 metres from the wall head may have been
sufficient to reduce the impacts associated with the dormer.  Unfortunately, however,
no revised proposals were provided.
Residential Amenity
Given the floor area of the proposal in relation to the area of the application site, the
proposal would not have an adverse effect on the residential amenity of the
application property.
Due to the sale of the proposals and the distances from the boundaries, there are no
concerns about overshadowing of neighbouring residential properties.  As there are
no windows directly facing any neighbouring residential properties, there are no
concerns about overlooking of neighbouring properties.
As such, the proposal is in accordance with Policy 17.  
Natural Heritage and Biodiversity
The proposal involves alterations to the roof of the existing house.  There is
woodland immediately to the west of the application property.  As per the Bat Survey
Guidance, this triggers the requirement for a bat survey to be undertaken by a
suitably experienced and qualified ecologist to determine the actual or potential
presence of bats.
A bat survey has not been submitted as part of the application.  As such, it has not
been demonstrated that there are no bats present and that bats will not be affected
by the proposal.
110

Page 45

As any impacts on bats cannot be fully considered, the proposal is contrary to
Scottish Planning Policy Paragraph 214 and is contrary to Policy 41 of LDP2.
The lack of a bat survey was raised with the agent prior to the determination of the
application.  In the interests of avoiding unnecessary additional costs to the
applicant, it was suggested to the agent that it would be better to try to resolve the
concerns about the design of the dormer before instructing a bat survey.
Roads and Access
There are no road or access implications associated with the proposal.
Drainage and Flooding
There are no drainage or flooding implications associated with the proposal.
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 would be limited to
the construction phase of the development.
VARIATION OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 32A 
This application was varied prior to determination, in accordance with the terms of
section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended. 
Revisions were required as the plans originally submitted were inaccurate: the
proposed east elevation did not show the east elevation of the extension containing
the family room.  A revision was also made to the dormer: the front face of the
dormer was moved 0.1 metres further back from the wall head.
PLANNING OBLIGATIONS AND LEGAL AGREEMENTS
None required.  
DIRECTION BY SCOTTISH MINISTERS
None applicable to this proposal.
CONCLUSION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
To conclude, the application must be determined in accordance with the adopted
Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.  In this respect,
the proposal is considered to be contrary to the Development Plan.  Account has
been taken of the relevant material considerations and none has been found that
would justify overriding the adopted Development Plan.
Accordingly the proposal is refused on the grounds identified below.
111

Page 46

Reasons for Refusal
1. The proposed dormer, by virtue of its box design, the lack of inter-relationship
between the dormer’s windows and the ground floor windows, the extensive
use of timber cladding to the front face, its width in comparison to the roof,
and its massing, fails to comply with the Perth & Kinross Placemaking
Supplementary Guidance 2020 and is detrimental to the character of the
existing dwellinghouse.  
Approval would therefore be contrary to Policy 1A: Placemaking of the Perth
and Kinross Local Development Plan 2.
2. The proposed dormer, by virtue of its design, scale and massing, does not
complement its surroundings.
Approval would therefore be contrary to Policy 1B(c): Placemaking of the
Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2.
3. The application, due to the lack of a bat survey, fails to demonstrate that bats
will not be affected by the proposal.  
Approval would therefore be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy Paragraph
214: Protected Species and contrary to Policy 41: Biodiversity of the Perth
and Kinross Local Development Plan 2.
Justification
The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no
material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan.
Procedural Notes
Not Applicable.
PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION
01
02
03
05
112

Page 47

4(ii)(c)
LRB-2022-68
LRB-2022-68
22/01407/FLL – Alterations and extensions to
dwellinghouse, 3 Glencairn Place, Abernethy, PH2 9JG
REPRESENTATIONS
113

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Audrey Brown
From: David Rennie
Sent: 03 March 2023 12:21
To: Ross Burton; Audrey Brown; Jessica Guild; Christine Brien; Joanna Dick
Subject: RE: LRB case 2022-68 - 22/01407/FLL
Good afternoon
In light of Joanna’s comments below, I can advise that, if the bat survey had been submitted during the assessment
of the application, the third reason for refusal (failure to demonstrate that bats would not be affected by the
proposal) would not have been required.
Kind regards
David Rennie
David Rennie | Planning Officer | Development Management | Perth & Kinross Council | Pullar House, 35 Kinnoull Street, Perth PH1 5GD |
| Web: www.pkc.gov.uk/planning
From: Joanna Dick  
Sent: 02 March 2023 16:09
To: Christine Brien ; David Rennie ; Ross Burton
Subject: Re: LRB case 2022-68 - 22/01407/FLL
Good afternoon,
I have reviewed the submitted Bat Survey dated 15th December 2022 by Countrywise and the methods are
in accordance with published best practice. The Preliminary Roost Assessment seeks to identify whether a
building has bat roost potential. The building was assessed as having negligible potential for bats and no
signs of bats were found. No further survey is required. My earlier objection to this proposal is now
removed. 
Best wishes,
Joanna
Joanna Dick
Tree and Biodiversity Officer
Perth and Kinross Council
PKC supports the Tayside Biodiversity Partnership: www.taysidebiodiversity.co.uk
117