2500032PP Statement of Case (Planning Department)
Argyll and Bute Council · 14 August 2026
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 14 August 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
STATEMENT OF CASE ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY 25/0003/LRB REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION REFERENCE 25/00032/PP FOR SITING OF POD, INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK AND ASSOCIATED WORKS (RETROSPECTIVE) LAND NORTH EAST OF GLENMACHRIE, GLENEGEDALE, ISLE OF ISLAY 30 JUNE 2026
Page 2
STATEMENT OF CASE The Planning Authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Mrs Samantha Tillbrook (“the appellant”). Planning permission 25/00032/PP for the siting of a pod, installation of septic tank and associated works (retrospective) on Land North East of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay (“the appeal site”) was refused by the Planning Service under delegated powers on the 9 April 2026. This decision is the subject of referral to a Local Review Body. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The site the subject of this Review is situated to the north east of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay comprising an area of rough grazing, generally rectangular in shape, measuring approximately 0.114 hectares in area. The pod, which has been sited, is broadly rectangular shaped in floor area incorporating a barrel-roof design providing a kitchenette/living/bedroom area, a separate bathroom/ensuite and a decking area. The materials palette includes grey coloured metrotile roof shingles to the side and roof with natural larch cladding to the front and rear gables. 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 site represents an appropriate opportunity for development with the pod and whether it complies with National and Local Planning Policy. The Report of Handing (Appendix A) sets out the Council’s full assessment of the application in terms of these determining issues. 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 1. As such it is considered that Members have all the information they need to determine the case. Given the above and that the proposal is small-scale, has no complex or
Page 3
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 case from the Planning Service is set out in the Report of Handling appended to this statement. With regards to the Appellant’s submission, Officers have the following comments. Whilst it is acknowledged that the site benefits from an extant planning permission in principle, reference 23/00426/PPP, until 23 July 2026, this permission merely establishes the principle of a dwellinghouse on the site. To date, no detailed siting or design details for the proposed dwellinghouse on the site have been submitted to the Planning Service for consideration. In the absence of a live planning permission for the development of the site with a dwellinghouse, the proposed pod is not considered to be an appropriate development, which has resulted in the introduction of an incongruous feature within the site and the wider landscape. The proposed pod should not be granted permission in isolation without being backed up by an associated live planning permission for the development of the site with a dwellinghouse. The aspiration of the appellant to utilise the site for the proposed pod to allow them to visit the island is not a material planning matter. 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. It remains the view of the Planning Service, as set out in the Report of Handling appended to this statement, that the granting of permission for the pod would result in a development which would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area. Taking account of the above, it is respectfully requested that the application for review be dismissed.
Page 4
APPENDIX A - REPORT OF HANDLING 25/00032/PP _________________________________________________________________________ Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 25/00032/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Mrs Samantha Tillbrook Proposal: Siting of pod, installation of septic tank and associated works (Retrospective) Site Address: Land North East of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay, Argyll and Bute _________________________________________________________________________ DECISION ROUTE (i) Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 _________________________________________________________________________ (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of pod • Formation of vehicular access to access road • Installation of septic tank (ii) Other specified operations • Connection to services _________________________________________________________________________ (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons stated _________________________________________________________________________ (C) HISTORY: 23/00426/PPP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouse – Approved – 20.07.2023
Page 5
Other history of relevance in proximity: 14/01665/PPP - Site for the erection of 3 dwellinghouses, installation of septic tank and formation of vehicular access - Land North of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 04.09.2014 (relates to a site across the road from the current application site). 18/00811/PPP - Site for the erection of 3 dwellinghouses - Land North of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 05.07.2018 (relates to a site across the road from the current application site). 21/02033/PP - Erection of dwellinghouse with integral garage including formation of vehicular access and installation of sewage treatment plant - Land North West of Glenmachrie (Plot 2), Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 09.03.2022 (relates to a site across the road from the current application site). 19/01135/PP - Erection of dwellinghouse, formation of vehicular access and installation of septic tank - Plot 1 Land North of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 31.10.2019. 19/01280/PPP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouse - (Plot 1) Land North of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 12.08.2019. 19/01281/PPP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouse - (Plot 2) Land North of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 12.08.2019. 19/01282/PPP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouse - (Plot 3) Land North of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 12.08.2019. 19/01283/PPP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouse - (Plot 4) Land North of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 12.08.2019. 19/01284/PPP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouse - (Plot 5) Land North of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay - Approved 12.08.2019. 20/01702/PP - Formation of access and installation of sewage treatment plant to serve 5 dwellinghouses - Approved 12.01.2021. 24/02085/PPP - Erection of two detached dwellinghouses and installation of septic tanks – Approved 21.10.25 _____________________________________________________________________ (D) CONSULTATIONS: ABC Roads – No objection subject to conditions - 31.01.2025 Highlands & Islands Airport Lid. (HIAL) – No objection – 06.02.2025 SEPA – No objection – 05.02.2025 Flood Risk Officer - No objection – 24.01.2025 SSEN Transmission – No objection – 28.01.2025 _____________________________________________________________ (E) PUBLICITY: Oban Times Advertisement - published 30.01.2025, expired 20.02.2025
Page 6
Neighbour notification in accordance with the requirements of the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013 _________________________________________________________________________ (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: N/A (ii) Summary of issues raised: N/A _________________________________________________________________________ (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Statement: No (ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: No (iii) A design or design/access statement: No (iv) Sustainability Checklists: TN06 Sustainability Checklist – Yes – 09.01.2025 TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist – Yes – 09.01.2025 Based on the available information, it is considered there is sufficient information available to issue a decision on the proposed development. (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: No _________________________________________________________________________ (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS (i) Is a Section 75 agreement required: No ___________________________________________________________________ (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No ___________________________________________________________________ (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.
Page 7
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 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Productive Places NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 02 – Outwith 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 Connected Places Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) (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 4/2009. • Consultation Responses • Planning History • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023)
Page 8
• TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods: Planning Guidance (Scottish Government) (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No _________________________________________________________________________ (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): Yes 24/02197/PREAPP – ‘Looking to apply for permission to site holiday pod for use prior to applying for full planning permission for dwellinghouse on land as per PPP. Once house had been build we will consider change of use to holiday pod for visitors’ – 20.12.2024 _________________________________________________________________________ (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No _________________________________________________________________________ (N) Requirement for a hearing (PAN41 or other): Not required _________________________________________________________________________ (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: None (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: 5.2 Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: N/A Peat Depth Classification: 0.00 Does the development relate to croft land? No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? No (O)(iii) Woodland
Page 9
Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy Countryside Area ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: n/a _________________________________________________________________________ (P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The application for planning permission proposes the siting of a pod and the installation of a septic tank and associated works at Land North East of Glenmachrie, Glenegedale, Isle of Islay, Argyll and Bute. This is a retrospective application. The application site is within the countryside as designated in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2). It is also within the Scottish Water mains supply and an airfield safeguarding zone (Islay Airport) (but does not meet the relevant consultation trigger) in LDP 2. The application site, which is generally rectangular in shape and measures some 0.114 hectares in area, comprises an area of rough grazing. Planning permission 23/00426/PPP was approved at the application site on 20.07.2023 for the erection of a dwellinghouse. This is an extant permission. To date, however, no Reserved Matters application has been submitted. The Proposal As detailed above, the application proposes the siting of a pod and the installation of a septic tank and associated works. It is a retrospective application. The pod, which is broadly rectangular shaped in floor area and incorporates a barrel-roof design, comprises a kitchenette/living/bedroom area, a separate bathroom/ensuite and a decking area. The pod measures approximately 6m (L) x 3.2m (W) x 2.6m (H). The decking area, which is accessed directly from the kitchenette/living/bedroom area, measures approximately 2.5m (L) x 3.1m (W). The materials palette includes metrotile roof shingles to the side and roof cladding (colour: charcoal grey) and larch cladding to the front and rear gables (colour: natural timber). The pod will be accessed via a set of double-glazed doors on its north-west elevation.
Page 10
Access to the pod will be via an existing field access which is accessed directly from the public road (A846). Condition 3 of 23/00426/PPP requires the formation of the junction serving the current application site (which is the same site as that approved under 23/00426/PPP for the erection of a dwellinghouse) in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD 08/002 Rev a; with visibility splays measuring 2.4 metres x 136 metres. It is intended that this access would serve the pod which is the subject of this application, the dwellinghouse approved under any reserved matters application, and any development of a further two houses on adjoining/adjacent land under 24/02085/PPP which was approved on 21.10.25. The Councils Roads Engineer has advised that the following matters should be addressed by condition on any approval; 1.Connection of site access to the public road, 136 x 2.40 x 1.05 metres. 2. Connection of site access to the public road to be constructed as per standard detail drawing ref: SD 08/002 Rev B. Radius to be 6.00 metres minimum. Access width to be 5.50 metres minimum. 3. Positive surface water drainage to be installed to prevent the discharge of surface water onto the public road. 4. Turning and parking for two vehicles. 5.Turning head for a commercial vehicle to be provided to serve the three dwellings. 6. No fences, walls or hedges within 2.00 metres of the public road. 7. Vehicular gates to be set back a minimum distance of 6.00 metres from edge of public road. Gates to open inwards to site. Gate posts to be set back 1.00 metre on each side of the 5.50 metre wide access. 8. Existing roadside ditch to be cleaned to establish the correct invert level, prior to installing culvert. 9. Existing ditch to be culverted under the proposed new vehicular access, to the satisfaction of Roads & Infrastructure Services. 10. Headwalls to be provided at each end of the culvert under the private access. 11. New access to be sited no closer to an existing access than 25.00 metres. 12. Refuse collection point to be provided adjacent to the public road. Had the recommendation of this decision been to approve the application it would have been necessary to impose a condition requiring the satisfactory submission and discharge of these details. The pod is sited within the north-east portion of the application site. Parking for 2No. vehicles will be provided adjacent to the pod. A septic tank which will incorporate a soakaway, will be installed along the southern boundary of the application site. Principle Policy 3 ‘Biodiversity’ of NPF4 states that any potential adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts, of development proposals on biodiversity, nature networks and the natural environment will be minimized through careful planning and design. Policy 4 ‘Natural Places’ of NPF4 states that development proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported.
Page 11
Policy 9 ‘Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings’ of NPF4 states that proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. Policy 14 ‘Design, quality and place’ of NPF4 states that development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. Policy 29 ‘Rural Development’ of NPF4 states that development proposals in remote rural areas, where new development can often help to sustain fragile communities will be supported where the proposal satisfies 3No. criteria. In terms of the adopted LDP2, and as detailed previously, the site is within a designated Countryside Area (CA). Herein, Policy 02 of LDP 2 gives a presumption in favour of sustainable development where this is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as detailed in the relevant subject policies such as set out in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies of LDP 2. Policy 05 ‘Design and Placemaking’ of LDP 2 states that to achieve good quality places, proposals should endeavour to comply with a number of placemaking criteria which include that the design should develop the area’s 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. Policy 08 ‘Sustainable Siting’ of LDP 2 states that a number of criteria (8No. in total) will apply in respect of sustainable siting when assessing any proposal for development. Criteria relating to integration, design, layout, parking, residential amenity and energy efficiency are assessed further below in the section titled ‘other material considerations’ and therein under the respective heading. As the application site does not comprise a sloping site, the second criterion of the policy is not relevant to the application proposal. Policy 09 ‘Sustainable Design’ of LDP 2 goes on to state that development proposals should demonstrate consideration of and where possible utilisation of sustainable design and construction methods in terms of embodied energy; conversion and re-use; and adaptability. Policy 55 ‘Flooding’ of LDP 2 states that development on the functional flood plain (land with greater than 0.5% (1 in 200) probability of flooding in any year) will be considered contrary to the objectives of this plan, except in the limited circumstances set out in part c) of this policy. Development elsewhere will be subject to assessment as set out in parts a) and b) of this policy, as relevant. It goes on to state that in all cases where the potential for flooding is highlighted, the planning authority will exercise the ‘precautionary principle’ and refuse development proposals where such proposals do not comply with parts a), b), c) or d) of this policy and/or on the advice of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). These policies are considered further below. As detailed above Policy 29 of NPF4 states as follows: ‘Development proposals in remote rural areas, where new development can often help to sustain fragile communities, will be supported where the proposal: i. will support local employment; ii. supports and sustains existing communities, for example through provision of digital infrastructure; and iii. is suitable in terms of location, access, siting, design and environmental impact.
Page 12
Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal by its nature does not, in itself, provide for direct local employment opportunities, nonetheless given that the intended use of the pod is for vacation purposes by the applicant, the proposal would support the local service sector (shops/public houses/restaurants etc.). For this reason, it is considered that the proposal would therefore support local employment in so far as stated. Furthermore, and for generally the same reasons, as the proposal would supports the local service sector, it would therefore support and sustain the local/existing community in this part of Islay. Matters in respect of the third criterion of Policy 29(c), that is, whether the proposal is suitable in terms of location, access, siting, design environmental impact, will be assessed in detail under the heading ‘Other relevant material considerations’ below. In overall terms, it is therefore considered that the principle of the siting of a pod at the application site is acceptable, subject to the consideration of the below matters. Other relevant material considerations are assessed in further detail below. Siting & Design In respect of design matters, given that the pod is simple in its form and that it would utilise simple palette of traditional materials, it is considered that, in itself, its design is acceptable in the local context. However, it sits as an isolated feature within a field and is visible from the road. The proposal therefore appears as an isolated feature of prominent visibility at the current time. However, and as detailed previously, planning permission in principle for the erection of a single dwellinghouse at this application site was approved on 20.07.2023 under 23/00426/PPP. Whilst no reserved matters application have, to date, been submitted for the dwellinghouse, this permission in principle nonetheless remains extant and, as such, represents a material consideration in the context of the current proposal. Notwithstanding that no details of the design/scale/massing/proportions and siting of the dwellinghouse have been submitted, it is nonetheless considered that the addition of a pod at the application site would represent overdevelopment of the site such that the combination of the site density and form of development would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area. For this reason, the proposal fails to comply with Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies 5, 8, 9 and 10 of LDP 2 to the extent specified. Impacts on Neighbouring Properties As detailed above, no reserved matters application for the dwellinghouse which was approved in principle under at the application site under 23/00426/PPP have been submitted to date. Nonetheless because this permission is extant, the current proposal for the pod must therefore be assessed in the context of a dwellinghouse being present at the application site. The potential for two additional dwellings in the immediate locality under 24/02085/PPP are also material to the consideration of these matters. Although the proposed orientation and disposition of the approved dwellinghouse is currently not known, given scale of the application site, it is considered that a dwellinghouse even of moderate scale and massing would require to be sited generally in close proximity to the proposed pod. At such close distance, combined with the lack of any established intervening boundary treatment, it is therefore considered that this form of development and inter- relationship would create unacceptable residential impacts for the occupiers of both the dwellinghouse and the pod by reason of loss of privacy/overlooking/noise and/or disturbance. This potential for unacceptable noise and disturbance would also be applicable for the adjoining plot of land where PPP for two houses has been granted under 24/02085/PPP.
Page 13
For these reasons, it is considered that the proposed development would also fail to comply with Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies 5, 8 and 9 of LDP 2 in so far as stated. Biodiversity Policy 3 of NPF4 states that proposals will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity including restoring degraded habitats and strengthening nature networks and the connections between them. Local developments must include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity and measures should be proportionate to the nature and scale of the development. This is also reinforced by Policy 73 of the LDP 2. In this case, there is no loss of biodiversity given the existing site context within which the pod is located. However, it is acknowledged that a planning condition could be attached to secure planting which would improve biodiversity at the application site. Access, Parking & Road Safety As detailed above, ABC Roads have no objection to the proposal. Notwithstanding this, overlaying Drawing No. 2024-DEED-02 Rev A. ‘Site Plan’ submitted with the current proposal with approved Drawing No. 23-2932-PPP-02 Rev B. ‘Site Plan’ shows that the current proposal would be accessed by the same singular access as that of the extant permission. However, the current drawing shows the siting of 2No. parking bays where the proposed access terminates. Given this arrangement, no access could be provided to serve the dwellinghouse approved in principle in the extant permission under 23/00426/PPP. Technical requirements in respect of access and parking associated with this use are capable of being addressed by condition as set out in the Area Roads Engineer Response. Recommendation The proposed development is contrary to Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies 5, 8, 9, 10 and 35 of LDP 2 in that it would, if permitted, create a form of development that would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area and cause unacceptable impacts upon residential amenity for existing and future occupiers. It is therefore considered that planning permission should be refused for the proposal. Enforcement Considerations: There is currently a live Enforcement Case relating to this unauthorised development and therefore the existing structure should be removed within 3 months of the date of this decision (or any subsequent unfavourable appeal decision) and the ground restored to its condition prior to the development taking place to avoid formal enforcement action being taken. _________________________________________________________________________ (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No _________________________________________________________________________ (R) Reasons why planning permission or a Planning Permission in Principle should be granted: N/A _________________________________________________________________________ (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan: N/A _________________________________________________________________________
Page 14
(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: No _________________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Francis Gillespie Date: 09.06.2025 Reviewing Officer: David Moore Date: 08.04.2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth
Page 15
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 25/00032/PP 1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies 5, 8, 9, 10 and 35 of LDP 2 in that it would, if permitted, create a form of development that would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area and cause unacceptable impacts upon residential amenity for existing and future occupiers. It is therefore considered that planning permission should be refused for the proposal.
Page 16
APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application 25/00032/PP (A) Has the application been the subject of any “non-material” amendment in terms of Section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to the initial submitted plans during its processing. No (B) The reason why planning permission has been Refused: The proposed development is contrary to Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies 5, 8, 9, 10 and 35 of LDP 2 in that it would, if permitted, create a form of development that would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area and cause unacceptable impacts upon residential amenity for existing and future occupiers. It is therefore considered that planning permission should be refused for the proposal.