Grouping of Trees located at the former Seafield School, Eglinton Road, Ardrossan
North Ayrshire Council · 29 October 2025
Back to Planning Committee — 29 October 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL 29 October 2025 Planning Report Committee Title: Grouping of Trees located at the former Seafield School, Eglinton Road, Ardrossan. Purpose: To advise Committee regarding the confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for a group of trees located at the former Seafield School, Eglinton Road, Ardrossan. Recommendation: That the Council confirms a modified Tree Preservation Order (TPO) under S.160 1997 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act in the interests of protecting public amenity. 1. Executive Summary 1.1 This report updates members on the process of creating a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on a grouping of trees located at the former Seafield School, Eglinton Road, Ardrossan. The TPO, which was created in June 2025 via delegated authority is required to be confirmed within 6 months of creation for the Order to remain in effect. A notice was sent to relevant landowners and stakeholders and was subject to a public consultation period in line with relevant legalisation. This report summarises the representations made and makes recommendations on further action, upon consideration of those representations. 1.2 After analysing the representations received, it is recommended that a modified TPO is confirmed in the interests of protecting public amenity under S.160 1997 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. 2. Background 2.1 Prior to the TPO being created, there was little protection afforded to the trees located within the grounds of the former Seafield School in Ardrossan. Following tree felling at this location, Council Officers conducted a site visit and desk-top analysis to assess the suitability of a TPO while having regard to relevant legislation. 2.2 The Council as the Planning Authority has the power under sc160 of the 1997 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act (as amended by the Planning etc 2006 (Scotland) Act) to make an order specifying any trees, groups of trees or woodlands in their district and provide for their preservation. The Council can exercise these powers providing the tree (or grouping of trees) meets either or both the following requirements: (a) that it is expedient in the interests of amenity to make that provision, (b) that the trees, groups of trees or woodlands are of cultural or historical significance.
Page 2
2.3 It should be noted that under the legislation, a TPO cannot be served due to the trees being at risk alone. The only two criteria in which a Planning Authority can create a provision are the two above. 2.4 Following a preliminary assessment of the trees, it was considered that the trees make a significant contribution to the local landscape character and the wider amenity of the area. It was also noted that the trees are located mainly in the grounds of the former Seafield School, a Category B-Listed building which is currently registered as being at risk in Scotland’s Buildings at Risk Register. The site is designated in the Local Development Plan as “General Urban Area” and a further consideration is the existence of a Core Path (Core Path TT10) located to the west of the site to which the site overlooks due to its slightly elevated nature. 2.5 Following the desktop assessment, Council Officers including the Arboricultural Officer conducted a site visit to determine whether the trees and woodland have the potential to meet the criteria for formal protection. Most trees in the area of consideration include sycamore of roughly the same maturity. To the east, there is a mix of deciduous and broadleaf trees, including spruce and oak of varying ages and condition. A detailed survey of the trees was not undertaken, however the trees were considered to be of reasonable condition albeit, perhaps would merit from some routine maintenance. 2.6 Attention now turns to the criteria for creating TPOs. With regards to contribution to public amenity, it is clear the trees make a valuable contribution. The trees are visible from different parts of Ardrossan including from both the Core Path, and some designated Open Space. The former school building itself is a prominent building (though in a deteriorating condition) within the setting of this part of Ardrossan and it is considered that the trees provide an important backdrop. The nearby Core Path attracts many users, many from beyond the immediate locale and is a popular active travel route from Ardrossan to West Kilbride and beyond. This section of Core Path allows off road access along the coast northwards towards West Kilbride. The former school building, with its backdrop of the trees form a key local landscape feature which is typical of this section of coast in North Ayrshire. In addition, Seafield House is a Listed Building in a state of disrepair, and the trees may also provide some degree of protection by means of providing shelter from exposure. 2.7 With regards to cultural and historical heritage, the grounds and building itself are important cultural and historical heritage features with three, B-Listed buildings in the grounds (of various condition). The three B-Listed buildings include the Seafield House building itself, the stables (significantly damaged by a recent fire and the gateposts and piers at the entrance to Seafield house. To fully consider the contribution the trees make to that heritage, further assessment of historic records is required. While the site is likely to have had trees on it when it was first developed (the first house was developed in 1820). It is unclear how much of an impact the trees had in its design, its subsequent use as a residential school and the presence of trees over that time. 2.8 Taking the above into account, it is considered that the trees meet the criteria for a Tree Preservation Order. The trees contribute significantly to public amenity and are likely to contribute to the site in terms of cultural and historical importance. 2.9 During the consultation period, a notice was sent to interested parties, and an advert was placed in the local newspaper. A consultation period of 28 days started from the
Page 3
date of the notice (11 June 2025) which attracted two letters of representation objecting to the creation of the TPO. 3. Representations 3.1 The below summarises the key issues pertaining to the creation of the TPO from the two received representations with an Officer response. The full representations, including the supplementary information and maps are appended to this report. 3.2 D. McLaughlin & Sons Ltd stated that while they didn’t object to some of the trees being formally protected, they objected to several parts of the TPO. The representation was supplemented with a tree condition survey (dated April 2025), a historic plan, a plan showing the location of trees (not dated) which the representee split the TPO area into 4 distinct areas (A,B,C and D). Also submitted was an Arboricultural Report prepared by Ayrshire Tree Surgeons. The representation highlights that there would be support for a TPO in the area marked B on the Plan only. The reasons that protection of A is unsupported is that the trees on the site are mostly self-seeded and of low value. It is also commented that protecting the trees in area A would impede any future development of “Seafield cottage” which is a vacant building that is located in area A. The representation highlights that no trees are currently located in areas C and D, therefore a TPO would not be appropriate in those areas. Comments are also made regarding the health of the trees. 3.3 The representation also states that while a TPO could be supported for some of the trees, there are several trees and/or areas that don’t merit such protection. The areas that the Arboricultural Report highlight match those in the original representation. The report concludes that the grouping of trees does not meet the requirements for a TPO and more appropriate course of action would be to introduce tree cover via a landscape plan as part of the built development proposals with good provision for new trees of a mixed native species composition. 3.4 Denham Youd Architects stated that while they are generally in favour of the preservation of trees where possible, in this case the trees closest to Seafield Cottage and garden land appear to be self-seeded and some cases poor condition. The trees close to the cottage are considered to be determinantal to the successful redevelopment of the historic Seafield Cottage. The response further states that they would contend that the more mature trees within the adjoining tree area could be considered collectively to make a positive contribution to the character of the area and public amenity as they are visible to the property frontage and provide a backdrop and buffer to Seafield Cottage. 3.5 Response: the representations are noted. It is accepted that areas C and D highlighted currently do not have trees, it is therefore recommended that the TPO should be amended to reflect this. 3.6 With regards to area A, while it is acknowledged that the trees are self-seeded, it is still considered that the trees contribute to wider amenity as part of the wider grouping of trees. With regards to impacts on the potential redevelopment of what is referred to as “Seafield Cottage”, it is not considered to be grounds to not create a TPO. Should a development proposal come forward for the site, the Council as the Planning Authority will determine suitability of the proposal across a number of issues, including impact on trees. The creation of a TPO does not necessarily preclude development from taking place and would be judged on its own merits. It should also be noted, that should any
Page 4
individual trees or small grouping of trees within the TPO area are required to be felled so that the cottage could come back into use, then an application could be made to Council to do so. It is also that case that should a detailed landscape plan be submitted, then the Council could consider this, be it part of a Tree Works Consent or part of a planning application. As there is no landscape plan currently under consideration, a TPO is the preferred method of protection for the trees. 3.7 With regards to the wider former Seafield School site, it is not considered that a TPO would not preclude any development taking place in the wider site and as above, any proposal would be judged on its own merits and could potentially be an opportunity to enhance the overall environment of the wider site through design. 4. Proposals 4.1 It is proposed that the Council confirms a modified Tree Preservation Order to recognise the significant contribution the grouping of trees makes to public amenity. The modification proposed is to remove the areas covered by the TPO which currently do not have trees present. A TPO will ensure that the trees are afforded an appropriate level of protection. Reasons for this include that the trees make a significant contribution to the Local Landscape Character and the wider amenity, from a prominent setting within the settlement. Additionally, the trees currently act as a backdrop to a Listed Building. It is considered that the concerns raised by the representees regarding the quality of trees in some areas, and the potential to be a deterrent for the successful redevelopment of Seafield Cottage are not sufficient reasons to not confirm a TPO. 5. Recommendations 5.1 That the Council confirms a modified Tree Preservation Order (TPO) under S.160 1997 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act in the interests of protecting public amenity. 6. Implications/Socio-economic Duty Financial 6.1 None. Human Resources 6.2 None. Legal 6.3 Should a TPO be confirmed, a notice is required to be written and recorded in the Scottish Land Register. Equality/Socio-economic 6.4 Assessments carried out highlight impact on wider public amenity. Climate Change and Carbon
Page 5
6.5 Trees can make a contribute to carbon sequestration, removing Carbon Dioxide from the Earth’s atmosphere. Key Priorities 6.6 None. Community Wealth Building 6.7 None. 7 Consultation 6.1 Consultation was carried out as required under the relevant legislation. The comments received were summarised in this report with full responses appended. Allan Finlayson Chief Planning Officer For further information please contact Thom Ledingham, Planning Officer, on 01294324623. Background Papers 0
Page 6
No embedded text on this page.