CompleteAppellantsubmission
Renfrewshire Council · 19 November 2024
Back to Local Review Body. — 19 November 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS
Page 2
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 2008; AND 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. Please use BLOCK CAPITALS if completing in ink The completed notice of review and any supporting documents should be sent by e-mail to lrb-planning.cs@renfrewshire.gov.uk, or by mail or by hand to the Head of Corporate Governance, Finance & Resources, Renfrewshire Council, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1TR. 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 Renfrewshire Council Planning 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 Council within three months of the date of the decision notice or from the date of expiry of the period allowed for determining the application. Karen Girvan 3 Millbank Circle Bishopton PA7 5NF Emma Campbell hjem architects 23 Nethermains Rd Milngavie G62 6NL 23/0713/PP 3 Millbank Circle, Bishopton, PA7 5NF Erection of two storey extension to raer of dwellinghouse and first floor extension to detached garage. 17-06-202404-12-2023
Page 3
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:
Page 4
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 refer to attached document '23-0713-PP_Millbank-appeal-supporting-statement' Some additional 3D images of the streetscape have been included in the documents, which were prepared to support the application, however the refusal was issued before the conversation on options was fully concluded.
Page 5
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 Council 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 Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley until such time as the review is determined. It may also be available on the Council’s 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 Council to review the application as set out on this form and in the supporting documents. Please sign or type your name if sending by e-mail Date For office use only: LRB Reference No: 23-0713-PP_Millbank-appeal-supporting-statement Millbank-key-precedent-images - zip file of photos previosuly submitted garage set back/garage set back2 - images of existing house supporting-3D images - zip file of photos previosuly submitted Original Planning app drawings: AL(00)101_proposed EL(00)101_existing AL(00)501_block-plans 2024-02-29_Millbank-draft-revised - revised Planning proposals Emma Campbell 28-08-2024
Page 6
3 Millbank Circle, Bishopton. Planning Appeal August 2024 Issue 01
Page 7
3 Millbank Circle, Planning Appeal The site existing property Introduction Application 23/0713/PP was made to Renfrewshire council by Mr and Mrs Girvan on 6th December 2023 for the extension of their detached dwelling house in Millbank Circle, Dargavel, Bishopton. Their proposals are for a 2 storey rear extension and an upper floor extension to the existing detached garage.
Page 8
3 Millbank Circle, Planning Appeal Existing layouts
Page 9
3 Millbank Circle, Planning Appeal The site existing site - immediate streetscape Background The Girvans’ design concept was to create additional living/working space whilst maintaining their existing external garden amenity space which is well used by their family. The 2 storey rear extension provides a larger kitchen and family area and on the upper floor, improves the size of 2 of the bedrooms. The upper floor garage extension provides additional living and working space for the family. Renfrewshire Planning have provided a positive response on the rear extension and therefore this appeal will focus on the garage extension for which permission has been declined. A home in a neighbouring street had recently carried out a similar upper extension to the garage and the Girvans were keen to look at a similar style. (ref. 11 Millbank Avenue (PP 20/0764/PP) recent precedent in adjavent Millbank Avenue
Page 10
3 Millbank Circle, Planning Appeal Initial proposals The proposals first submitted in December extended the garage eaves upwards by 2.3m, creating an upper floor with a gable elevation in the style and materials of the properties in the development (please refer to Initial- application_AL(00)101_proposed, attached) The new garage ridge line height was 975mm below the house ridge. As the plot is one of the most generous on the estate, the house in a small culdesac group of 4 properties and the existing garage is already set back from the building line, it was felt that the upper garage extension would be of appropriate scale and character without having a detrimental effect on the streetscape, amenity or neighbouring properties. Planning proposal for garage upper floor extension
Page 11
3 Millbank Circle, Planning Appeal Initial Planning Application
Page 12
3 Millbank Circle, Planning Appeal Planning response: on 31st January, Planning wrote ‘The main issue that will need addressing is the first floor extension to the garage. Renfrewshire’s Householder Development Guidance states that “detached garages should be proportionate in scale to the site”. Given the two storey garage would end up being nearly as tall as the nearby dwellings it cannot be considered that the scale is appropriate. The Council could not approve a first floor extension and I don’t think it will be possible to amend to make it acceptable so would suggest that this element is deleted (a small extension to the rear may be acceptable and could even be PD). If this is acceptable please update and resubmit the relevant plans. Would also welcome any other suggestions you may have to make the proposal acceptable’ Initial Planning feedback and response In response, we considered local precedents and we provided the following commentary While developing the design, we reviewed the proposals against the extension guidelines in the 2016 householder guidance document and have made every attempt to ensure they comply, viewing the proposal against the extension guidelines, as it is an extension, not a new garage we are proposing. This seems to be reflected in the terminology of the handling report for the application at 11 Millbank Ave. We would be keen to understand why this application would be viewed differently. Like 11 Millbank Avenue, the property is on a generous plot in a cul de sac setting, arguably with a wider public realm at the front elevation. The house and neighbouring properties are of the same style and density as 11 Millbank and the proposal is very similar to the permission given in 2020 for the upper floor garage extension. With this in mind, our proposals are sympathetic in design whilst also reflecting the style, appearance and density of the whole area. Roof style, orientation and height: We considered the roof in both gable and hipped orientations and felt the gable option was much more appropriate to the rhythm of the streetscape. The angle of the proposed roof mirrors the house roof and is kept below the house ridge by 1m to be subservient, and by 300mm below the neighbouring property which sits slightly downhill. This reflects the style and stepped language of the neighbouring streets in the development. We note that although the pitch of the roof at number 11 is handled differently (perhaps due to the window on the neighbouring gable), the ridge height has an almost identical relationship to the main property. This said, we would be happy to look at options to adjust the ridge height further if it would make the proposals more acceptable. Material choice: In material choice we have been straightforward in picking a palette to match the existing property. Window style – windows are designed to be the same shape and style as those in the house. If you felt changing the windows in the garage from two separate windows to one with 3 panes would have a positive impact (which is a language used elsewhere above garages in Bishopton), we would be happy to consider it. Throughout Bishopton the pattern of new development is fairly consistent and although plots are generous, the properties are generally fairly equally spaced, largely with a 1-3m gap between gables. The language of the recent developments includes a fairly repetitive density, the majority having accommodation above garages (either integrated or detached) and a fairly consistent ridge line. - attached are various examples. There are many examples of detached double garages with accommodation above built in recent developments in Bishopton, these include examples in Crosshill Avenue, Slateford Road and Crosshill mews, all of which are sited on similar sized plots. We attach examples of these properties, all constructed within recent years. In most cases they are comparable in height to their adjacent house. In developing our proposals for Millbank Circle we have taken all of these considerations into account and consider that the proposals are appropriate in scale, style, height and density to the surrounding area and to Bishopton as a whole, while maximising amenity space for the house holder. We would also note that the garage sits to the north of the adjacent property and creates no overshadowing, nor any privacy concerns. We hope the above may allay your concerns and are keen to hear your feedback and reiterate that we are happy to look at adjustments as outlined above if required. We also submitted multiple precedent images from the surrounding Dargavel developments of detached garages of a similar scale. (attached) Millbank Avenue precedent Dargavel precedent Millbank Circle density Large scale recent local precedent
Page 13
3 Millbank Circle, Planning Appeal Planning then responded: ‘I have discussed the case and the points you raise with my manager. While we accept the 2020 consent is similar, the distance between the top of the garage door and the eaves on this garage is only 1 metres while the distance on the proposed garage is 2.4 metres. To be considered acceptable this distance would need to be reduced by around 1 metre to ensure the proposed garage remains subordinate to the existing dwelling. It would also be preferable if the two windows on the front elevation could be replaced by a single, wider window as outlined below. If these changes can be made then the garage would be acceptable.’ Multiple options were reviewed with the Girvans, and it was agreed that a reduction of 1 metre would compromise the internal height and therefore usable space in the extension area to such an extent that a large proportion would not be usable. As a compromise, Revised proposals were prepared and submitted by email to Planning on 29th February, reducing the eaves by 700mm and amending the window style in line with other similar detached garages in the Dargavel area. (refer to Revised- proposals_AL(00)101revA_draft, attached) The proposals were issued with the following commentary. ‘We have prepared the attached option with a lower eaves and smaller central window (at a lower height). This allows sufficient headroom upstairs while making the garage much more subservient to the adjacent properties. The reduction in height is around 700mm, and is the maximum possible to allow sufficient headroom for the intended use upstairs. We hope you may find the revision acceptable and more in keeping with the scale of the neighbourhood.’ We considered that the garage, which is already recessed from the front of the house, would appear even more subservient and have minimal impact on the scale of the cluster of properties in the small cul de sac. Further Planning feedback and revised proposals Revised proposal
Page 14
3 Millbank Circle, Planning Appeal Revised Planning proposal
Page 15
3 Millbank Circle, Planning Appeal Refusal Notice The refusal notice makes the following points: (In respect of the garage extension), we have added some commentary in italics The relevant Supplementary Guidance for the alteration of an existing property states that extensions to residential properties should be of an appropriate scale, size and massing. In this instance, the addition of a first floor would result in the garage measuring approximately 6.6 metres in height to the ridge. Given the applicant’s property measures only 7.5 metres in height to the ridge and the neighbouring property to the south measures 6.9 metres in height to the ridge it cannot be considered that the resulting structure would be of a size that is appropriate for a garage in this location. We are not clear if there is specific guidance around this issue or if this is a subjective view. Furthermore, the structure would sit flush with the front elevation of existing dwellings on Millbank Circle. While acceptable for a single storey garage, the addition of a first floor in this position would create a structure with a massing that is more akin to a detached dwellinghouse than a subordinate garage. This is incorrect – the garage sits back from the main house and the neighbouring property (refer to photos included) and is almost identical in this respect with that of the Planning Application for 11 Millbank Avenue referred to previously. Planning response and refusal notice Planning response Planning responded on the 12th of March to indicate the 700mm reduction would not be sufficient. Following submission of additional precedent images of new properties elsewhere in Dargavel, we received the following commentary (part), and then the refusal notice. ‘The garages with the Juliette style balcony on the front were built by Cala. As these garages are set back from the front of the dwelling and the building line it is considered that they are subordinate. The garage in this application would not be set back so cannot be considered to be subordinate, unless it was to be reduced in height as previously discussed.’ We would note the garage is in fact set back from the building line. garage set back position
Page 16
3 Millbank Circle, Planning Appeal Refusal Notice (continued) The spacing of properties on Millbank Circle would also mean a terracing effect would occur within the streetscene should a first floor be added. The property sits within a cul de sac group of 4 properties. As per images below, due to the recess of the garage elevation and the decisions around the form and orientation of the roof we feel that there would be no terracing effect and that the language of the garage would clearly define it’s function and link to the main house. We also attach photos of the garage extension at 11 Millbank circle, which creates a similar streetscape, and images of other areas in Millbank circle, indicating that the existing level of density is relatively high and that the Girvan’s proposals do not differ from the character of the immediate area. Planning response and refusal notice Millbank Avenue precedent proposed view into Millbank Circle Proposal in context Existing view into Millbank Circle The applicant has indicated that there are two storey garages existing elsewhere within the Dargavel Village development. The first floor extension to a nearby garage that was approved in 2020 (20/0764/PP) measures only 3.2 metres in height to the eaves, in comparison to the 3.9 metres proposed in this instance. The effect of the lower eaves height is that the garage granted in 2020 is subordinate to the main dwelling and more proportionate in size for the plot. Please refer to our comments above. The eaves on the comparable extension were likely kept lower to maintain light to a window on the neighbouring gable. There are no such windows on the neighbours property in this instance. The two storey garages built by Cala within Dargavel are set back from the front elevation of the associated dwelling so are clearly subordinate and would not be mistaken for an additional dwelling. The Girvans’ proposal is also set back and down from the front elevation. The precedents were offered as an indication of recent approvals given for detached 2 storey garages on similar sized plots adjavent to similar sized properties in an area with a similar density of housing. While discussions with the applcant and agent resulted in the height to the eaves being reduced by 0.6 metres, this was not considered a sufficient reduction to negate the points raised above. It had been suggested that the Girvans should reduce the eaves by ‘around a metre’. Following consideration of internal head heights and usable space, the proposals re-submitted were reduced by 700mm and resulted in an eaves height 1.4m below the main house and 750mm below the neighbouring property (downslope) which we would consider to be clearly subservient to the existing dwellings. This was the most the head height could be reduced by to maintain a reasonable level of internal head room. The first floor extension to the garage is therefore considered contrary to Policy 16 of NPF4, Policy P1 of the LDP and its associated Supplementary Guidance in that it would not be proportionate in scale to the site and would not reflect the established development pattern such that it would have a negative impact on the wider streetscape. Please refer to our comments above. Recent Bishopton precedent Millbank circle - existing density in the area.
Page 17
3 Millbank Circle, Planning Appeal Refusal Notice (continued) The refusal notice also states: The proposed first floor extension to the detached garage, by way of its size and positioning, would be contrary to Policy 16 of NPF4, Policy P1 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan, the New Development Supplementary Guidance and Renfrewshire’s Householder Development Guidance as it would not be proportionate in scale to the site and would have a negative impact on the wider streetscape. The guidance states (relevant text extracts): NPF4: Policy 16 g) Householder development proposals will be supported where they: i. do not have a detrimental impact on the character or environmental quality of the home and the surrounding area in terms of size, design and materials; and ii. do not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact, overshadowing or overlooking. Policy P1 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan Renfrewshire’s Places Within uncoloured areas on the Proposals Maps there will be a general presumption in favour of a continuance of the built form. New development proposals within these areas should make a positive contribution to the Place and be compatible and complementary to existing uses and character as set out by the New Development Supplementary Guidance and Renfrewshire’s Places Design Guidance. All development proposals should also: Avoid causing unacceptable impacts on the environment and/ or biodiversity or a loss of amenity within the surrounding area and/or a significant adverse effect on neighbouring properties, in terms of use, scale, noise, disturbance and statutory air quality objectives, and, Ensure that the infrastructure, connections and services required to support the development are in place including: footpath connections; provision for waste storage, recycling and collection; lighting; access to public transport; open space provision and access to local services and amenities. New Development Supplementary Guidance Alterations and Extensions to Existing Properties Development will be considered in relation to the following criteria: The development requires to be of an appropriate scale, size and massing which does not constitute over development and reflects the established development pattern; Reflect the design and materials of the existing house and the character of the surrounding area; and, The amenity of the neighbouring residents or the surrounding area is protected. Renfrewshire’s Householder Development Guidance Two Storey Two storey extensions may be considered acceptable where: • They are designed to avoid causing an unacceptable loss of light or privacy for neighbours; • They should be set back from the front elevation of the original property, be set back from the side boundary and be no more than half the width of the original property; • Extensions should also be constructed in materials and style to match the original dwelling; • Where an extension is built on a driveway consideration should be given to ensure suitable parking arrangements can be maintained; • The pitch of the roof should be the same as the main property. Outbuildings including Garages and Carports • All outbuildings, including garages, carports, bin stores and cycle stores, should be set behind the front building line; • Detached garages should be proportionate in scale to the site and be completed in materials to match or compliment the appearance of the main building
Page 18
3 Millbank Circle, Planning Appeal Appeal and response: summary We have reviewed the detail of the guidance referred to, and it would suggest that the refusal is based on the question of appropriate scale within the streetscape, which without specific guidance, could be considered a subjective measure. In all other ways, the proposals meet the guidance stated above. We have carefully designed the proposals with scale and appearance in mind and do consider the current proposal to be subservient and of appropriate scale, materials and mass to sit comfortably within the streetscape. The Girvans have been willing to substantially reduce the height of the garage proposal, to the point where further reduction will substantially compromise the usable space in the extension. We have attached images of multiple recent precedents from the Bishopton and Dargavel area, some of which could arguably be considered to create a greater sense of building density. We have also attached street images of the Millbank Avenue extension and proposed street images of the Girvan’s proposal for your consideration, and hope that you agree in the context that the scale and material choice could be considered appropriate and acceptable. These pages include additional streetscape images which had been produced to support the application, giving further illustration of the points made above concerning scale and massing. Unfortunately the Planning Decision was issued before we had fully concluded the discussions with Planning and we were not able to submit these at the time. proposed massingproposed views
Page 19
3 Millbank Circle, Planning Appeal proposals - comparative views - impact on streetscape proposed viewexisting view proposed viewexisting view
Page 20
3 Millbank Circle, Planning Appeal proposals - comparative views - brick elevation - impact on streetscape proposed view - brick finishexisting view proposed view - brick finishexisting view