240012 (02358) LRB Statement of Case
Argyll and Bute Council · 3 September 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 3 September 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY 24/0012/LRB REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSION TO DWELLINGHOUSE AND FORMATION OF PATIO – PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE 23/02358/PP ROSEBANK, BREADALBANE STREET, TOBERMORY, ISLE OF MULL, PA75 6PD
Page 2
STATEMENT OF CASE The Planning Authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Mr Ken MacQuarrie (‘the appellant’). Planning permission 23/02358/PP for alterations and extensions to a dwellinghouse and the formation of a patio at the site of Rosebank, Breadalbane Street, Tobermory, Isle of Mull, Argyll and Bute (‘the appeal site’) was refused by the Planning Service under delegated powers on the 16th May 2024. This decision is the subject of referral to a Local Review Body. DESCRIPTION OF SITE Rosebank is a detached dwellinghouse set within a prominent corner plot, with the original dwelling occupying a footprint of approximately 70 square metres with an additional 18 square metres occupied by attached outbuildings. The property is built of stone with a slated roof and the walls are finished with wet dash render. The site boundaries are a mixture of stone walls and metal railings and pedestrian entry to the site is facilitated by access from both Breadalbane Street and West Street. STATUTORY BASIS ON WHICH THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DECIDED Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that where, in making any determination under the Planning Act, regard is to be had to the development plan, and all other material planning considerations and the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is the test for this application. STATEMENT OF CASE Argyll and Bute Council considers the determining issues in relation to the case are as follows: Whether the development is considered to be materially harmful to the host dwelling, the application site and its setting within the townscape which is sited within the Tobermory Conservation Area and is therefore in conflict with NPF4 Policies 7, 14 and 16 and LDP2 Policies 01, 04, 05, 08, 09, 10, 15 and 17. The Report of Handing (Appendix A) sets out the Council’s full assessment of the application in terms of these key determining issues and concludes that: The proposed development by virtue of its size, scale, massing, height and design, would be materially harmful to the existing dwelling and the surrounding townscape, sited within the Tobermory Conservation Area. The proposed development would be in direct conflict with NPF4 Policy 14 which states that development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations, and regardless of scale. In this case, the proposed development would introduce an overly dominant and inappropriately designed form of development that would be materially harmful to the character, appearance and qualities of the host dwelling and the surrounding townscape, the importance of which is acknowledged by the designation of the site as part of the wider Tobermory Conservation Area.
Page 3
Furthermore, it is not considered that the highlighted unacceptable impacts of the proposed development can be appropriately mitigated through the use of planning conditions. REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING It is not considered that any additional information is required in light of the appellant’s submission. The issues raised were assessed in the Report of Handling which is contained in Appendix A. As such it is considered that Members have all the information they need to determine the case. Given the above and that the proposal has no complex or challenging issues, and has not been the subject of any significant public representation, it is not considered that a Hearing is required. COMMENT ON APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION The appellant’s Agent (‘the Agent’) has submitted a supporting statement. The following comments are made in relation to their submission: The Agent states that the proposed development would be a large building extension that would nearly double the footprint of the original dwelling, however it would occupy approximately 22% of the application site area. The Agent states that the proposal would not constitute an overdevelopment of the site as the curtilage would remain as generous. Comment: The external footprint of the original dwelling is approximately 70 square metres. The proposed extension would provide an additional external footprint of approximately 73 square metres, thereby increasing the footprint of the original dwelling by approximately 104%. NPF4 Policy 16(g) stipulates that householder development proposals will only be supported where they do not have a detrimental impact on the character of the home and the surrounding area in terms of size, design and materials. LDP2 Policy 01 requires development proposals to respect the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements. Whilst the proposal would not lead to the overdevelopment of the relatively spacious application site, this does not negate the requirement for the proposal to be appropriate to the host dwelling and the surroundings of the site in terms of scale, massing and design. The Agent states that the proposed extension is designed to follow the architectural character of the original building. The agent states that the extension is in line with the existing dwelling and the submitted design seeks to maintain ridge and eaves height and floor levels to retain the 1¾ storey character of the original building. Comment: The proposed development would dominate the original dwelling in terms of scale and massing, increasing the footprint of the original dwelling by approximately 104% and introducing an extension that would have a depth significantly greater than the depth of the original dwelling. The southern elevation of the proposed extension would be sited parallel to the adjacent public road and the massing of this elevation would not be broken up, resulting in an appearance that would be overly dominant and intrusive within the streetscene.
Page 4
Whilst the Agent states that the architectural character of the original building would be followed, this is contested as the proposal would instead incorporate design features that do no form part of the existing, original dwelling and features which are not present within the surrounding building types, including the substantial catslide roof. Development proposals should minimise their impact on the existing built setting by either integrating sensitive, low-key development or introducing high quality contemporary new design. In this instance however, contrary to the comments of the Agent, the design of the proposed extension is instead overly dominant and introduces inappropriate elevation treatment and detailing, such as the contemporary glazing arrangements, the curved glass balustrade and the catslide roof, that would fail to complement the architectural character of the original dwelling. Additionally, the proposed glazing pattern and proportions would not be sympathetic to the windows within the original dwelling and would not therefore provide consistency or unity of appearance throughout the original dwelling and the proposed extension. The Agent states that during the pre-application process and during the consideration of the planning application, the Planning Authority expressed a preference for a small low-level extension. The Agent states that this approach would deny the applicants their ambition to improve the dwelling layout and modernise the internal accommodation. Comment: NPF4 Policy 16(g) states that development proposals will only 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. In this instance, the original dwelling has a simple form with a relatively narrow plan. The depth of the proposed extension, which would be significantly greater than that of the original dwelling, would provide an unacceptably large and overly dominant appearance that would have a clear detrimental impact on the character of the existing home. The Planning Authority maintains that the existing, two storey core of the dwelling should instead be supplemented by single storey additions; larger buildings can often be successfully broken up into smaller elements in terms of massing, and taking this approach may offer opportunity to improve the dwelling in a sympathetic manner. Prior to the submission of the planning application, the applicant submitted a pre- application enquiry relating to extensions to the dwelling. The pre-application enquiry response set out the policy requirements and the relevant material planning considerations. The response advised the applicant of the concerns relating to the scale and design of the proposal and concluded that an unsympathetic extension, as proposed, would have a detrimental effect on the wider conservation area as well as the original property. The applicant was further advised at this time that the Planning Authority acknowledged the spaciousness of the plot and it was stated that it was considered that there was scope for extensions to the dwellinghouse, however such extensions would be required by the relevant Policies to be appropriately sympathetic to the character and appearance of the original dwelling and its setting within the conservation area. Notwithstanding this, the detailed planning application as subsequently submitted was for a development that was essentially the same as that the subject of the pre-application enquiry, with minor alterations to the proposed fenestration. None of the other concerns were addressed within the submission of the planning application. The Agent states that the opinions of the Planning Authority are subjective rather than based on analysis or design guidance and states that the applicants have analysed
Page 5
the original building, site and setting and careful note has been taken of the Council’s design guidance on building line, roof form and line, maintaining the proportionality and verticality of the host dwelling. Comment: During the consideration of the planning application, consultation was undertaken with the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer. The consultation response advised that the proposed development, as viewed from West Street, would not be of a sympathetic scale or height. The consultation response also confirmed that the scale and style of the proposed extension would not be sympathetic to the existing house. It is disputed that the proposal would maintain the proportionality of the host dwelling given that the proposed extension would have a significantly greater depth than the depth of the original dwelling. The Agent states that the architect has specified the use of rooflights to maximise the daylight entering the living spaces of the proposed extension and to help allay any concerns about overlooking. Comment: The Planning Authority raised no concerns regarding overlooking impacts resulting from the proposed development. The Agent States that the Case Officer has sought to depict the proposed development as visually jarring, overly dominant, and inappropriate in scale, massing, and height for a rear extension. The Agent states that this is contended by the applicant because such a judgement is not supported by the Council’s own design guidance. The Agent further states that a fair and reasonable assessment of a building extension requires consideration of curtilage dimensions, an understanding of relationship to street, neighbouring buildings, respect for setbacks, local building typology and proper acknowledgement of other examples of building extension, adaptation, and garden development within the Conservation Area. Comment: It is maintained that the proposed extension, which would represent an increase in footprint of approximately 104% of the original dwelling, would be inappropriate in scale and massing when paying due regard to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. The relevant Policies contained within National Planning Framework 4 and the adopted Local Development Plan 2 require extensions to be proportionate and appropriately designed in relation to the existing building. It is noted that the supporting statement submitted by the Agent identifies the principal elevation of the dwelling as that which addresses West Street. Given that the proposed extension would front onto West Street, it would therefore constitute a side extension. The proposed extension, as viewed from West Street, would span approximately 9.8 metres; this would be in addition to, and significantly greater than, the existing elevation fronting onto West Street, which spans approximately 7.8 metres. The proposed development would also extend beyond the rear elevations of the properties to the north of the application site. The conclusion that the proposed development would be overly dominant and inappropriate in terms of scale, massing and height arises from an assessment of the proposal that has given due regard to the existing, host dwelling and the wider surroundings of the application site.
Page 6
The Agent states that the proposed development would not harm the amenity of the neighbouring property or detract from the special qualities of the Conservation Area. The Agent states that the applicant has strong local connections and would not seek to do anything harmful to the character or appearance of the property or the surrounding area. Comment: The Planning Authority raised no concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development upon the amenity of the neighbouring property. Given the scale of the proposal and its setting within a prominent, highly visible corner plot within the Tobermory Conservation Area, the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer was consulted on the application. Conservation Areas are an irreplaceable cultural and economic resource that contribute to the distinctive character and unique quality of Argyll and Bute and therefore must be protected. The additional expertise on technical matters relating to the proposal and the conservation area were therefore sought from the Design and Conservation Officer, for assistance in reaching a view on the impact of the proposed development upon the safeguarded historic environment. The resulting consultation response unambiguously stated that the proposed development would not be sympathetic in scale, height or design. The consultation response from the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer further advised that the existing attached outbuildings at the site make a positive contribution to the area, however acknowledged that their condition may make their repair undesirable or unviable. It is reiterated that, given the size of the plot, it is considered that there is opportunity for the dwellinghouse to be extended, however any such extensions must be of an acceptable design in relation to the host dwelling and its setting within the conservation area. With reference to the consultation response, the proposal was assessed against the stipulations set out within NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places, and LDP2 Policy 17 – Conservation Areas. These Policies state that development proposals in conservation areas will only be supported where the character and appearance of the conservation area is retained and enhanced. In this instance, the assessment considered that the proposal would fail to respect the architectural and historic character of the original dwelling and would therefore adversely impact upon the surrounding conservation area. The proposal would introduce built development that would fail to complement the original dwelling; the significant massing of the proposed extension, the catslide roof and the glazing arrangements would lead to a development that would be detrimental to the original dwelling in terms of scale, proportion and design. The proposal would fail to respect the context of the application site and the design would impart an inappropriately suburban character to the site that would erode the special qualities of the Tobermory Conservation Area. The assessment of the application therefore concluded that the proposed development would be in direct conflict with NPF4 Policy 7 and LDP2 Policy 17. The Agent states that the applicant considers that the policy grounds offered for refusal are overstated, stating that greater weight should be attached to the applicants’ supporting written statement and their desire to improve their home to make it better suited to modern family living. Greater weight should be attached to the published design guidance which although dated has not yet been superseded by new guidance. No mention is made of the design guidance in the Case Officer’s report of handling. Comment: The Planning Authority does not object to the applicant’s wish to alter and improve the living accommodation within the dwelling, however the relevant Policy is clear in stating that householder development proposals must not have a detrimental
Page 7
impact upon the character of the home and surrounding area in terms of size, design and materials. The application site occupies a prominent corner plot within the Tobermory Conservation Area where the proposed, inappropriately large extension would be readily visible and appear as overly dominant within the streetscene, such that it would have a detrimental effect on the wider environment as well as the original property. The Agent makes reference to design guidance however it is to be noted that the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 and its associated Supplementary Guidance March 2016 and Supplementary Guidance 2 December 2016 are superseded and do not form part of the development plan. The Agent states that there are no objections recorded by the community council, any heritage body, nor from any third party and that two neighbours have expressed their support for the planning application. The Agent states that in the absence of any objection from neighbours, the refusal decision has been reached on the professional judgement of the appointed officer under influence of the comments of the Conservation Officer as an internal consultee. The Agent further states that the determination that the proposed extension is too large, dominant, or unsuited to the locality is entirely subjective, not analytical nor referenced to the design guidance. Comment: The application was assessed with due regard to the material considerations of the relevant policies contained within the National Planning Framework 4, the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2, consultation responses, the planning history for the site, the Council’s Technical Note on Biodiversity, and the Council’s Technical Note on Windows. The assessment of the application determined that, in line with the consultation response received from the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer, the massing of the proposed extension would appear as disproportionate to the original dwelling and its scale would not be distinguishable as a later addition and in this regard the identity of the dwelling would be lost such that its character would be undermined, and the proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy. The Agent states that the proposal would maintain uniformity across floor levels to maximise accessibility and that the scale would create practical accommodation and realise the advantage of elevation and slope to optimise views over Tobermory harbour. The Agent states that whilst it is a large extension, there is no policy restriction on 1¾ storey extensions to match the original dwelling. The Agent states that the footprint is not excessive relative to curtilage and the extended building is sustainably sited set well back from the street and respectful of existing built development. The Agent further states that the Planning Authority acknowledges that the proposal raises no privacy concerns, issues with setback, overlooking or overshadowing or residual garden size. The Agent states that the fundamental concern stated is building height and massing simply because the extension is not considered ‘subservient’ to the original. The Agent states that development is not required to be subservient and this opinion is incorrectly presented as policy. Comment: The relevant Policies of National Planning Framework 4 and the adopted Local Development Plan 2 require householder extensions to be appropriate to the character of the existing dwelling in terms of size, design and materials. In this instance, given that the proposal would represent a 104% increase in the external footprint of the building and as the extension would be across both the ground floor and first floor level, it is clear that the proposal would not be appropriate to the existing dwelling in terms of size.
Page 8
Contrary to the statements of the Agent, development proposals are required by the relevant policy to be suitably scaled and subordinate in relation to the existing built development. As previously outlined, both the size and design would visually jar with, and have a detrimental impact upon, not only the character of the surrounding area but in particular on the character and appearance of modest original dwelling which would remain and be read in the context of the substantial new addition to it. The Agent states that the proposed development would not be overly prominent nor visually discordant, stating that the extension would relate to the original building and to neighbouring development, would pose no risk of overshadowing or overlooking and would compare positively with other examples of building extension in the Tobermory Conservation Area. The Agent states that the proposal is a householder development and does not involve a significant impact on historic assets or place, setting out that the proposal would not detract from the special qualities of the Conservation Area and that the siting, form and design of the proposed extension is respectful of the special qualities of the area, local building typology and density. Comment: The proposed extension would fail to respect the architectural and historic character of the original dwelling by introducing built development that would fail to complement the original dwelling. Whilst the information submitted in support of the application seeks to reference the scale of nearby properties, there is a requirement for extensions to have regard to the scale and character of the core element of the original dwelling when determining whether an extension is sympathetic. In this case, the proposed extension would be detrimental to the original dwelling in terms of both scale and proportions. As previously outlined, the consultation response received from the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer highlighted concerns regarding the scale, height and design of the proposed extension. The proposed development would fail to recognise and respect the value of the historic environment and would not therefore preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal would be at odds with the application site and its surroundings and would undermine the key policies which seek to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places. CONCLUSION Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 (as amended) requires that all decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, as detailed in the Report of Handling appended to this submission, the proposed development by virtue of its size, scale, massing, height and design, would have an adverse visual impact on the immediate and wider surroundings and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the original dwelling. The proposal would be materially harmful to the character, appearance and qualities of the area, the importance of which is acknowledged by the designation of the site as part of the wider Tobermory Conservation Area. The proposed development is therefore confirmed as being contrary to National Planning Policy 4 Policies 7, 14 and 16 and LDP2 Policies 01, 04, 05, 08, 09, 10, 15 and 17. Taking account of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the application for Review be dismissed.
Page 9
APPENDIX A – REPORT OF HANDLING 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: 23/02358/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Mr Ken MacQuarrie Proposal: Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse and formation of patio Site Address: Rosebank, Breadalbane Street, Tobermory, Isle of Mull, PA75 6PD 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 Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse Demolition of existing attached outbuildings (ii) Other specified operations Formation of patio (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Argyll and Bute Council – Design and Conservation Officer Report dated 02.02.2024 commenting on the application with regard to the scale and design of the proposed development. Following the submission of additional supporting information from the agent, the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer was re-consulted and in an email dated 27.03.2024, advised of no further comment to make. Argyll and Bute Council – Area Roads Authority Report dated 16.01.2024 advising of no objections subject to conditions.
Page 10
The above represents a summary of the issues raised. Full details of the consultation responses are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (D) HISTORY: 23/01821/PREAPP - Storey and a half rear extension – Advice offered 6th October 2023. This was a pre-application enquiry by the applicant for the current proposed development and was for a large extension to this dwellinghouse sited in a prominent location within the Tobermory conservation area. The following comments were made by officers: This pre-application enquiry is seeking advice on the erection of an extension to the dwelling of Rosebank, Breadalbane Street, Tobermory, Isle of Mull. The application site comprises a detached property with an attached outbuilding set within a linear plot. The property occupies a very prominent corner plot at the junctions of West Street, Breadalbane Street and Breadalbane Lane. The site is adjoined by a residential property to the north. The proposal relates to the erection of a rear extension to the dwelling to facilitate ground floor and first floor extensions to the property. The proposal would involve the removal of the existing single storey attached outhouse and store that are sited to the rear of the dwelling. NPF4 represents the main policy background against which proposed developments are currently being assessed, underpinned by the Policy and Supplementary Guidance (SG) contained within the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015 (LDP). As the property lies within the Tobermory Conservation Area, consideration has to be given to NPF4 Policy 7 as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP 3 and LDP 9, supplementary guidance SG LDP ENV 17 and SG LDP ENV 18, and Policies 15 and 17 of the proposed Local Development Plan 2, the key considerations of which seek to ensure that the character and appearance of the conservation area and its setting is preserved or enhanced. NPF4 Policy 14, as underpinned by LDP Policy LDP 9, the Sustainable Siting and Design Principles and Policies 05, 08, 09 and 10 of the proposed Local Development Plan 2, seek developers to produce and execute a high standard of appropriate design and ensure that development is sited and positioned so as to pay regard to the context within which it is located. Proposed developments must respect the existing character, form, materials and detailing of the existing building and neighbouring properties. Further design advice is available within the Council’s approved Design Guidance - ABC Design Guidance - Design Guides. The SSDP referenced above provides detailed advice on proposed extensions highlighting that care needs to be taken to ensure that the design, scale and materials used are appropriate in relation to the existing property and neighbouring properties with a requirement for alterations and extensions to be in scale and designed to reflect the character of the original property so that the appearance of the property and the amenity of the surrounding area are not adversely affected. Extensions should not dominate the
Page 11
original existing building by way of size, scale, proportion or design and finishing materials should be complementary to the existing building. There is concern in this case that the proposed extension would be overly dominant in scale and would not appear as suitably subservient to the existing dwelling. The external footprint of the existing property comprises approximately 68 square metres; the proposed extension would increase the total external footprint to approximately 143 square metres. The scale of the extension would match the ridge height and eaves height of the existing property, and would appear large and overly prominent in its massing. In this regard, it is considered that the extension would dominate the original existing building by way of its size, scale and proportions. There is also concern that the proportions of the windows proposed do not respect those of the original dwelling, or the character and appearance of the surrounding conservation area. As the site occupies a prominent plot within the streetscene, any potentially unsympathetic extensions would have a detrimental effect on the wider conservation area environment as well as the original property. The plot is spacious and it is considered that there is scope for extensions to the dwellinghouse, however any extensions would need to appear as appropriately subservient, sympathetic to the existing dwelling and pay regard to the character and appearance of the conservation area. The detailed planning application as subsequently submitted and the subject of this report of handling is for a development that is essentially the same as that the subject of the pre- application enquiry (except for a change to the design of some of the windows). None of the other concerns have been addressed. (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20, Neighbour Notification, and Site Notice procedures, overall closing date 15.02.2024. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: Two expressions of support have been received to the application: Neil Morrison, Roslyn House, 24 Breadalbane Street, Tobermory, PA75 6PD - by email only (12.02.2024) Mattew Spence, 11 West Street, Tobermory, Isle of Mull, PA75 6QZ (16.02.2024) 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 proposed development would enhance the appearance of the area. The dilapidated outhouses would be replaced with the extension. Comment: The expressions of support are noted by the Planning Authority. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Page 12
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 Following the initial consultation response from the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer, a Design and Access Statement and a Supporting Statement were subsequently submitted. (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☐Yes ☒No ☐Yes ☒No The application was submitted prior to the adoption of the Local Development Plan 2 and has been submitted with supplementary information in the form of a Design and Access Statement and a Supporting Statement. (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
Page 13
(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 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport 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 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 17 – Conservation Areas Connected Places Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity
Page 14
(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 ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) ABC draft Technical Note – Argyll and Bute Windows (April 2018) (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 (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: Tobermory Conservation 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? ☐Yes ☒No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☐No details to be secured by condition
Page 15
☒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 Planning permission is sought for the erection of an extension at the site of Rosebank, Breadalbane Street, Tobermory, Isle of Mull. Rosebank is a detached dwellinghouse set within a prominent corner plot, occupying a footprint of approximately 70 square metres with an additional 18 square metres occupied by attached outbuildings. The property is built of stone with a slated roof and the walls are finished with wet dash render. The site boundaries are a mixture of stone walls and slatted timber fencing and pedestrian entry to the site is via an access from Breadalbane Street. This application seeks consent for an extension to the dwellinghouse, sited to adjoin the existing rear, southeast elevation of the dwelling. The proposed extension would have a rectangular form with a width greater than the existing rear elevation projection, occupying a total footprint of 73 square metres. The proposed extension would have a ridge height of 7.3 metres, matching the ridge height of the original dwelling. The proposed extension would have a catslide roof, with an eaves height of 2.7 metres upon the side, southwest elevation to provide a single storey appearance, with an eaves height of 4.2 metres upon the side, northeast elevation. The proposed extension would feature rooflights within both the northeast and southwest roofslopes, and contemporary glazing arrangements within the side, southwest elevation and rear, southeast elevation, with modest fenestration within the side, northeast elevation. A curved glass balustrade would feature at the first floor level upon the rear elevation. The proposed facing and roofing materials would comprise wet dash render in a cream colour and slate roof tiles, so as to match the existing facing and roofing materials. NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises seeks to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions; it requires to be applied together with other policies in NPF4. Guidance from the Scottish Government advises that it is for the decision maker to determine whether the significant weight to be applied tips the balance in favour for, or against a proposal on the basis of its positive or negative contribution to climate and nature crises.
Page 16
NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate, Mitigation and Adaption seeks to ensure that new development proposals will be sited to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and that proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Guidance from the Scottish Government confirms that at present there is no single accepted methodology for calculating and / or minimising emissions. The emphasis is on minimising emissions as far as possible, rather than eliminating emissions. The Spatial Settlement Strategy set out within LDP2 seeks to deliver sustainable levels of growth by steering the majority of development to our existing settlements as these are where the most of our current infrastructure, services, employment opportunities, housing and community facilities are to be found, however LDP2 recognises that there are instances where a different approach to significant development has to be taken particularly where existing infrastructure or services are at capacity and where a more sustainable option would be to provide new facilities elsewhere. NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity 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, Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity. NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. The development proposed by the current planning application would have no unacceptable landscape impact on the natural environment. The proposed development is not within any designated European site of natural environment conservation or protection, it is not located within a National Park, a National Scenic Area a SSSI or RAMSAR site, or a National Nature Reserve. Neither is it located within a site designated as a local nature conservation site or landscape area or within an area identified as wild land. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 4. NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places seeks to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. NPF4 Policy 7(a) requires development proposals with a potentially significant impact on historic assets or places to be accompanied by an assessment which is based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the historic asset and place. The site the subject of this application lies within the Tobermory Conservation Area and occupies a prominent corner plot within the streetscene. Following the consultation response from the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer, a Design and Access Statement and a Supporting Statement were submitted.
Page 17
NPF4 Policy 7(d) states that development proposals in or affecting conservation areas will only be supported where the character and appearance of the conservation area and its setting is preserved or enhanced. Relevant considerations include the: i. architectural and historic character of the area; ii. existing density, built form and layout; and iii. context and siting, quality of design and suitable materials. The policies contained within LDP2 seek to support and encourage sustainable forms of development that seek to protect, conserve and where possible enhance the historic built environment, encourage and support regeneration, and provide protection from inappropriate forms of development. LDP2 Policy 17 – Conservation Areas, aims to safeguard the buildings, building patterns and enclosures that give conservation areas their special character; Conservation areas form an important physical record of the architectural development and historical growth of an area. They are an irreplaceable cultural and economic resource that contributes to the distinctive character and unique quality of Argyll and Bute and therefore must be protected. LDP2 Policy 17 states that there is a presumption against development that does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of a conservation area or its setting. New development within these areas must respect the architectural, historic and other special qualities that give rise to their designation. In this instance, the proposed extension would fail to respect the architectural and historic character of the original dwelling by introducing built development that would fail to complement the original dwelling. Whilst the information submitted in support of the application seeks to reference the scale of nearby properties, there is a requirement for extensions to have regard to the scale and character of the core element of the original dwelling when determining whether an extension is sympathetic. In this case, the proposed extension would be detrimental to the original dwelling in terms of both scale and proportions. The consultation response received from the Council’s Conservation Officer highlighted concerns regarding the scale, height and design of the proposed extension, stating that it would not appear as appropriately subservient to the original dwelling. The same concerns were also raised following an initial pre-application enquiry as detailed in Section D above. NPF4 Policy 7(f) and 7(g) relate to the demolition of buildings in conservation areas and state that the demolition of buildings in a conservation area which make a positive contribution to its character will only be supported where it has been demonstrated that: i. reasonable efforts have been made to retain, repair and reuse the building; ii. the building is of little townscape value; iii. the structural condition of the building prevents its retention at a reasonable cost; or iv. the form or location of the building makes its reuse extremely difficult. The Policy further states that where demolition within a conservation area is to be followed by redevelopment, consent to demolish will only be supported when an
Page 18
acceptable design, layout and materials are being used for the replacement development. This application proposes the removal of the existing attached outbuildings sited to the rear elevation of the dwelling. The information submitted with the application advises that the outbuildings are in a poor state of repair, with water ingress and dilapidated and missing windows. Whilst the consultation response from the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer states that the current outbuildings make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area, it is acknowledged that the structural condition of the outbuildings prevents their retention at a reasonable cost. However, the proposed redevelopment to follow the demolition of the outbuildings, as discussed in the above assessment, is not considered to be of an acceptable design or layout. In this regard, the proposed development would fail to recognise and respect the value of the historic environment and would not therefore preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the aims of NPF4 Policy 7 and LDP2 Policies 15 and 17. Every attempt has been made by officers to secure an acceptable scheme, even before the application was submitted, but the applicant has refused to compromise and wishes for a determination of the development as submitted. NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. The development proposed by this application is considered to be on a brownfield site by virtue of the fact that it is a householder development located within the established residential curtilage of the property. It is considered that the proposal will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land and is therefore supported by Policy 9(a) and LDP2 Policy 01. The application site is situated within a defined ‘Settlement Area’ where LDP2 Policy 01 gives a general presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is compatible with surrounding uses; provides suitable access and infrastructure; is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; it respects the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and that it complies with all other relevant LDP2 policies. In this instance, the proposal is seeking planning permission for an extension to the existing dwelling. The proposed extension, by virtue of its design, scale and appearance, would appear as incongruous with the scale and design of the existing dwelling. The proposed development would therefore fail to meet the requirements of LDP2 Policy 01. NPF4 Policy 11- Energy seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate all forms of renewable energy development, including energy generation, storage, and new and replacement transmission and distribution infrastructure. NPF4 Policy 11(a) states that development proposals for all forms of renewable, low- carbon and zero emissions technologies will be supported. The proposed development, through the provision of solar panels, would contribute to the expansion of low-carbon and zero emission technologies and is thereby supported
Page 19
by NPF4 Policy 11 and there is no conflict with LDP2 Policy 09, Sustainable Design, which seeks proposed developments to consider renewable sources of energy. NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. The development the subject of this planning application seeks permission for an extension to the dwellinghouse. The extension would however increase the level of accommodation provided at the property. There would be no amendments to the access or parking arrangements at the site. The proposed development is not considered to be a significant travel generating use or a proposal where it is considered important to monitor travel patterns resulting from the development. The Area Roads Authority have been consulted on the application and have raised no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to the provision of a system of surface water drainage and the provision of a bin storage area. Given that the proposed development relates to extensions to the existing dwellinghouse and does not propose any alterations to the access or parking arrangements, it is considered that this requirement could be secured as a note to the applicant in the event that planning permission were to be granted. The proposed development is consistent with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 13 and is consistent with the requirements of LDP2 Policies 35, 37, 39 and 40 which collectively seek to ensure that proposed developments are served by a suitable and safe access regime and provide appropriate parking provision commensurate with the scale of the development proposed. NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the ‘Place Principle’. This policy requires development proposals to contribute to quality places, spaces and environments through appropriate design and quality, taking into account the local context and characteristics of the area. NPF4 Policy 14(a) requires development proposals to be designed to improve the quality of an area, with NPF4 Policy 14(b) requiring development proposals to be consistent with the six qualities of successful places. The proposed development would directly conflict with NPF4 Policies 14(a) and 14(b) as the shape, size and appearance of the development would fail to integrate appropriately with the surrounding built environment and would therefore have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the local area. The proposed development would be readily visible from the public realm and the appearance of the proposed extension would be incompatible and out of character in the context of the local vernacular. The development would not therefore be supportable under the provisions of NPF4 Policy 14 or LDP2 Policies 05, 09 and 10. NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable homes, in the right locations, providing choice across tenures that meet the diverse housing needs of people and communities across Scotland.
Page 20
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. LDP2 Policy 05 sets out the requirements for development proposals to develop the areas sense of identity by understanding and embracing the existing distinctive characteristics, with the design respecting and complementing its surroundings in terms of density, appearance, height, scale, massing, materials and finishes. These considerations collectively seek to ensure that proposals reflect the original character of the dwellinghouse so that the appearance of the building and the amenity of the surrounding area are not adversely affected. The existing dwelling at the site is a detached dwelling with modest proportions, scale and massing. The development proposed by this application would fail to be subservient to the existing dwelling; the proposed rear extension would be of a significantly greater depth than the existing dwellinghouse, extending approximately 10 metres beyond the existing rear elevation. The ridge height of the proposed extension, at 7.3 metres, would match the ridge height of the existing dwelling and the footprint of the proposed extension would be greater than the footprint of the original dwelling. In this regard, the proposed extension would fail to be subservient to the existing dwelling in terms of both size and height and would appear as an overly dominant form of development. The character and form of the existing building would not therefore be preserved. In addition, the elevation treatment and detailing, with the contemporary glazing arrangements, curved glass balustrade and catslide roof, would fail to complement the original dwelling. The massing of the proposed extension would appear as disproportionate to the original dwelling and its scale would not be distinguishable as a subservient, later addition. In this regard, the identity of the dwelling would be lost such that its character would be undermined as the proposed extension would not reflect the proportions, scale and size of the original dwelling. The scale, form, massing and design of the proposed extension would visually jar with and have a detrimental impact not only on the character of the surrounding area but in particular on the character and appearance of modest original dwelling which would remain and be read in the context of the substantial new addition to it. With regard to impacts upon neighbour amenity, the proposed development would be sited at a sufficient distance from neighbouring properties such that, notwithstanding the inappropriate scale, form, massing and height of the proposed development, it is not considered that the proposal would materially harm the privacy outlook, levels of sun and daylight or the living conditions for any nearby residential properties. As such, the proposed would meet the requirements of Policy 16g of NPF4 in so far as stated only in respect of not causing a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties. For the reasons outlined above, the proposal is considered to be contrary to NPF4 Policy 16 and LDP2 Policies 04, 05, 08, 09 and 10. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No
Page 21
(R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: See reasons for refusal set out below. (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: Emma Shaw Date: 14.05.2024 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 15.05.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth