Dwelling extension at 11 Colleonard Drive, Banff

What was proposed

The application sought permission for a two-storey front extension, a vestibule, extra bedrooms and a games room at an existing house.

“The existing property on the application site continues this pattern by being set back from the pavement, with an area of hardstanding providing space for cars to park in front of it. The site generally slopes upwards from the south- west at the front to the north-east at the back, and the house has been built onto the slope such that it is taller at the front than at the back.”

“The proposed extensions to the existing dwelling house comprise a two- storey extension to the front and a single storey vestibule extension attached to this. The proposed two storey extension would adjoin the existing two storey element at the front of the house, extending across the width of this and projecting forward by 5.4m. It would have a pitched roof to match that of the existing house, which would effectively be continued across the extension.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The house is on a residential street where homes are generally set back behind parking, open space and low stone walls.

“The application site is located on a residential street within the Banff settlement boundary, as defined in the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan 2023. Along the street, there is a mix of 1, 1½, and 2 storey dwellinghouses of a variety of sizes and styles, but all generally set back from the street with a generous area of parking and/or amenity space between the principal elevation and the pavement.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for the erection of the dwellinghouse was approved in 2006.

“APP/2006/3591 - FPP for Erection of dwellinghouse, approved 01/12/06”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Natural environment officers found no adverse effect on bats or swifts, while roads officers considered that three parking spaces could be provided.

“Environment and Infrastructure Services (Natural Environment) - Advises that the property is not located within good bat foraging habitat and does not provide potential swift nesting opportunities. It is not considered that the proposed development will adversely affect either bats or swifts.”

“Environment and Infrastructure Services (Roads Development) - Considers there to be sufficient space within site curtilage to accommodate 3 car parking spaces and has no further comments.”

Officer report

Objections received

One objection raised concerns about the extension’s appearance, privacy, daylight, sunlight, parking pressure, congestion and visibility.

“Impact on the visual amenity of the street resulting from the scale of the proposed extension and extent to which this would project forwards from the existing building line; • Increased overlooking of neighbouring property and loss of privacy; • Reduction in daylight and sunlight reaching neighbouring property; and • Loss of off-street parking and resultant likely increase in on-street parking pressure and associated congestion and visibility issues.”

“The representation also raised other issues which are not material planning considerations, namely concerns about the potential for a future change of use from a Class 9 Dwellinghouse to a Class 8 Children’s Care Home.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Senior Planner introduced the application, and the committee heard from the agent and the applicant.

What members discussed

Members discussed the shadowing model, discussions about the extension’s scale, foundations, ground conditions and a family member with additional needs.

“Members asked questions and received responses in relation to the overshadowing model and whether any discussions had taken place between the applicant and the Planning Service regarding the scale of the development.”

“Following the request to speak, Members sought clarification from the agent regarding ground conditions in relation to foundations, the overshadowing graph, and the absence of any reference within the planning report to a family member with additional needs, which Members considered may have been relevant to the determination of the application.”

Minutes

Why consideration was deferred

The Senior Planner advised that an impact assessment was needed, and the committee sought a site visit and 12-month shadow modelling data.

“The Senior Planner further advised that the application should have been subject to an Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA). It was therefore suggested that the item be deferred to a later meeting to allow the Planning Service to fully carry out the assessment and ensure that its findings are properly taken into account when forming the recommendation.”

“Following discussion, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of the application pending a site visit thus allowing time for completion of an Integrated Impact Assessment and the submission of 12-month shadow modelling data.”

Minutes