Dwelling extension at 70 Church Street, Portsoy, Banff

What was proposed

The application sought permission for a rear, one-and-a-half-storey extension containing a utility room, bedroom extension, balcony and garden access.

“The existing dwellinghouse is a traditional 1½ storey property finished in granite stone walls and pitched slate roof with red ridgeline tiles and tabling. The windows and doors are white timber units. The site boundary treatments comprise of stone walls and timber fencing which enclose the rear garden grounds along the northern, southern and eastern boundaries. The rear garden curtilage ground levels are steeply stepped towards the eastern boundary.”

“The proposal is to erect a 1½ storey pitched roof extension off the rear (east) elevation of the property. The extension would utilise a recessed area of ground which cuts into the slope to the rear of the property. The proposal would follow the building line of the side (north) elevation which tapers inwards slightly towards the south.”

Officer report

The site

The traditional dwelling lies within Portsoy Conservation Area, with a steep rear garden and neighbouring homes close to its boundaries.

“This application is seeking full planning permission for the alterations and extension to dwellinghouse at 70 Church Street, Portsoy. The application site is located within the settlement of Portsoy and within the Portsoy Conservation Area as defined by the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan 2023 (ALDP).”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions at the property covered rooflights, alterations, door and window changes, and previous extensions.

“APP/2020/2617 (FPP) - Alterations and Extension to Dwellinghouse and Formation of New Rooflight Opening – Approved / 23-02-2021 APP/2015/0628 (FPP) - Alterations to Dwellinghouse – Approved / 08-05-2015”

“APP/2013/0865 (FPP) - Formation of 2 no. Door Openings; Form New Window (s/w elevation); Building Up Opening (n/w elevation); Partial Build Up Opening (n/e elevation) - Approved / 24-04-2013”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the extension’s height and proximity would cause considerable overshadowing and overbearing effects on the neighbouring home.

“With regards to neighbouring amenity, it should be noted that the proposed extension would be sited just 1.6m from the south elevation of the neighbouring property of no.72 Church Street. The south elevation of no.72 features ground floor windows as well as a first-floor dormer window which looks towards the rear garden ground of no.70 (the application site).”

“The above concerns regarding overbearing and overshadowing were highlighted to the agent and in response a sunlight path analysis was submitted. The submitted document shows the site and neighbouring property in 3D and shows the effects of overshadowing at four different times of year: January, April, July and October and different times of day (10am, 12pm, 3pm and 5pm).”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Built Heritage, drainage and natural heritage consultees raised no overriding concern, subject to a possible detailed door drawing condition.

“Environment and Infrastructure Services (Built Heritage) comments that the proposal is broadly acceptable. Should the Planning Service be minded to support the application, then it should be a condition that the applicant must submit more detailed drawings of the six pane glazed door on the rear elevation prior to its installation. The revised drawings would indicate that the applicant has acted on the concerns raised in the previous consultation response.”

“This service is generally satisfied with the measures proposed to deal with surface water drainage and the level of flood risk associated with the application. In its response it noted that it is assumed that the existing private drainage systems have been assessed and have been deemed suitable for inclusion of these proposals.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

No valid letters of representation were received, and the neighbouring property did not object to the proposal.

“No valid letters of representation have been received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant and agent said the extension would support working and living locally, while having negligible effects and retaining the neighbour’s views.

Members’ discussion

Members found the site visit useful and considered the impact minimal, noting the immediate neighbour’s lack of objection.

“Members commented that they found the site visit very useful and considered the impact to be minimal, they noted the absence of any objection from the immediate neighbour.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee agreed to grant permission with appropriate conditions, finding the proposal policy-compliant and its year-round overshadowing minimal.

“Following discussion, the Committee agreed to grant Full Planning Permission, with authority delegated to the Head of Planning and Economy, subject to appropriate conditions. Members agreed that the proposed development accords with Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan Policies P1 and P3 and National Planning Framework 4 Policies 14 and 16 and that the level of overshadowing would be minimal assessed throughout the year.”

Minutes