dec 2719 notice of revi - pkc.gov.uk

Applicant(s)

Name

Address WILSON

R T-H

Postcode PH a. oax

1,0S.3 CAM E-K0 r\J

Contact Telephone 1Contact Telephone 2Fax No

E-mail*

Contact Telephone 1Contact Telephone 2Fax No

t E-mail*

W Lso N ST12E ETPE trz-ri-{

OD-101_15H Ex ISTINC, 5112u URA t'Lt‘u_ki unlSocAKit) EXTEt.)5t oN ANDECE.ci REPLAC.CM ENT, --/HE RE Sy (..4 EX STINI BA /LowAND D ISGUISE OuTt41,\12D 51(4 1\15 0f 5t) 51De ►,)c,E.

4 c-E_\ V 07' (6 Nai-ly)

c3t- 3/. 1 • .L010

NOTICE OF REVI

tAtuUTIVE'SDEMOCRATIC SERVICES

DEC 2719 Noti of Review

UNDER SECTION 43A(8) OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED)INRESPECT OF DECISIONS ON LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS

THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCHEMES OF DELEGATION AND LOCAL REVIEW PROCEDURE)(SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2008

THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (APPEALS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2008

IMPORTANT: Please read and follow the guidance notes provided when completing this form. Failure to supply all the relevant information could invalidate your notice of review.

Use BLOCK CAPITALS if completing in manuscript

Agent (if any)

Name

Address

Postcode

Mark this box to confirm all contact should bethrough this representative:

Yes No* Do you agree to correspondence regarding your review being sent by e-mail?

121'

Planning authority

Planning authority's application reference number

Site address

Description of proposeddevelopment

PE. 12-1)-4 PND Ki 1.053

I0 /0 V) 5 0/F 1_.1_-

Date of application 2:7 /5 iao 10 Date of decision (if any) oc)/09 1d.0 I o

Note. This notice must be served on the planning authority within three months of the date of the decisionnotice or from the date of expiry of the period allowed for determining the application.

page 1 of

Notice of ReviewNature of application

Application for planning permission (including householder application)

Application for planning permission in principleFurther application (including development that has not yet commenced and where a time limithas been imposed; renewal of planning permission; and/or modification, variation or removal ofa planning condition)

Application for approval of matters specified in conditions

Reasons for seeking review

Refusal of application by appointed officerFailure by appointed officer to determine the application within the period allowed fordetermination of the application

3. Conditions imposed on consent by appointed officer

Review procedure

The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at anytime during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable themto determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures,such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the landwhich is the subject of the review case.

Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for thehandling of your review. You may tick more than one box if you wish the review to be conducted by acombination of procedures.

Further written submissions

LiOne or more hearing sessions

Li

3. Site inspection

4 Assessment of review documents only, with no further procedure

If you have marked box 1 or 2, please explain here which of the matters (as set out in your statementbelow) you believe ought to be subject of that procedure, and why you consider further submissions or ahearing are necessary:

Site inspection

In the event that the Local Review Body decides to inspect the review site, in your opinion:Yes No

1. Can the site be viewed entirely from public land?

2 Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely, and without barriers to entry?

If there are reasons why you think the Local Review Body would be unable to undertake anunaccompanied site inspection, please explain here:

we Wom-D Pize Pe t2.. 1-0 -ISE or sire IN) 0 cm-a -ro Be A.,,e,LE,

'ME LOCAL kCV I E vnJ 801)(--/ S I c-0-1-r- E 121 o 2 F- LANA/ 5 .

of 4

Notice of ReviewStatement

You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out allmatters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. Note: you may nothave a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential thatyou submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wishthe Local Review Body to consider as part of your review.

If the Local Review Body issues a notice requesting further information from any other person or body,you will have a period of 14 days in which to comment on any additional matter which has been raised bythat person or body.

State here the reasons for your notice of review and all matters you wish to raise. If necessary, this canbe continued or provided in full in a separate document. You may also submit additional documentationwith this form.

PLey,\E_ 3e_E 5E PP\ ki\TE DO c-tAMEr 6 N\

Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer 6t The tietiaiht Yes Nodetermination on your application was made?

If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising new material, why it was not raised withthe appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should now beconsidered in your review.

We did oaf prevfOu6h/ it4eivih6 vi our ciic4L9hi-er5 /1.4edtha/co-/4607:0y) as we CovlsIckred this a 100 v a te voaitcr;hoWeve3 0.5 1 7L Of{e 3s an 6A-filalia/bovi a6 io why(/ /e cve keen /-o a ck ve a becifrocr, we /es/11-

of 4

Notice of ReviewList of documents and evidence

Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit withyour notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review.

Its 5 loAkc,E w Tie rN) EPoS PP CIE 5 PH0 To CI IZA\ PIA 3

RE eo OF- HANI1JL-11\.)Ci De LEC-, AT-ED IRE Po CZT

PLANS Po 2 ex T-ers t oN) Lsor.1 511ZE_CT

NEI ci 4-1 f.)0-tw C-"Ti ot USTST UtC-RA 12A1- cttrICEYES Re Po Pit

O KI CA ! NAL PLANS Foil- b tAilL5ov,i (DT.

NEW PLANS t,JtTN ik0 OF- Lo t.jeceD ANN b SIEP I NTrzzouceD .

Note. The planning authority will make a copy of the notice of review. the review documents and anynotice of the procedure of the review available for inspection at an office of the planning authority untilsuch time as the review is determined. It may also be available on the planning authority website.

Checklist

Please mark the appropriate boxes to confirm you have provided all supporting documents and evidencerelevant to your review:

Full completion of all parts of this form

EF( Statement of your reasons for requiring a review

All documents, materials and evidence which you intend to rely on (e.g. plans and drawingsor other documents) which are now the subject of this review.

Note. Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission ormodification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approvalof matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approvedplans and decision notice from that earlier consent.

Declaration

I the applicant/agent [delete as appropriate] hereby serve notice on the planning authority toreview the application as set out on this form and in the supporting documents.

Signed Date

of 4

RE: PLANNING APPLICATION 10/00950/FLL

CARVILLE6 WILSON STREET

CRAIGIEPERTH

PH2 OEX

We would like to submit an appeal against the delegated decision made on ourapplication to extend the property at the above address.

On purchasing this property in July 2009, we were under no illusion that we wouldbe required to undertake a significant amount of structural and cosmetic work toturn what was an uninhabitable and neglected building into a safe, warm andfunctional family home. The building of an extension was fundamental to achievingthese objectives. There had been considerable movement of the foundations and asa result the property has suffered from subsidence. Not only was the property notattractive, it required major works to ensure it suffered no further movement. Thesubsidence had also caused a great deal of damage to the interior of the house,illustrated in the photographs attached are a sample of cracks which were uncoveredduring restorative works. The building of an extension is not only practical for us asa young and growing family, it is essential to the supporting and disguising of all thestructural work being undertaken.

We are currently in the process of sympathetically restoring the front of the propertyand have gone to considerable expense installing traditional sash and case timberwindows as all the existing windows were warped through years of neglect and as aresult of subsidence. We are about to replace the front door as it has suffered in thesame manner, and have searched extensively to purchase and restore an originaldoor from the same period to be in keeping with the property.

Our proposed extension will not be visible from the front of the property, WilsonStreet or Queen Street. We would also like to bring to the review body's attention tothe fact that almost every house in Wilson Street has been altered or extended insome way. These extensions vary greatly in shape, size and style, some 1 1/2 storeyand at least one 2 storey. We would therefore refute the claim that the proposedextension will not be in keeping with the street and bring to the attention of thereview body the extension already erected at Number 2 Wilson Street. It is of asimilar style and proportions to our proposed extension except that ours is to benarrower, and question why it has been allowed in a far more prominent positionand having a far greater impact on the look of the street than our proposedextension, as illustrated in the following photographs, it is highly visible from WilsonStreet, Queen Street and Friar Street. Although our proposed extension is beingtouted as a two storey construction, it is in fact only 1 1/2 storey as the upper floor isbuilt into the roof space.

After lengthy discussions our architect Mr. Gordon Hadden and structural engineerMr. Hugh Campbell came to the conclusion that the only practical to tackle thenumerous structural issues with this property was to tie the gable wall back into therear wail. The tying of the walls is achieved by bricking up the windows, therebycreating a solid structure, and drilling rods in from the gable wall to the now stablerear wall. This would prevent the corner of the house, which is the area mostaffected by subsidence, from any more movement and in fact strengthen the entirestructure of the house. The only pitfall of this plan is that we have lost the use ofone of the three bedrooms as the original window has been bricked up and we wereonly able to replace it with a much smaller window on the adjacent wall, whichbuilding control would not pass as a bedroom window, this room is now in use as afamily bathroom. At this point, as the extension at number 2 Wilson Street wasunder construction, and the feedback we had received from both next doorneighbours' about our plans was positive, we did not anticipate a lengthy battle withPerth and Kinross Council Planning Department. We were open, honest andtransparent from the beginning with our neighbours', Mr. Stewart from Number 4Wilson Street even viewed the house on several occasions to see how work wasprogressing, both he and the neighbours' at number 8 said they liked our drawingsand so it came as a shock to us to find their views expressed on the council website.Had they voiced their concerns to us at an earlier date we would have happily takentheir concerns seriously and accommodated them to the best of our ability.

We would also like to refute the claim that our proposed extension will affect theamenity of the neighboring garden at Number 4 Wilson Street. We fail to see howthe building of an extension will affect the 'daylighting' to a property lying on oursouth side. We have also provided some photographs to illustrate this point. Thesephotographs were taken in September in the early evening and clearly show thatdaylight is cut off to the garden of number 4 by the roof of number 4. Our existingproperty is not affecting the amount of daylight available, and neither will thebuilding of a narrower extension to the rear, with a lower roof height. As ourproperty stands at the moment, with the damage suffered due to subsidence andneglect, the view from the south side is not very pretty. Our proposed extensionwould not only be significantly more aesthetically pleasing, it would afford ourneighbours' at number 4 a great deal more privacy. The detrimental effect of lackof 'daylighting' will in fact affect only our own property as we were instructed tomove the only window on the south facing wall of our proposed extension and placeit on the east facing wall forcing us to rearrange the entire upper level. We alsoproposed to reduce the height of our extension to the same level as the existingextension. This would involve digging down to a significant depth and excavatingalmost 52 tonnes of soil, re-levelling the garden and introducing steps both insideand out. This proposal was dismissed by Mr. Brian, who after a fleetingconsideration, stated that this was "a minor change and simply not enough."

Regarding our neighbours' at Number 3 Friar Street we fail to see how our extensioncan have any effect on them as they have no windows facing or overlooking ourproperty. As for Number 5 Friar Street, we intend to erect a fence along the bottomperimeter of our property thereby protecting their privacy. As the appointed officermentioned in his report, the neighbours' at Numbers 8 and 10 Wilson Street alsohave no material complaint.

Our intention from the outset has been to provide a functional family home for ourthree young children. We were delighted to have been able to buy a property in ourideal location, within walking distance of our children's schools, nursery, friends andfamily. It is also convenient for both our places of work.

Please consider the following quote extracted from the Scottish GovernmentsNational Planning Framework for Scotland 2, which we feel directly relates to ourcase:

"As in many other European countries, the [Scottish] population is agingmarkedly. The number of people over 75 is projected to increase by 81% over theperiod 2006 to 2031. The planning system must ensure that the implications of ourchanging demographic profile are fully reflected in the provisions for housing,transport and community facilities. While the modest increase in the fertility rate(0.05%) in insufficient to counter the trend towards an aging population, it doeshighlight the need to ensure that social provision does not focusexclusively on the needs of older people. We also need to provideadequately for the needs of children and young people."

The demographic in Wilson Street reflects the Scottish average whileThe size of the houses and gardens lend themselves well to being inhabited byfamilies with children, however the dated lay out of the ground floor and size ofkitchen do not. The way of life for modern families is very different to how theywould have lived when these houses were constructed, this point is reinforced by thefact that most houses in the street have already been altered and as this is the caseit is unlikely there will be a rash of applications following ours.

We would also like you to be aware of the fact that our 8 year old daughter has beendiagnosed with Horner's' Syndrome. This rare condition is affecting her sympatheticnervous system and has lead to extensive medical testing which is currently ongoingto rule out a more serious underlying condition. While this is extremely distressingfor our entire family, our daughter is obviously affected the most and as she alsoexperiences blinding headaches, difficulty sleeping and frequent nose bleeds duringthe night, she would benefit enormously from having her own bedroom. This is nota planning issue, but we would like to explain why we are so keen to obtain an extrabedroom. As it stands at the moment our daughter is sharing with her sister, who is5 years her junior, and this is not ideal for either of them. The building of an extrabedroom in our extension would be of great benefit to both our daughters and our(almost) 12 year old son, who we feel also, requires his own space. It would improvethe quality of their lives now, and allow us as a family to live together in this housefor a very long time.

From the beginning, on submitting our original plans in December 2009, we havebeen disappointed in the handling of our case by Perth and Kinross Council PlanningDepartment. The following points are set out to explain our position in greaterdetail:

1. A telephone call was placed to our home in December 2009 by a member ofthe Planning Department; we now believe to have been Mr. Alistair Beveridge. Heproceeded to discuss our case with the person who received this telephone call, whowas in fact our child minder, and who stated to Mr. Beveridge twice that she was notMrs. Cameron or any other member of our family. Mr. Beveridge, however carriedon regardless and proceeded to tell our child minder that he recommended wewithdraw our plans.

We have on more than one occasion verbally requested copies of Mr.Beveriges notes relating to our case, he initially informed us that he did not have anynotes, but after a further request he stated he only had very brief notes, we havestill to be furnished with copies of these. We have also requested a log of telephonecalls, site visits and meetings be kept, but we are unaware of this having beencarried out.

In August 2010, we received a telephone call from Mr. Beveridge toinform us our drawings had "ticked all of his boxes" and he was now passing them tohis superior for his approval, giving us the impression it was a mere formality thatour permission was to be granted. We then received a further telephone call fromMr. Beveridge approximately two hours later to inform us our application was to berefused. This caused us unnecessary upset and confusion.

As a continuation of the previous point, we would like to question thedecision made by Mr. Nick Brian after apparently only perusing our case for 2 hours.It was only after we pressed the matter with him and requested a meeting to discussour case that he subsequently made a site visit. A few days later we were informedby Mr. Brian that he was conducting a 'light calculation'. We have requested detailsof this test and the results which we are still waiting for. It took 5 weeks for Mr.Brian to make his decision after this, taking the decision 4 weeks past its target date.

We have twice had our drawings returned to us as they have not beencoloured correctly, although our architect had included a written description ofmaterials to be used. This would not be an issue but for the fact our neighbours atNumber 8 Wilson Street have had planning permission granted and as you can seefrom the attached copy of their drawings, they are not coloured. This has raisedquestions in our mind as to the working practices of Perth and Kinross CouncilPlanning Department. There appear to be different rules for different people.

6. Our planning officer requested that we remove a single window fromthe side of our extension, which was the only one overlooking our neighboursgarden, to protect their privacy. If we may direct you to once again consider theplans approved for the extension to number 8 Wilson Street, you will observe that nofewer than five windows have been allowed on their side wall.

7. We would like to seek an explanation as to why an e-mail from Mr. WillieWilson, Convenor of the Planning Committee, to our neighbour Mrs Mack appearedon the Associated Documents section of our online planning application earlier thisyear. This e-mail was subsequently removed, but not before we had read thecontents, which imply there has been an ongoing dialogue between Mrs Mack and MrWilson on the matter of our extension. Is it usual for someone in such a prominentposition as Mr Wilson to be involved with a planning application at such an earlystage?

8. No testing has been carried out on our site by Scottish Water asappears to be the case for all planning applications filed with Perth and KinrossCouncil. Apparently this is to test the amenity of a site and is usually carried out inthe very early stages of a planning application. As one of the complaints against ourplans was directly related to the water supply, are we to conclude that Perth andKinross Council Planning Department had no intention to pass these plans, even fromthis early stage.

On the advice of our solicitor we have drafted a report regarding our concerns aboutthe working practices of Perth and Kinross Planning Department and their treatmentof us and intend to forward this to the Planning Ombudsman.

Please find enclosed a copies of our drawings, one set of originals and one set afterthe digging down to achieve the lower roof height, the approved plans for theextension to Number 8 Wilson Street and a selection of photographs.

C R_"C__Ae.. 2 , GEIL%NC, OF E-X TE-N1 5 (.61•1C -AC- le.- REPoe_ 1"1"‘t.-L_

CC4A5Lt WALL)

5-r' R5 1-1,<VE sLANY__ a" .014 LEFT 5 IDE cfAcie- ceiLINc, 6E 0 1200 (.1\3 (AAP)

IviabibtAn _

*--:40.-`7W-Likett

11111cAzAc-1( 4- , 6Eoseoaf.% 3 CKEAP-)

c- P-Ac-K-- S 1 READ Eici-e„)si arm

geleks.V2- 1/4

ce--AcAz- 1 Reock_

_SugsrDE-rOCE E)<TE-1.35 I 0 t--3 CALASI r4 C t20 6 C-

PKOP ge5C11-1- 1Yn1C.A51 CO") 1 F CCONN T c_CP<CY.,150

LE'rTtrJ CA 1N) 1/.1 AT E g- - AND scA-BsequENTW

TKusSES.

1ior∎1 OF 1-,Zu55 oko ?Pep o cp v./ALA_ PL"To

f)(0 r31 vkew tiqq-50)•) 'ST. RePtC, vie t...) PRE. - vsi pro_t. sTINS LA SP\ 'nor%)wtNIDov4 tu...1x)-r-PAIS wHE-121E. CO1/461 EWA LL t-1 AcS DoZovPeD

REAR_ VIEW es2. vs)frst-A-- 51-1 c;".

tIV 2 We i s

W

WILS o N ST 14. wtL50N ST

w1t.5c) t4 ST 1411—Ohl

C, 1,4 n -50 N 5t1,/ii-SoK)

(). ii__SoN ST 4 1.9 o r4 5T

sEelE 1,413e E-v rJ N i3A\vt

REPORT OF HANDLING

DELEGATED REPORT

Ref No 10/00950/FLLWard No N10

PROPOSAL: Extension to dwelling house

LOCATION: 6 Wilson Street, PERTH, PH2 OEX.

APPLICANT: Mr R. Cameron

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse the application

SITE INSPECTION: 24 June 2010

OFFICER'S REPORT:

Site description

West facing semi detached hipped roof dwelling house with 2 levels ofaccommodation (with the upper level being served by traditional wall head frontdormers. External finishes are roof slates with dressed squared sandstone on frontand rear elevations with roughly coursed sandstone on side (south) elevation; timberdoor and windows.

The property has a hipped roof rear extension with 2 levels of accommodation(1 south facing hipped roof traditional wall head rear dormer in roof space, whichmeasures internally approximately 2.8 x 1.2 metres). It measures approximately 3.8x 4.6 metres. External finishes to the rear extension are slate; facing brick; timberwindows.

The previous application (10/00159/FLL) was withdrawn and the amendments soughtwere:

Rear gable to a hipped roof;Remove the south facing first floor bedroom window which overlooks 4 Wilson

Street;The synthetic slate to be altered to natural slate.

Planning permission in full is sought to erect a hipped roof rear extension with 2levels of accommodation (6.053 x 6.300 metres). External finishes proposed aresynthetic roof slates with external wall finish of wet dash render.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Section 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requirethat planning decisions be made in accordance with the Development Plan unlessmaterial considerations indicate otherwise.

In this case the Development Plan comprises:-

Perth and Kinross Structure Plan (Approved 2003)Perth Area Local Plan 1995 Incorporating Alteration No. 1 Housing Land 2000

There determining issues in this case are whether:-

The proposal complies with Development Plan policy;There are any other material considerations.

There are no issues of strategic relevance raised in this application.

Perth Area Local Plan 1995 Incorporating Alteration No. 1 Housing Land 2000

Perth City/Housing/General Residential and Background Policies

Policy 41: Proposals Map B identifies areas of residential and compatible uses whereexisting residential amenity will be retained and where possible improved.

There are no other material considerations.

ASSESSMENT

Residential Amenity

The proposed extension would present 2 full storeys of accommodation and as aresult of that it there would be a full 2 storey side elevation facing the neighbouringproperty of 4 Wilson Street. This would replace the existing side elevation of theexisting rear extension to the house, which is set in from the main side elevation.The main part of the house currently is to 2 full storeys but the rear wing is of a muchlower size in terms in overall height and massing and also has a sloping roof both tothe rear and also in from the side. The existing rear wing is a common feature to thisrow of semi-detached houses along Wilson Street. The combination of these featuresis such that there is a reasonable separation between alternate houses to maintainan acceptable level of residential amenity.

The site of the proposed extension would be to the north and open side of theneighbouring property of 4 Wilson Street and whilst there would therefore be nodirect overshadowing as a result, nevertheless, the proposal would have an impacton day lighting.

As a result of the proposed size and position of the current proposal the distancebetween properties would be significantly reduced and this combined with height andmassing of the proposal would, it is considered, result in a significant impact on theneighbouring property. This would be an overpowering impact with loss of daylightand a greater sense of enclosure.

The neighbouring property to the north side of the application site is the adjoiningsemi-detached house. However, due to the presence of similar rear wings at bothproperties, adjoining across the mutual boundary, then it is not felt that the proposalwould have the same impact on that property.

In addition, there have been other recent extensions to houses in the immediatearea. The property at 2 Wilson Street has been extended in a similar manner to thecurrent proposal but as this adjoins the existing rear wing to 4 Wilson Street then itdoes not have the same level of impact. In addition, to the south of 2 Wilson Street lierear gardens giving ample separation to their houses.

Although the current proposal has been revised from the recent refusal of anextension, nevertheless, the changes have only been minor and not, it is considered,sufficient to overcome concerns over the impact on the residential amenity of theneighbouring property.

Visual Amenity

As described above the extension would present a significant massing to the rear ofthe existing property. It is felt that this would be in a manner that would not be fullyin keeping with the existing property and would present an overly dominant form tothe rear of the property. The extension, whilst to the rear of the property would beopen to view from several houses to the east and also from Friar Street and thereforewould have an impact on the visual amenity of the immediate area also.

SITE HISTORY

••••••••••

09/02189/FLL Extension to dwelling house 26.01.2010

10/00159/FLL Alterations and extension to dwelling house 14.04.2010

10/00950/FLL Extension to dwelling house

CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS

N/a N/a

TARGET DATE: 14 August 2010

REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED:

Number Received: 5

Summary of issues raised by objectors:

Representation was received from 5 separate addresses.

Response to issues raised by objectors:

Summary of issues raised:

OvershadowingLoss of privacyDesignDaylightSitingLayoutOverall scale of the developmentMaterialsWater supplyMutual chimney

Response to issues raised by objectors:

The proposed rear extension will have a day lighting implications.The rear bedroom window facing south was omitted on the re-submission ofthe application.The proposed rear extension has 2 full levels of accommodation with the rearwall head being 0.8 metres higher than the original dwelling house.Slate could be implemented by condition and wet dash render is acceptable.Water supply and mutual chimney are not determining planning issues..

Additional Statements Received:

Environment Statement — not required.

Screening Opinion — not required.

Environmental Impact Assessment — not required.

••

•

••

Appropriate Assessment — not required.

Design Statement or Design and Access Statement — not required

Report on Impact or Potential Impact e.g. Flood Risk Assessment— notrequired.

Legal Agreement Required:

Summary of terms — not required.

Direction by Scottish Ministers — not required.

Reasons:-

1 The proposal by reason of its two storey design would have a detrimentalimpact to the character of the house and the visual amenity of the surroundingarea. Approval would therefore be contrary to Policy 41 of the Perth AreaLocal Plan 1995 Incorporating Alteration No.1 Housing Land 2000 whichseeks to retain and where possible improve existing residential amenity.

2 The proposed extension by reason of its bulk, positioning and depth ofprojection would have an overpowering impact on the residential amenity ofthe neighbouring property and also reduce the available daylight, resulting inan unacceptable level of residential amenity to the neighbouring property,contrary to Policy 41 of the Perth Area Local Plan 1995 - IncorporatingAlteration No.1 Housing Land 2000.

Justification:

1 The proposal is considered to be contrary to the Perth Area Local Plan 1995Incorporating Alteration No.1 Housing Land 2000 and there are no materialconsiderations which would justify over-riding the adopted development plan.The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

I

10 Wilson StreetPerthPH2 OEX



11 Friar StreetPerthPH2 OEG

3 Friar StreetPerthFH2 OEG







3 Wilson Street

Perth and Kinross Council

List of Neighbours notified for 10/00950/FLL

our of . 1-1413 LIST- oe 31

NeiC4H6oUrZS NoT- IFIE-D We

RECEIVED 5 c_oviPLA1ri-3

PerthPH2 OEX




Flat 323 Queen StreetPerthPH2 OEH



23 Queen StreetPerth

33 Queen StreetPerthPH2 OEH


19D Queen StreetPerthPH2 OEH

19C Queen StreetPerthPH2 OEH

19B Queen StreetPerthPH2 OEH



19A Queen StreetPerthPH2 OEH





'1'.1 z0 I

, .

-

mX.C7)

00—s

0

C3)

1

,• •

o3

ii"„,

.,g

.9

;Z°

K

v,

:---2 *=

LP,0

:.

':!

§Z

":

0 -0xr n> .:o5 -I_-7,2z >6.-)

Fn;7.7

n.-') -'-f A X c3

1

..S]

(--.)

K

--1M "rr ';

I M

715 ,---

d

S

r , - ,7,-,

,--•

M__:

=,̀

R2

: . 'a

6

l'i:0

-1.*---- (r, I'og(;)

N . 0I•-2V' ..i:..:

1-c o :=21—

OO

t•

1.7'1

IF 1-rfiiiiii '...,:----H--,--.,---......_-_-..,...., • • - -f-. F1 : i hl , lilt! _._,,,,___, .. _ ........1.1---h—••

1 I

I --:..1 -,,-_IP z .,,, ______,...:: ,I

\''.',.__.' ,__.----• -- IL --_-

i

_ ......... ____

/•.,-;

, . .A.-'4

v&,••••••-. ij 1

7 --

1; t

W

3 co

00

0CD

m

=4-.0

O

—•

0 ao00_ :

2•O

PLiI a

g

..... I

a

13,

0SW

tur i; ! I l i ilium ! ill Ii iii 11 1 II" Pi 1111

1 ROI a s lin Old 11 810 4' Ill

Pah I I! 1114 1 1 4J '141 li III

li 1411 x 4 11 1 fil it y

III li ill .0410 h aid 1 lIl wl le

- ii 11 11 14/1li lit if ill 1 II

/ i i 41 ' of

ii t; 14 4 1 5 P1 I . i II !I t g i iwt 1 11

' il III I '9 1 , Iti 1 ii [ liiii 3

. r I s

•

0

z

mTi

O

.t.

a

3

2

..1.

F:.5 z

52.

g3 II

•c>>

a3

/o.

.6?

l‘• !pip ! inn Jim till

',Wit hiliek Elp

;-1‘ 01. 10fiu

s: 41 "id

IIri

•

SIIFr,

3

11

11.: :111;111 :71i, 11141111 ;ill 1 1 1:1=1;

1,=1;

gi 11;rii 1 Ia 4.1

F Tificf

de( - -1.11 Ig 11,1

PERTH &KINROSSCOUNCIL

PlanningHead of Service Roland Bean

The EnvironmentService

Puller House 35 Kinnoull Street, PERTHPH1 5GDTel 01738 475300 Fax 01738 475310

Mr And Mrs R Cameron6 Wilson StreetCraigiePerthPH2 OEX

Dear Sir/Madam

Telephone 01738 475300

Reference No 10/001591FLLDate 5th February 2010

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1997 as amended by Planning etc(Scotland) Act 2006

Alterations and extension to house 6 Wilson Street Perth PH2 OEX

Thank you for your recent planning application for the above proposal.

Unfortunately, your application is invalid for the following reasons:

1 Colour up one set of plans (layout and materials) to show new worksclearly.

It cannot be registered and will not be considered until the outstanding matters arereceived.

Your prompt attention to this letter is requested so that formal planning procedurescan be followed as quickly as possible.

The planning application and one copy of the documents you submitted will beretained for public record purposes, If we do not receive the required informationwithin 21 days from the date of this letter, then we will assume that you do not wishto pursue the proposal and the application will be returned to you.

Yours faithfully

Nick Brian

Development Quality Manager

Roads, Transport & Environment Services Tel 01738 476476Planning Tel 01738 475300

Economic Development Tel 01738 477940

Jim Irons

93 -0

rn o

re)

5 ca.3 -nt

•••••%—;

r-0

-oa co h.-

0

0 C)sio -4

g C)r—

zCO

2) Z•••4

°gang!,a2"Et -4

C. r7194 a

gO

0 ft Fp'0

O

—Allen, Gordon & coConsulting Civil and Structural Engineers

ALLENGORDON

16 King StreetPerth PH2 8JA

Tel: 01738 639881Fax: 01738 634761

[email protected]

8 Ardross StreetInverness IV3 5NN

Tel: 01463 236516 / 233471Fax: 01463 711767

[email protected]

2/5 & 2/6 Springfield HouseLaurelhill Business Park

Stirling FK7 9J0Tel: 01786 406576

[email protected]

www.allengordon.co.uk

Your Ret.

Please reply to. PERTH Ret: 473201/1 Date 11 May 2009Please ask for. John Pyper

Mrs A Aciam202 Oakbank RoadPERTHPH1 1EG

Dear Mrs Adam

6 WILSON STREET, PERTHSTRUCTURAL INSPECTION REPORT

INTRODUCTION

Further to your instructions our Mr John Pyper visited the property on 5 May 2009 and carried out astructural inspection. No opening up or invasive investigations were carried out, no finishes wereremoved, and the formation of foundations was not inspected. Matters of timber infestation anddecay, dampness and asbestos are outwith the scope of this report and should be the subject ofseparate specialist inspections if required.

For the purposes of this report the front elevation on Wilson Street is assuinecl ba No.6 forms the south house of a semi-detached property with No. 8. The house is one and a half storeyshigh with sandstone external walls and a pitched and slated roof. We assume the property is at least100 years old. The upper storey is contained partly within the roof space. To the rear is a one and ahalf storey annex with brick outer walls and a pitched and slated roof. Attached to the rear of theannex is a brick wall lean-to shed which was now forms storage space off the kitchen. The naturalslope of the ground is downwards to the south. The existing ground is reasonably level from the frontto the back of the house but the natural slope of the ground in this direction is slightly downwards.

It appears to have been many years since most of the interior of the property was decorated.

OBSERVATIONS

INTERNALLY

The internal walls appear to be of timber stud construction finished with plaster, probably on timberlath.

The party wall is a solid wall. The gable wall is dry lined. The ground and first floors are of suspendedtimber construction except the ground floor kitchen and store rooms which have solid floors.

211 May 2009

Ground Floor Rear Room

The lower part of the wall is finished with timber panelling. The gable wall leans significantly outwards,with the worst of the lean occurring at the rear corner where the wall actually appears to bend abovethe top of the alcove. The rear window opening is significantly distorted with the cill and window headboth falling towards the gable wall by approximately 50mm over the width of the window opening. Theceiling is finished with polystyrene tiles which are cut to a taper at the junction with the gable wall, thetaper being widest at the rear wall. The floor slopes significantly downwards towards the gable wall.

Ground Floor Front Room

At each side of the bay window there are diagonal cracks in the wall above the bay window where itjoins the front elevation wall, and on the same line, cracking in the ceiling. At the gable corner there isrucking of the wallpaper above the alcove. There is a line of cracking in the plaster coving at the gablewall. The floor slopes significantly downwards towards the rear gable corner and towards the rearwall. There is rucking of the wallpaper at the rear gable corner. The timber skirting board between thefireplace and the rear wail has an unusually wide top i.e. in excess of 30mm. There is a bump in thefloor parallel to, and approximately lm away from, the rear wall. The floor joists span front to rear.There are diagonal cracks in the wall adjacent to the hall, the cracks dipping towards the door.

Ground Floor Hall and Stair

No matters of significant structural concern were noted.

Vestibule

There is a crack in the ceiling coving at the party wall.

Kitchen

The ceiling is finished with polystyrene tiles and is uneven.

First Floor Bedroom Adjacent to Party Wall

There is a 15mm gap between the floorboards and the bottom of the timber skirting board. The heightof the solid timber at the top of the door is approximately 15mm less at the party wall end than at theother end, indicating that the top of the door has been cut to fit the door frame distorted by movement.

First Floor Front Bedroom Adjacent to Gable Wait

The floor slopes towards the rear and gable walls. A gap of approximately 25-30mm between thecoving and the gable wall has been filled in the past and has re-cracked slightly. There is rucking ofwallpaper at both front corners and at the gable coomb. The floor joists span from front to rear. Thetop of the skirting board at the gable wall is tilted outwards by approximately 25mm.

311 May 2009

First Floor Rear Bedroom Adjacent to Gable Wall

The floor slopes towards the gable wall. A gap of approximately 40mm between the coving and thegable wall has been filled in the past and has re-cracked. Where the coving is not hidden by a fittedwardrobe this crack is a least 10mm wide. There is significant distortion of the gable wall at floor levelwhere is meets the front wall. At the same corner the top of the skirting board at the gable wall is tiltedoutwards by approximately 30mm. The rear window opening is significantly distorted with the cill andwindow head both falling towards the gable wall by approximately 50mm over the width of the windowopening.

First Floor Stair Landing

There is an approximately 2mm wide crack in the coving at the party wall between the front room andthe rear coomb line where the crack runs diagonally across the ceiling to intersect the stair rooflight.

Bathroom at first floor of annex

There is some old distortion of the coomb ceiling and wall between the dormer window and the mainrear wall of the house.

Roof Void

The roof void was not entered a.nd was inspected from the access hatch only. The party wall is ofbrick construction and the gable wallhead is stone. -die base of the gable chimney stack I F, brick.

EXTERNAL WALLS AND ROOF

Roof

The roof and chimney stacks were observed from ground level. No matters of structural concern werenoted.

Rear Elevation

Except for the rear wall of the lean-to, the brick walls of the annex and lean-to are smear pointed.There is a slight horizontal crack at the top of the brick pier between the back door and window of thekitchen.

There is a significant outward bulge of the rear gable corner wall at the ground floor storey. There isevidence of previous mortar repairs to lines of semi-vertical cracking particularly at first floor levelbetween the gable corner and the window openings. The cracks have re-opened to a width ofapproximately 1mm. The gable end of the first floor stone window cill has a full height crack. Bothwindow openings are significantly distorted. The lintel over the ground floor window is cracked anddelaminated and has been strengthened by the installation of the steel plate under the soffit.

411 May 2009

Gable Elevation

The gable wall bulges outwards significantly at both front and rear walls, the worst of the bulgeappears to be at a level of approximately 900mm below the underside of the first floor. The lower500mm of the wall has been extensively smear pointed. There appears to be some loose pointingnear the centre of the wallhead. Otherwise, the gable wall stonework and pointing is in reasonablygood condition.

Front Elevation

There has been extensive re-pointing to fill gaps and cracks which have opened between stonesabove and to the south of the front door, above the bay window, to the south side of the bay windowand at the gable corner. The gaps do not appear to have re-opened to any significant extent. Previousrender repairs have been made the bay window mullions, jambs of doors and windows and theunderside and part of the front face of the front door window lintel.

COMMENT AND CONCLUSIONS

There has been significant differential movement of the house particularly at the gable and rear wallswhich has affected walls and floors. The gable wall is significantly off the plumb, particularly thebottom 2m of the ground floor storey. The slopes and bumps in the floors also suggest there hasbeen differential movement of the internal walls, particularly the wall between the front and rearrooms. The worst of the movement is at the rear gable corner. The bump in the front room is probablywhere there is a slee per wall supporting the ground floor joists.

The movement is due to inadequate foundations bearing onto poor ground. The local ground conditionsare known to be soft clay and similar movement has affected other properties in the area. Previousrepairs have been make to fill gaps and cracks and since this was last done there appears to have beensome slight further outward movement of the rear gable corner which has caused the cracks to re-open.Internally. some repairs have been made to covings and at skirting to fill the gaps and cracks at thegable wall and to correct distortion. But at the first floor gable wall the skirting boards have not been re-fixed and remain significantly off the plumb due to the outward movement of the gable wall.

The total degree of movement which has occurred is not of major structural concern although it hascaused significant distortions to walls and floors and finishes. It is likely that most of the movementoccurred early in the life of the house, but there has been more recent movement, and it is probable therewill be further movement of the foundations, particularly if there are changes in the moisture content of theground. However, we would not expect that this further movement will now develop to be of majorstructural concern with regard to stability, unless associated with leakage from drains or water supplypipes, but it could cause repaired cracks to re-open, or cause further cracking, and damage to finishes.

If it was desired to limit further movement then it would be necessary to improve the foundations byunderpinning, most likely requiring the installation of mini-piles and ground beams to stabilise both theexternal and internal walls together with the installation of structural ties to tie the external walls intothe first floor and roof structure. However, at present we do not consider that it is structurallynecessary to carry out such works. Underpinning the foundations would not correct any of thedistortion which has occurred, unless coupled with re-building walls. Partial underpinning of thebuilding could give rise to cracking in areas not presently affected by the movement including in thevicinity of the adjoining property.

51 1 May 2009

It is possible that foundation movements can cause damage to underground drains and therefore it isadvisable to have the drains checked for leaks, and to have any necessary repairs carried out, and toconfirm that surface water is disposed of away from foundations. Cracks should be filled to preventthe ingress of water. As is common with properties of this type and age maintenance will be moreonerous than with a modern property.

We trust this report is satisfactory for your present purposes but please contact John Pyper if youhave any queries or if we may be of further assistance.

Yours sincerelyfor ALLEN, GORDON & co

JFP/KMM/473201/1

Telephone:01738-449300

Fax:01738-634167

2/6 Strathmore StreetBridgendPerthPH2 711P

Insured:Date: (5k- CiS CC1 Ref.

SITE PLAN

cff

/

-(\ t us) g

DRA►NNcuRESERVICES (SCOTLAND)

our& az on AT ci—

r-U,10.Er-LoQ L-01•3 ft-c-14-

Sioi-c SL -raoi9 (13/S

cc STimL-r

k . 6 Cot i-tizan LA 1,)

ON-11.) clycn LDiiL4. eo,s.s 13, 07- 1Z oaf- i

ut NYE_

CO-A-C K,S

2_ &lc>

oV-- cckL LY-,R;C:a64,

S C-(t2Nec t %N)

a-c\ia‘k.

00 S 4cso. (tc-.41,4 (1 IS'st

- 14 CLC3Cir

or- W1-i1 jiç,

Golkilst 11,3G. -

S .0 (c. per 4-rre

a '-•;\ot- n30,A AG 11-4

Cs› ‘4,-awr 1,3 T'Cist 9 NT •CCLo tkAsa ‘Z--A)

oC- SC/c-110-3

k tn) _ se_;k1.-

, '<clki2 QQ.A

0 - ti4A4.3 co (sc. tk CLOT _

.5 oes-cs

o cyr S

'3 :0 tcka T'L 1-0(7 CC-

b'F‘ CL&IcCi.% '0J 011mQ

fq,c1„ek_ WirCIA 1-A ci_Al:=Lai)-6-__

'CC1A 10 LAI% Occr