Mrs Faulkes: Proposed Alterations and Erection of Extension: 30 The Green, Craobh Haven (Ref: 26/01009/Pp)
Argyll and Bute Council · 15 September 2026
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 15 September 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 26/01009/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mrs Faulkes Proposal: Proposed alterations and erection of extension. Site Address: 30 The Green, Craobh Haven, Argyll and Bute, PA31 8UB DECISION ROUTE ☐Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☒Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of a rear two storey extension to dwelling • Erection of 1.4m high boundary wall • Installation of an air source heat pump (ii) Other specified operations • Internal layout reconfiguration (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material consideration, it is recommended that planning permission be APPROVED subject to the conditions appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: None applicable. (D) HISTORY: 25/01033/PP – Erection of extension, internal and external alterations and formation of parking bay. Application withdrawn on 21st October 2025. 26/00069/PP – Erection of extension and formation of rear parking bay. Application withdrawn on 19th May 2026.
Page 2
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Officer comments: The history of the proposal is material insofar as it assists in understanding the evolution of the design. Two previous iterations of proposals to extend/ alter No.30 were withdrawn following concerns expressed by planning officers with regards to design and overdevelopment of the site. Those earlier proposals do not establish that the principle of extension is unacceptable. The current proposal represents a revised iteration of the development following those earlier discussions. (E) PUBLICITY: Neighbour notification expiry – 15th July 2026 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: The application has generated a significant level of public interest, comprising both objections and representations of support. A total of 12 respondents object to the scheme and 3 respondents support the scheme. Objection Ania Swozdiak, 28 The Green, Craobh Haven, PA31 8UB (15/07/26, 29/07/26) Mrs Helen Wright, Barmolloch, Kilmichael Glen, PA34 8RJ (29/07/26) Mr Stuart Scott, Aros Cottage, Tarbert, PA29 6XX (29/07/26) Mr David Roberts, 24 The Green, Craobh Haven, PA31 8UB (28/07/26) Mr Darren Thomas, The Old Cottage, Arduaine, PA34 4XQ (28/07/26) Maureen Neilson, 2 Kings Yard, Craobh Haven, PA31 8UA (24/07/26) Mr Ian Burton, 22 The Green, Craobh Haven, PA31 8UB (27/07/26) Mr Sonny Scott, 31 Burt Street, Dunfermline, KY12 0PB (22/07/26) Ailsa Phin, 31 Burt Street, Dunfermline, KY12 0PB (22/07/26) Noah Scott, Newhouse, Tayinloan, PA29 6XG (22/07/26) Ms Mahailia Kateryna, 50 Longrow, Campbeltown, PA28 6DD (13/07/26) Mr David Kelly, 16 The Green, Craobh Haven, PA31 8UB (06/07/26) Support Mr Frank Beaumont, Craigard, Ardfern, PA31 8QN (28/07/26) Mr Matthew Carney, 14 Princess Gate, Bothwell, G71 8SP (06/07/26) Duncan Tanahill (by e-mail only) (30/06/26) Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of issues raised: The objections raise a wide range of matters, although there is consideration overlap between individual submissions. The principal matters raised can be summarised as follows: • Loss of daylight and sunlight to No.28 The Green and its garden;
Page 3
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • Overshadowing and an allegedly overbearing relationship; • The height and position of the proposed boundary wall; • Overlooking and loss of privacy; • Scale of the extension and alleged overdevelopment; • Impact upon the distinctive architectural character of Craobh Haven and The Green; • Excavation and lowing of internal floor levels, including structural implications for neighbouring properties; • Potential loss of lateral support; • Hydrology, groundwater and drainage; • Construction noise, dust and vibration; • Concern that the hobbies room could represent a business or non- domestic use; • Siting, visual impact and noise associated with the air source heat pump; • Ownership, title and boundary disputes; • Access to neighbouring drainage infrastructure; • The quality and legibility of the submitted drawings; • Alleged non-compliance with private title burdens; • Property values and increased energy costs; and • The precedent which approval might establish for further alterations within Craobh Haven. Representations in support principally refer to: • The benefits of investment in and refurbishment of the dwelling; • The relatively modest scale of the extension; • Sustainable upgrading of the property; • Precedent for alterations elsewhere in Craobh Haven; • The environmental benefits of the air source heat pump; and • The contribution which permanent occupation of the dwelling would make to the year-round community. Officer response: each material matter is considered within the Report of Handling. Other matters are commented on below: Boundaries, ownership, title burdens and access 1.1. A number of representations raise disputes regarding the precise ownership boundary between No.30 and adjoining land. Planning permission does not determine ownership. Nor does a grant of planning permission override title conditions, servitudes or other private legal rights. It is possible in law for planning permission to be granted for works which an Applicant may subsequently be unable to implement without obtaining another party’s consent. Planning permission merely establishes the acceptability of development in planning terms. Any private restriction contained within title deeds remains enforceable independently of the planning permission where legally applicable. Similarly, planning permission does not confer authority to enter neighbouring land or obstruct a third party’s drainage system. These matters therefore do not constitute ground of refusal of the planning application. Property values and increased energy costs 1.2. Representations argue that the proposal may reduce neighbouring property values and that additional shadowing might increase heating and lighting costs. Effect upon private property value is not a land-use planning consideration and cannot be afforded weight
Page 4
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 in determining the application. Potential increases in household energy expenditure are likewise not a separate basis upon which planning permission can reasonably be withheld. The underlying physical matter- alleged loss of daylight and sunlight – has instead been assessed directly on its planning merits below. Quality and legibility of the submitted plans 1.3. Several objectors state that the drawings are difficult to read and argue that the application should not be determined until clearer plans are submitted. Officers acknowledge that the architectural drawings contain a substantial amount of handwritten technical annotation and are less visually straightforward than contemporary CAD-produced plans. The relevant question, however, is whether the Planning Authority has sufficient information to understand and determine the development. When read together with the location plan, site plan, existing plans/ elevations and proposed plans/ elevations, Officers are satisfied that the nature, scale and location of the development are sufficiently identifiable to permit proper determination. The objection on plan legibility therefore carries limited weight. Excavation, structural stability and lateral support 1.4. The proposed works involve internal alterations which the submitted drawings indicate will require a change in existing floor levels. Objectors express concern that excavation into bedrock could affect adjoining properties through vibration, movement or withdrawal of lateral support. These are serious matters from the perspective of construction engineering. However, the Planning Authority must distinguish between whether the development is acceptable in land use terms and the detailed engineering methodology required to safely construct that development. 1.5. Planning permission does not convey a right to damage adjoining property, remove support from neighbouring land, or undertake works outside land controlled by the Applicant. The Applicant remains independently responsible for ensuring that construction works comply with applicable building standards and private law obligations and do not cause actionable damage to neighbouring property. There is no evidence before the Planning Authority establishing that the development is incapable of being constructed safely. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☐Yes ☒No (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☐Yes ☒No ☒Yes ☐No
Page 5
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☐Yes ☒No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Homes for People Policy 66 – New Residential Development on Non-Allocated Housing Sites within Settlement Areas
Page 6
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 High Quality Environment Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN21 VII and LVIA Light Technical Note (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No In deciding whether to hold a discretionary hearing Members should consider: • How up to date the Development Plan is, the relevance of the policies to the proposed development, and whether the representations are on development plan policy grounds which have recently been considered through the development plan process. • The degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations, together with the relative size of community affected, set against the relative number of representations and their provenance. At the time of writing, 15 representations had been received in relation to this planning application. Of these, 12 object to the proposal with 3 affording support. It is the opinion of Officers that the representations received, together with officer assessment of the relevant planning issues contained within this report, provide all the information required to enable Members to make an informed decision based on all of the material planning considerations in this case. In this instance it is not considered that the objections raise any complex or technical issues that have not been addressed in the current Report of Handling and it is not considered that a discretionary local hearing would add value to the planning process.
Page 7
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 A full report is provided within Appendix A. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Knapdale/ Melford Local Landscape Area (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) ☐Yes ☒No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☐No details to be secured by condition ☒N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☒Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☐Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: n/a (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The application seeks planning permission for alterations and the erection of an extension to the existing dwellinghouse at No.30 The Green, Craobh Haven. There is no objection in principle of altering and extending an existing dwelling within the established settlement. The determining considerations are therefore whether the particular development proposed is acceptable in design, scale, character, mass and impacts on amenity.
Page 8
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The application has attracted significant public opposition. The number and detail of representations are acknowledged. The Planning Authority has had regard to all representations received, including the detailed objections concerning daylight and sunlight, residential amenity, design, character, excavation, construction disturbance, use, renewable energy, boundaries and private rights. The concerns raised are understood, and where material, have been taken into account. Nevertheless, the planning system requires the application to be determined against the statutory Development Plan and other material considerations rather than according to the number of representations received. Having undertaken that assessment, Officers conclude that the proposed alterations and extension are acceptable in terms of their principle, siting, scale, massing, design and relationship with the host dwelling and surrounding settlement. While the development would result in a perceptible change in the relationship between No.30 and adjoining property, particularly No.28, the effects are not considered to reach a level which would constitute harm to residential amenity. The proposal is therefore considered to accord overall with the relevant provisions of National Planning Framework 4 and the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (2024). No material consideration has been identified which would warrant determination contrary to the Development Plan. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold planning permission in principle having regard to s25 of the Act. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Fiona Scott Date: 27/08/26 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 01/09/26 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 9
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 26/01009/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 12/06/2026; supporting information and, the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Location Plan 17th June 2026 Site Plan 12th June 2026 Existing Plans and Elevations 6412-1 12th June 2026 Proposed Plans and Elevations 6412 – 2 D 12th June 2026 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. External Finishes Unless otherwise expressly shown on the approved drawings, all external materials and finishes to the extension and altered parts of the dwelling shall match or harmonise with the corresponding materials and finishes of the existing dwelling in respect of colour, texture and appearance, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that the extension integrates satisfactorily with the host dwelling and preserves the architectural and visual character of The Green and the wider planning settlement of Craobh Haven, in accordance with NPF4 Policy 14 and the relevant design provisions of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2. 3. Boundary Wall The stone boundary wall forming part of the approved development shall be constructed on in the position, height and form shown on the approved drawings. The wall shall be faced or constructed in natural stone appropriate in colour, character and appearance to the locality and shall thereafter be retained in that form. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, the character of Craobh Haven and the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers, and in order to ensure that the boundary treatment does not exceed the scale assessed as part of this application. 4. Ancillary Use
Page 10
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The accommodation hereby approved, shall be used solely for the purposes incidental or ancillary to the residential occupation and enjoyment of 30 The Green as a single dwellinghouse and shall not be occupied, let or used independently from the dwellinghouse. Reason: In order to define the scope of the permission and safeguard the residential character of the property and amenity of neighbouring occupiers. 5. Air Source Heat Pump The noise level arising from the operation of the air source heat pump hereby approved shall not exceed 42 dB LAeq (5 minutes), measured at 1 metre from the window of any habitable room on the façade of any neighbouring residential property. Reason: In order to safeguard the residential amenity of neighbouring properties from unacceptable operational noise.
Page 11
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT • The granting of planning permission does not confer any right upon the applicant to enter onto or undertaken works upon land or property not within their ownership or control. The applicant is responsible for securing all necessary private permissions and rights prior to undertaking the development. • The applicant is advised that this planning permission does not remove or alter any legal responsibility to ensure that excavation, foundation or construction works do not adversely affect the structural stability or support of adjoining land or buildings. Any necessary structural engineering advice should be obtained prior to commencement of excavation. • This planning permission does not constitute building warrant approval. The applicant should contact the Council’s Building Standards service to establish the requirements applicable to the proposed works prior to commencement. • The granting of planning permission does not override or modify any private title condition, burden, servitude or other legal restriction affecting the property. Any such matters remain the responsibility of the parties concerned. • Given the proximity of the neighbouring residential properties to the site address, in order to minimise the impact of noise generated by construction activities, the hours of the proposed works should be restricted to 0800 - 1800 hours Monday to Friday, 0800 - 1300 hours Saturday and not at all on Sunday, Bank or Scottish Public Holidays.
Page 12
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 26/01009/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Settlement Strategy 1.1. The application site is an existing residential property situated within the established settlement of Craobh Haven. LDP2 Policy 01 gives support to development within settlement areas where the proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses, respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of matters including scale, massing, design and external finishes, and complies with the other relevant provisions of the LDP. There is therefore no objection in principle to the extension and alteration of an existing dwellinghouse within Craobh Haven. 1.2. The determining issue is not whether residential development is appropriate in this location but whether the particular form of development now proposed, represents an acceptable addition to this dwelling having regard to: a) The distinctive architectural character of Craobh Haven b) Its scale and massing c) Residential amenity, and d) The detailed siting and design policies of the Development Plan 1.3. The development would retain the existing residential use of the property. It does not represent an intensification to a materially different land use, the subdivision of the dwelling or the introduction of an incompatible activity. The works would allow an existing dwelling to be upgraded and adapted to provide accommodation better suited to contemporary residential requirements. The proposal therefore represents development of a type which is entirely appropriate in principle within an established settlement. The principle of development is acceptable and accords with NPF4 Policy 9 and LDP2 Policies 01 and 66. 2. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development 2.1. The application site comprises No.30 The Green, an existing two-storey terraced dwelling situated within the established settlement of Craobh Haven. The property forms part of a closely arranged group of dwellings which collectively define The Green and which are characterised by a relatively consistent architectural language, including pitched roof forms, dormer features, rendered external walls and a close relationship between individual properties. 2.2. When viewed from King’s Yard, No.28 immediately adjoins No.30 to the left, with No.32 adjoining to the right. Whilst the properties display a coherent architectural language, they are not entirely uniform in their individual footprints or external wall positions. In particular, No. 28 and No.30 presently share the same rear building line, whereas No.32, immediately adjoining No.30 on the opposite side, extends further rearwards. There is therefore already some established variation in the rearward extent of development within the immediate group. 2.3. This application for planning permission seeks the erection of a two-storey rear extension. The proposed extension would increase the depth of No.30 but would not project beyond
Page 13
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 the established external rear wall of No.32. The extension is proposed with a dual pitched roof and northerly gable with external finishes to match the existing dwelling. 2.4. The submitted proposed floor plans and elevations show substantial internal reconfiguration together with additional accommodation and external alterations. The proposed arrangement includes a ground floor hobbies room, bedroom accommodation and first-floor living accommodation. 2.5. The development also incorporates alterations to levels and external works including the installation of a 1.4m high stone boundary wall between the property and No.28 within the garden areas. The proposal also looks to install an air source heat pump on the southern elevation and solar panels within the proposed extension’s roof slope. 3. Scale, Massing and Design and relationship with Craobh Haven 3.1. NPF4 Policy 14 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well-designed development which makes successful places. It requires development proposals, irrespective of scale, to be designed to improve the quality of an area and supports proposals which are consistent with the six qualities of successful places: healthy, pleasant, connected, distinctive, sustainable and adaptable. Of particular relevance to this application is the requirement for a development to be pleasant and distinctive, responding appropriately to the qualities which give an existing place its identity. 3.2. LDP2 Policy 05 provides the corresponding local placemaking framework. The aims of the policy require proposals to understand and embrace the existing distinctive characteristics of an area, with development respecting and complementing its surroundings in terms of density, appearance, height, scale, massing, materials and finishes. LDP2 Policy 08 concerns the successful integration of development into its landscape and townscape setting, while LDP2 Policy 10 provides the detailed design framework applying to development generally. 3.3. Craobh Haven is not an ordinary suburban housing development. The layout is deliberately composed around a series of intimate streets and spaces, and The Green is characterised by buildings which have a particularly strong relationship with one another in terms of scale, roof form, frontage and massing. The objections which refer to the planned architectural origins of the village are therefore relevant. The concern that incremental extensions could gradually diminish the coherent architectural composition is a legitimate planning consideration. 3.4. The development would alter the footprint and internal configuration of the property and would introduce additional built form. However, the proposal does not seek to replace or overwhelm the original building. The proposed elevations demonstrate that the established principal roof form remains readily identifiable and visually dominant. The extension reads as an addition to the original dwelling rather than as a competing primary building mass. The proposal would therefore have no negative impact on the Knapdale and Melfort Local Landscape Area taking account of its domestic scale and siting. 3.5. A successful extension to a dwelling of this character should not necessarily attempt to replicate every element of the host building, but it should remain proportionate to it and should avoid upsetting the architectural hierarchy of the original structure. In Officers’ assessment the current proposal achieves this balance. The development introduces additional accommodation but does not materially increase the overall height of the principal dwelling or create an incongruous roof form when viewed in the context of The Green.
Page 14
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 3.6. It is relevant that, in the immediate context of the application site, that there is an established degree of variation in building depth within the immediate grouping. The proposed extension would alter the existing relationship between No.28 and No.30 by extending beyond their presently shared rear building line. This change has been carefully considered and is not disregarded in this assessment. However, the introduction of a rearward projection at No.30 would not, in itself, represent a form of development wholly without precedent within the immediate built context. The existing greater depth of No.32 demonstrates that the rear building line of group is already staggered rather than entirely uniform. The appropriate planning consideration is therefore whether the scale, massing, and extent of the proposed addition can be accommodated without becoming visually dominant over the host dwelling. 3.7. It is also relevant that the proposal has been subject to two previous iterations which were withdrawn following Officer concerns. The current application represents a substantially more resolved design response. That history does not confer planning permission by default, but it demonstrates that the design has evolved specifically in response to concerns about the relationship between the proposed extension, the dwelling and its surroundings. 3.8. Several objections assert that the extension would destroy the “symmetry” of the original village. Officers consider that description overstates the visual effect. The character of Craobh Haven derives from a common architectural language, but this does not mean that every dwelling must remain permanently identical in depth or footprint. The planning test is whether the proposed intervention would materially undermine the qualities which make the group distinctive. 3.9. In this case, the principal elevation and established roof form remain legible. The addition does not introduce a building of such a scale, height or architectural assertiveness that the visual hierarchy of The Green would be fundamentally altered. Furthermore, the application concerns the alteration of one existing dwelling, not the removal or wholesome redevelopment of part of the settlement. Officers therefore conclude that the development represents a sufficiently restrained and contextual addition in accordance NPF4 Policy 14 and LDP2 Policies 01, 05, 08 and 10 in respect of design, scale, massing and townscape character. 3.10. The objection referring to a “50% garden rule” has been considered but does not represent a specific statutory or development plan test application to this application. The Council’s adopted policies instead require an assessment of the resultant density, layout, scale and relationship between development and its setting. The proposed site plan confirms the extension will occupy additional garden ground, but meaningful private external space will remain. The dwelling would not be left with an unreasonably restrictive or unusable area. Nor does the development result in such a concentration of built form that it would appear visually cramped when considered within the already compact morphology of The Green. The proposal is therefore not considered to constitute overdevelopment and accords with NPF4 Policy 14, LDP2 Policies 05, 08 and 10 in this respect. 4. Sustainable Development 4.1. LDP2 Policy 04 promotes the principles of sustainable development and sits alongside NPF4’s wider climate objectives. LDP2 Policy 09 requires consideration and where possible, use of sustainable design and construction methods including renewable energy, embodied energy, conversion/ reuse and adaptation. The proposal relates to the retention and improvement of an existing dwelling, rather than demolition and replacement. That in itself has sustainability benefits through the continued use of existing
Page 15
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 building fabric. The proposal will also permit the accommodation to be adapted and upgraded for modern residential occupation. 4.2. The inclusion of an air source heat pump and solar panels is consistent in principle with the move towards lower carbon forms of domestic heating. Indeed, LDP2 Policy 04 was amended during adoption specifically to recognise technologies including air source heat pumps as measures capable of contributing to energy efficiency and sustainable development. The proposal is therefore considered compatible with the objectives of LDP2 policies 04 and 09. 5. Impacts on Amenity 5.1. NPF4 Policy 16(g) states that householder development proposals will be supported where they 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 they do not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact, overshadowing or overlooking. The most frequently raised objection concerns the potential effect upon No.28 The Green, immediately adjoining the application property. The representations explain that No.28 has a northerly aspect and is already perceived by its occupiers and family members to receive relatively limited levels of natural light. Concern is expressed that the extension and associated boundary treatment would further reduce daylight and direct sunlight to the rear-facing accommodation and garden. 5.2. Loss of daylight and sunlight to an existing dwelling is a material planning consideration and has been afforded significant weight. It is nevertheless important to distinguish between: a) Some reduction in existing light or sunlight, which commonly occurs when development takes place in an established built-up environment; and b) A reduction of such magnitude that it would result in unacceptable harm to residential amenity. 5.3. The planning system does not protect an existing occupier from everyday change in lighting conditions arising from otherwise acceptable development. The physical context is particularly important in this case. Officers acknowledge that No.28 and No.30 presently share the same rear building line and that the proposed extension would introduce additional built form extending beyond that existing line. The proposal would therefore alter the present physical relationship between the two properties, and this has been afforded appropriate weight. 5.4. NPF4 Policy 14 and LDP2 Policies 05, 08 and 10 require development to create successful places and avoid unacceptable conflict with neighbouring uses. In the context of an extension to an existing dwelling, this includes consideration of loss of daylight/ sunlight; overshadowing, outlook, overbearing impact, privacy and overlooking. The policy test is one of reasonable residential amenity rather than the preservation of existing circumstances without change. 5.5. Officers acknowledge from the representations and accompanying photographs that the relevant elevation of No.28 does not enjoy unrestricted sunlight throughout the day. That existing circumstance does not, however, mean that any additional development capable of casting some shadow must be resisted. The proposed extension has to be assessed according to its height, projection, position and relation to the relevant openings of No.28. The submitted plans show that the extension is of a controlled domestic scale and remains subordinate to the principal form of the dwelling.
Page 16
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 5.6. It would consequently not be appropriate to conclude that the proposal would have no effect upon daylight, sunlight or outlook presently experienced at No.28. Depending on the time of day and year, some additional localised shadowing may occur as a consequence of the proposed extension. However, the existence of additional shadowing does not of itself establish unacceptable harm. The relevant planning consideration is the degree and duration of the additional effect, having regard to the height, length and position of the proposed extension, the orientation of the properties, the position of neighbouring windows and amenity areas and the established character of the surrounding built form. 5.7. The proposal is a domestic extension within an already compact group of dwellings and is not considered to be of such a scale or massing that its projection beyond the existing rear wall of No.28 would create an unduly dominant or oppressive flank relationship. The wider built context is also relevant. No.32, immediately adjoining No.30 on the opposite side, already extends further rearwards than the existing rear walls of No.28 and No.30. The concerns that No.28 already experiences relatively constrained levels of natural light have been carefully considered. This makes the property sensitive to further change, but does not establish that additional shadowing must necessarily be regarded as unacceptable. The planning test remains whether the additional effect attributable to the proposed development would result in such a deterioration in daylight, sunlight, or outlook that reasonable residential amenity would no longer be maintained. 5.8. Having regard to the domestic scale of the extension, its height and projection, the existing relationship between the properties and the compact settlement context, Officers consider that whilst some alteration to existing lighting conditions may occur, the development would not result in a material or unacceptable loss of daylight or sunlight or an unduly overbearing relationship with No.28. 5.9. The request within representations for a formal daylight and sunlight assessment has also been considered. Such assessments can provide a useful technical tool but are not an automatic requirement for domestic extensions. In this instance, Officers consider that the submitted plans, together with the known orientation and physical relationship between the properties provide sufficient information to reach a reasonable planning judgement. Accordingly, whilst the concerns of the neighbouring occupiers are acknowledged and have been afforded material weight, the degree of additional impact is not considered sufficient to warrant refusal of planning permission on residential amenity grounds in this regard. 5.10. A number of objections refer specifically to the proposed stone boundary wall and the impact arising from its height. Officers accept that boundary structures can affect residential amenity where they are particularly high or located immediately adjacent to principal windows or very restricted garden areas. However, boundary walls are also a characteristic and entirely normal feature of traditional and compact settlement environments. The acceptability of the wall therefore requires to be judged in context rather than by height alone. In this case Officers do not consider that the proposed wall, either independently or cumulatively with the extension, would result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. The use of stone is also considered appropriate to the established material palette and character of the locality. A condition should nevertheless require the wall to be completed in accordance with the approved drawings and prevent any subsequent increase in its approved height without the benefit of any additional permission that may be required. 5.11. The proposed first floor arrangement has prompted concern about overlooking from the new living accommodation and Juliet style openings. The supplementary objection from No.28 specifically raises concern of overlooking the neighbouring garden. The
Page 17
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 setting of The Green already involves relatively close relationship between dwellings and private external areas with an intimate residential environment exists where some degree of mutual overlooking is inherent in its layout. 5.12. There is an important distinction between an opportunity to see another property or garden and direct, intrusive overlooking of private living accommodation or principal private amenity space. Having regard to the arrangement shown on the submitted plans, Officers are satisfied that the proposed openings would not create a degree of additional overlooking so harmful that refusal would be justified. The windows remain part of ordinary domestic accommodation within an existing dwelling, and their relationship with the neighbouring property is not considered unusual for a compact settlement of this nature. The objection is therefore acknowledged but does not warrant refusal on residential amenity grounds. 5.13. A number of representations raise concern about the impacts of the proposed air source heat pump on neighbouring amenity. The support representations take the opposite view, noting it would be a positive sustainable intervention which would improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions. The principle of low-carbon heating is supported in planning policy. NPF4 includes a dedicated Policy 19 dealing with heating and cooling, alongside its wider climate-related objectives. Nevertheless, such equipment requires to be positioned so as not to create unacceptable residential amenity effects. Officers do not consider that the presence of an air source heat pump in itself would justify refusal. Any detailed noise controls considered necessary can appropriately be addressed by condition. Electrical loading, fire safety and compliance with electrical wiring regulations are not matters for determination through this planning application. 5.14. Construction works will inevitably result in temporary disturbance. Given the terraced and closely grouped nature of the surrounding development, the potential for noise, dust and vibration is greater than would arise at an isolated property. However, temporary construction effects are not ordinarily a reason to refuse otherwise acceptable development where they can reasonably be controlled. A planning informative is proposed highlighting the recommended construction working hours. This is considered consistent with the amenity objectives underpinning NPF4 Policy 14 and LDP2 Policies 05 and 10. 6. Other Matters 6.1. NPF4 Policy 3 seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. In the case of the development proposed by this application, it is considered that there are no issues of compliance with Policy 3. No material biodiversity impacts have been identified in the assessment of this application by the Planning Authority. NPF4 Policy 3(c) states that applications for individual householder development are excluded from the requirement to include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in compliance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 3 and is consistent with the requirements of LDP2 Policy 73. 6.2. The proposal makes no changes to the existing access or vehicular parking arrangements, nor any changes to the existing servicing arrangements for the property. Hobbies Room 6.3. Several objectors refer the room identified on the plans as a “hobbies room”. The principal objection suggests that the size, together with reference to workshop-type equipment, could indicate that it is intended for commercial business activity rather than ordinary
Page 18
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 domestic purposes. The application before the Council is for alterations and extension to a dwellinghouse. A hobbies room is capable of being entirely normal ancillary residential accommodation. The presence of tools or equipment within such a room would not of itself amount to a material change of use. There is no substantive evidence before the Planning Authority that a separate commercial use forms part of this application. 6.4. Planning permission should therefore be determined according to the development applied for rather than speculation about a possible future use. Should a materially different use subsequently arise which amounts to a material change from residential use, which would require consideration separately under the planning legislation. For clarity and given the concern expressed, a condition may be imposed confirming that the extension and rooms shown therein shall be used only for purposes incidental or ancillary to the residential occupation of No.30 and shall not be operated as a separate business/ workshop where this would amount to a material change of use. Requested hydrological surveys 6.5. The representations seek detailed hydrology, groundwater, flood risk and sustainable drainage assessments. The scale and nature of this proposal do not, however, indicate a development which would normally require specialist hydrological modelling. It is an extension to an established dwelling within an existing developed settlement. No technical evidence has been submitted demonstrating an identified groundwater pathway or flood mechanism which would render the proposed development unacceptable. 6.6. Responsibility would remain with the developer to ensure that existing drainage infrastructure is not damaged and that surface water arising from the development is appropriately managed. The concerns raised are therefore insufficient to demonstrate conflict with the development plan. 7. Conclusion 7.1 The key factor in the assessment of this application is whether or not the proposed alterations and extension to the dwellinghouse are of an appropriate scale, design and finishes which respects the host dwellinghouse and the character and appearance of the surrounding streetscene and whether the proposal is consistent with the provisions of adopted National and Local Planning Policy 7.2 The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of both the adopted National and Local Policy set out above and is deemed to be in compliance with their requirements. 7.3 The issues raised by third parties are not considered to amount to material planning considerations that have not been addressed through the processing of the planning application. Accordingly the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.