250004LRB STATEMENT redacted
Argyll and Bute Council · 5 June 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 5 June 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Classification: OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY 25/0004/LRB REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION 24/01635/PP ERECTION OF FENCE (RETROSPECTIVE) SEAVIEW HOUSE, BRUICHLADDICH, ISLE OF ISLAY 29 APRIL 2025
Page 2
Classification: OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF CASE The Planning Authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Kathyrn MacLellan (‘the appellant’). Planning permission 24/01635/PP for the erection of fence (retrospective) at Seaview, Bruichladdich, Isle of Islay (‘the appeal site’) was refused by the Planning Services under delegated powers on 20.03.25. The planning application has been appealed and is subject of referral to a Local Review Body. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The fence has been erected along the roadside of the front garden of the semi-detached property which lies adjacent the A847 public road. The dwelling has a garden which extends to the front side and rear of the property and the fence has been erected around the extended garden area to the south side of the property (front, sides and rear). The boundaries of this garden area were originally enclosed with an approximately 1.3m high stone wall to the front immediately adjacent the A847 public road and a small fence to the side which was lower than the stone boundary wall, this small fence led up to a metal gate within the driveway; the stone wall remains to the front of the property and the timber fence has been erected behind the stone wall protruding approx. 0.6m above the existing 1.3m high stone wall resulting in an overall height of roughly 1.9m from ground level along the 13m wide frontage of the property; along the side boundary nearest Seaview House the timber fence has been erected at a height of approximately 1.7m above ground level. Bruichladdich has a variety of boundary enclosures which are of traditional stone walls of various heights adjacent the A847 public road on both sides of the road with the exception of the industrial Gleaner site which has a frontage of a higher wire fence. There are no timber fencing of this scale and design nearby and the continued pattern of walls is the typical boundary enclosures along the frontage of Bruichladdich. Consequently, it has been considered that the fence by virtue of its prominent siting, design, material and scale the fence has an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the street scene. 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. STATEMENT OF CASE Argyll and Bute Council considers the determining issues in relation to the case as follows: • Whether the scale of the fence above the traditional stone wall in terms of its siting, design, materials and scale constitutes an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and street scene whilst setting precedent for further similar development.
Page 3
Classification: OFFICIAL The Report of Handling (Appendix 1) sets out the Council’s full assessment of the application in terms of Development Plan policy and other material considerations. REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING It is not considered that any additional information is required in light of the appellant’s submission. However, Members may wish to seek further details in respect of the appellant’s son by way of confirmation from a medical practitioner, including that the proposed development would help address safety needs as set out etc. Importantly, Members should also be mindful of the need to treat any information submitted in respect of the appellant’s son confidentially, to not place any associated documentation in the public domain, and be aware of any data protection implications. However, 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 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. The appellant raises a number of road safety issues including speeding motorists which is not a subject Planning Services can comment on and which the appellant has advised they have previously raised with the Roads Department. Issues have also been raised in respect of sewage issues within the area, again this is not a planning consideration and cannot be given consideration and is not of relevance to this development. The appellant refers to the Gleaner Oil Depot which is an industrial site a short distance from the appeal site which is differentiated by its location within a row of residential properties wherein a residential character prevails. No supporting statement was submitted with the planning application advising Officers of concerns in relation to the safety of the appellants son which has only been raised during the appeal process. The appellant could have submitted this information which would have been dealt with confidentially and restricted from the wider public. As this information was not provided with the application no consideration was given to these circumstances. NPF4 Policy 16h) is of relevance to householder development proposals that provide adaptations to people with health conditions that lead to particular accommodation needs.
Page 4
Classification: OFFICIAL The application form for the application did state “Fence was needed urgently to keep young labrador safe, we are located in a 30 mph limit zone however this is breached constantly and we had a dog and cat run over in past by speeding cars. Dog killed since this application.”, whilst this is very unfortunate this statement also appears to indicate that the dog was not safe even with the fence erected and it is not evident that this fence would protect a domestic cat. Many households with properties next to a public (and private) roads face the same challenges in protecting animals/pets. Moreover, these matters of animal safety are considered to be of limited weight that would not outweigh the material planning harm and resultant policy conflict identified above. CONCLUSION Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 requires that all decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The decision made on this application was in accordance with development plan policies. As set out above, it remains the view of the Planning Services, as set out in the Report of Handling appended to this statement, that the development constitutes an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the street scene. It also raises concerns that should this appeal be allowed, a precedent will be set for future developments of similar nature. Taking account of the above, it is respectfully requested that the application for review be dismissed.
Page 5
Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX 1 Report of Handling Relative to 24/01635/PP Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 24/01635/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Kathryn MacLellan Proposal: Erection of fence (retrospective) Site Address: Seaview House, Bruichladdich, Isle of Islay DECISION ROUTE ☒Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☐Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of fence (retrospective) (ii) Other specified operations • N/A
Page 6
Classification: OFFICIAL (B) RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that retrospective planning permission be refused for the reasons contained within this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Area Roads Engineer – no objection – report dated 20.02.25 (D) HISTORY: 12/00343/PP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouse – granted 23.04.2012 (E) PUBLICITY: Not required. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: None received (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Page 7
Classification: OFFICIAL Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes insert EIAR topics below) (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes attach as an appendix) (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes insert summary of key issues below) (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☒Yes ☐No ☐Yes ☒No (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes list supporting documents below) (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes insert details of the terms and heads of agreement and, grounds for refusal if not completed within 4 months below) (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes insert details of direction below)
Page 8
Classification: OFFICIAL (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. 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 7 – Historic Assets and Places Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – 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 Local Development Plan 2 Schedules
Page 9
Classification: OFFICIAL (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 3/2013. (delete as appropriate) Na (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes confirm date of screening opinion and reference below) (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes provide summary detail of PAC below) (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes provide detail below) (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes insert details below) (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • N/a (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A
Page 10
Classification: OFFICIAL Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) ☐Yes ☒No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☐No details to be secured by condition ☒N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application (tick all relevant boxes) ☒Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☐Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy (tick all relevant boxes) ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations
Page 11
Classification: OFFICIAL Retrospective planning permission is sought for the erection of a close boarded timber garden fence at Seaview House, Bruichladdich, Isle of Islay. This application has been submitted as the result of an enforcement investigation in respect of the unauthorised fence (ref. 24/00159/ENFHSH). It should be noted that the fence has been altered since this enforcement investigation commenced in that the higher element of the fence has been removed (which appeared as a second fence behind the front fence). Principle Of particular relevance, NPF4 Policy 16g) sets out support for householder development proposals where they: do not have a detrimental impact on the character or environmental quality of the home and the surrounding area in terms of size, design and materials; and where they do not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact, overshadowing or overlooking. NPF4 Policy 14, as underpinned by Policies 05, 08, 09 and 10 of the Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2), seek developers to produce and execute a high standard of appropriate design and ensure that development is sited and positioned so as to pay regard to the context within which it is located. Proposed developments must respect the existing character, form, materials and detailing of the existing building and neighbouring properties. Local character and appearance The site of the fence is at a semi-detached property known as Seaview House, Bruichladdich, Isle of Islay. The property sits adjacent the A847 public road within “settlement” area as defined by the Local Development Plan 2. The dwelling has a garden which extends to the front side and rear of the property and the fence has been erected around the extended garden area to the south side of the property (front, sides and rear). The boundaries of this garden area were originally enclosed with an approximately 1.3m high stone wall to the front immediately adjacent the A847 public road. and a small fence to the side which was lower than the stone boundary wall, this small fence led up to a metal gate within the driveway; the stone wall remains to the front of the property and the timber fence has been erected behind the stone wall protruding about 0.6m above the existing 1.3m high stone wall resulting in an overall height of roughly 1.9m from ground level along the 13m wide frontage of the property; along the side boundary nearest Seaview House it has been erected at a height of approximately 1.7m above ground level. Bruichladdich has a variety of boundary enclosures which are of traditional stone walls of various heights adjacent the A847 public road on both sides of the road with the exception of the industrial Gleaner site which has a frontage of a higher wire fence. There are no
Page 12
Classification: OFFICIAL timber fencing of this scale and design nearby and the continued pattern of walls is the typical boundary enclosures along the frontage of Bruichladdich. Whilst the fencing to the rear of the dwellinghouse is considered “permitted development” the fencing to the side and front of the property are the elements of the fencing that requires planning permission. The fence in its current form at the front and side of the property is not considered acceptable in terms of its visual appearance in respect of the surrounding street scene. In this instance the fence does not respect the surrounding character and street scene resulting in a detrimental visual appearance on the street scene and is therefore contrary to NPF4 Policies 16(g) i and 14 and Policies 05, 08, 09 and 10 of LDP2 accordingly the proposal is not considered acceptable and should be refused planning permission. Other considerations The Area Roads Engineer has been consulted and as the fence sits behind a high masonry boundary wall the fence has not reduced the sightline and accordingly have raised no objection to the erected fencing. In addition no objections have been submitted to the planning application. However these factors are afforded limited weight and are outweighed by the harm identified to local character and streetscape and subsequent conflict with Development Plan policies. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission Principle Should be Refused: The proposal is considered to be in conflict with the Development Plan when taken as a whole, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to grant planning permission having regard to s25 of the Act. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan
Page 13
Classification: OFFICIAL N/A (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Kim MacKay Date: 20.03.25 Reviewing Officer: Bryn Bowker Date: 20.03.25 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 14
Classification: OFFICIAL REASON FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICAITN REF. NO. 24/01635/pp 1. By virtue of its prominent siting, design, material and scale the fence has an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the street scene. As such the fence is contrary to NPF4 Policies 14 and 16g) i, LDP2 policies 05, 08, 09 and 10.
Page 15
Classification: OFFICIAL ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT • In order to prevent further enforcement proceedings the unauthorised elements of the fence (front and side) should be removed within 3 months from the date of this permission.
Page 16
Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application 24/01635/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. ☐Yes ☒No (Complete Uniform Reception, Plans Tab) (B) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan? ☐Yes ☒No (Complete Uniform Decision, Recommendation Tab) (C) The reason why planning permission has been refused: By virtue of its prominent siting, design, material and scale the fence has an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the street scene. As such the fence is contrary to NPF4 Policies 14 and 16g) i, LDP2 policies 05, 08, 09 and 10.