Agenda reports pack
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
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 605522 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 29 May 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on THURSDAY, 5 JUNE 2025 at 3:00 PM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: SEAVIEW, BRUICHLADDICH, ISLE OF ISLAY, ARGYLL, PA49 7UN (REF: 25/0004/LRB) (a) Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation (Pages 3 - 30) (b) Comments from Interested Parties (Pages 31 - 54) (c) Comments from Applicant (Pages 55 - 56) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel: 01546 604392 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
Ref: AB1 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/** NOTICE OF REVIEW OFFICIAL USE 23 April 2025 Date Received Notice of Request for Review under Section 43(a)8 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Important – Please read the notes on how to complete this form and use Block Capitals. Further information is available on the Council’s website. You should, if you wish, seek advice from a Professional Advisor on how to complete this form. (1) APPLICANT FOR REVIEW (2) AGENT (if any) Name KATHRYN MACLELLAN Name Address SEAVIEW Address BRUICHLADDICH ISLE OF ISLAY Post Code PA49 7UN Post Code Tel. No. 07964337622 Tel. No. Email katie.maclellan3@gmail.com Email (3) Do you wish correspondence to be sent to you x or your Agent (4) (a) Reference Number of Planning Application 24/01635/PP (b) Date of Submission 03/09/24 (c) Date of Decision Notice (if applicable) 20/03/25 (5) Address of Appeal Property SEAVIEW BRUICHLADDICH ISLE OF ISLAY ARGYLL PA49 7UN Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
(6) Description of Proposal ERECTION OF FENCE (RETROSPECTIVE) (7) Please set out detailed reasons for requesting the review:- The reason given for refusal of planning permission is: 1. By virtue of it’s 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. Having sought opinion and support from Councillors Redman and McFadzean, they also do not understand how a natural material (sustainable timber), tidy fence placed upon the inside of the existing boundary wall which is uniform in size and shape has a ‘harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and street scene’. To provide some perspective and reference to where our property is situated and the surrounding area, this is in the same street scene as an area of waste land (owned by Gleaner oil) which is infested with Japanese knotweed which has spread into our garden, an ugly oil depot just metres up the road surrounded by an unsightly metal fence which encloses 2 massive storage tanks visible from well across the island. On the other side of us is currently an ugly building site covered in rubble and public toilets whilst directly in front of our property there is a large ugly black oil pipe running from the pier to the oil depot across an area of waste land. This is also in the same surrounding area where untreated raw domestic effluent from our own property, the next door property and the public toilets is being continuously deposited onto a nearby beach due to a broken sewer pipe which allows raw sewage and toilet waste to be deposited at low tide on a beautiful sandy beach used by people, domestic animals, wildlife and nesting birds. (I have reported this to A&B Council, SEPA & Scottish Water with no action) This is the same surrounding area where, despite council and police being very much aware of the issue, vehicles drive past our property at speeds in excess of 50-60mph every few minutes. (A video of this issue is available as additional evidence if you require it) Continued on next page … Page 4
Page 5
I would therefore consider the unchecked raw sewage being discharged into the immediate natural environment and the constant unchecked speeding of vehicles both of which the council are fully aware to have “an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the street scene” to be infinitely more damaging than the erection of a neat wooden fence designed to protect life. We consciously constructed the fence out of natural sustainable materials and erected it as an essential security measure, both for our disabled adult son who experiences many challenges due to having severe autism and learning disabilities but with a desire to ‘escape’ from our property day and night and runaway when he becomes anxious and his behaviour becomes challenging and for our pets which despite our best efforts have succumbed to the speeding traffic resulting in their deaths. Our son possesses zero road safety awareness despite our best efforts and as his legal guardian I have a duty set in law by the Public Guardian of Scotland to keep my son safe from harm. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 3 states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” This therefore implies a right to safety and security from harm hence the fence. Our 2 pet cats were run over (one was completely flattened) and a beloved 18 month old Labrador was killed in September 2024 all by speeding vehicles who did not even report the incidents and we had to notify the police ourselves. These pets could very easily have been my son such is the indiscriminate way vehicle drivers speed past our property. I am extremely concerned that despite me citing safety reasons in my original submission, the planning officer made the decision that the aesthetic of the surrounding area be prioritised over this legitimate safety concern for a vulnerable adult. The experience of losing my beloved cats and dog has been traumatic to put it mildly and every day we are living a nightmare in trying to keep our son safe, this fence is just part of a list of measures we have put in place to reduce his risks from this dangerous road. There are also large oil tankers turning and reversing on the road at the oil depot just metres from our property all day and in the early evening, this is happening right next to the Lochindaal Way, a pedestrian and cycle footpath between Bruichladdich and Port Charlotte which has a road crossing point next to the oil depot. The speeding vehicles coming into the village from the south down the hill are also a huge risk to the pedestrians and cyclists who cross this stretch of road, metres from our property day and night. Page 5
Page 6
The signs that were put up to warn motorists of pedestrians crossing were blown away in the recent storms and not yet fully replaced however it is our fence that the council are focusing their efforts and attention on. I have also sought help from my local MSP Jenni Minto regarding this issue who has been in contact with Argyll & Bute Council on my behalf regarding the speeding vehicles situation. The council responded by stating that they plan to add the village of Bruichladdich to the areas where speed surveys are undertaken and added that this would be delayed as the speed monitoring equipment is in need of replacing. I would be more than happy to take down this fence so that me and my family could enjoy the lovely view we have at the front of our property from our garden, however until there are robust anti speeding measures put in place in Bruichladdich and all across Islay in the 30mph zones and when I can be assured that the council (and the police) take this issue seriously enough and my son’s safety has been prioritised, I will be appealing the decision to have me remove the only structure that keeps my vulnerable disabled son from being hit and possibly fatally injured by a speeding vehicle. I note that the roads department had no objection to the fence and stated 1. The fence sits behind a high masonry boundary wall, the fence has not reduced the sightline. I would urge the review panel to reconsider this decision and take into account the bigger picture and the very reason behind the erection of this fence rather than considering how it fits in with the surrounding area. Who in their right mind would want to obliterate a view of the beautiful loch and the surrounding area from their garden unless there was a very good reason for the existence of this fence? (see photo 2 of our view from the garden) If insufficient space please continue on a separate page. Is this attached? Please tick to confirm (8) Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time determination of your application was made Yes If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review. Page 6
Page 7
Yes but only in so far as citing my son’s safety, who’s dignity and privacy I try to protect at all times and did not wish to use his challenges to ‘score a point’, the fact that I now have to do this is humiliating for both him and for me. In my original submission the planning officer was fully aware of the death of my cats during the last few years and the death of my dog last year all caused directly by speeding vehicles. The council and the police are also fully aware of the excessive speeds of vehicles travelling on the road immediately in front of my house yet choose to take zero action. I note that there was no reference to the safety aspect in the refusal decision and it is disappointing that the aesthetic of such a fence is prioritised over the safety aspect in a planning decision, therefore I felt that by raising the issue of the potential loss of human life of my beautiful son this may be viewed by the council as a slightly more significant reason for the fence. I also attach photos as new evidence of 1. a sign directly in front of my house requesting drivers to slow down, this was put up 10 years ago in an attempt to ask drivers to slow their speed in the absence of any measures put in place by the roads department. It is ignored. 2. The view from our garden which is being blocked by our fence so you understand the sacrifice we are making. I would request a site visit for you to appreciate what I have stated in this review request. Come to my house even for 5-10 minutes and you will certainly witness the speeding traffic. (9) If the Local Review Body determines that it requires further information on “specified matters” please indicate which of the following procedure you would prefer to provide such information:- (a) Dealt with by written submission (b) Dealt with by Local Hearing (c) Dealt with by written submission and site inspection Page 7
Page 8
(d) Dealt with by local hearing and site inspection x NB it is a matter solely for the Local Review Body to determine if further information is required and, if so, how it should be obtained. (10) Please list in the schedule all documentation submitted as part of the application for review ensuring that each document corresponds to the numbering in the sections below:- Schedule of documents submitted with Notice of Review (Note if posting your paperwork 3 paper copies of each of the documents referred to in the schedule below must be attached): No Detail 1 Photo of sign Sign to encourage drivers to slow down 2 Photo of view View we are blocking to prioritise safety 3 Video sent in file (if required) Video of speeding vehicles (if required) 4 Photos of fence 5 Site plan 6 7 8 9 10 If insufficient space please continue on a separate page. Is this attached? Please tick to confirm Submitted by (Please sign) Katie MacLellan Dated 18.04.25 Page 8
Page 9
Important Notes for Guidance (1) All matters which the applicant intends to raise in the review must be set out in or accompany this Notice of Review (2) All documents, materials and evidence which the applicant intends to rely on in the Review must accompany the Notice of Review UNLESS further information is required under Regulation 15 or by authority of the Hearing Session Rules. (3) Guidance on the procedures can be found on the Council’s website -: http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/local-review-body (4) In in doubt how to proceed please contact 01546 604392/604269 or email: localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk (5) Once completed this form can be either emailed to localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk or returned by post to Committee Services, (Local Review Body), Kilmory, Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8RT (6) You will receive an acknowledgement of this form, usually by electronic mail (if applicable), within 14 days of the receipt of your form and supporting documentation. If you have any queries relating to the completion of this form please contact Committee Services on 01546 604392/604269 or email: localreviewprocess@argyll- bute.gov.uk For official use only Date form issued Issued by (please sign) Page 9
Page 10
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 11
Page 11
Page 12
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 13
Page 13
Page 14
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 15
Page 15
Page 16
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 17
Page 17
Page 18
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 19
Page 19
Page 20
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 21
Page 21
Page 22
Page 22
Page 23
Page 23
Page 24
Page 24
Page 25
Page 25
Page 26
Page 26
Page 27
Page 27
Page 28
Page 28
Page 29
LAND REGISTER OF SCOTLAND Officer’s ID / Date N ORDNANCE SURVEY NATIONAL GRID REFERENCE Survey Scale ARG16525 140m 1/2500 NR2660 NR2661 NR26SE 4466 TITLE NUMBER 18/10/2010 Page 29
Page 30
Page 30
Page 31
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 31 Agenda Item 3b
Page 32
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 32
Page 33
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 33
Page 34
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 34
Page 35
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 35
Page 36
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 36
Page 37
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 37
Page 38
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 38
Page 39
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 39
Page 40
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 40
Page 41
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 41
Page 42
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 42
Page 43
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 43
Page 44
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 44
Page 45
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 45
Page 46
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. Page 46
Page 47
Page 47
Page 48
Page 48
Page 49
Page 49
Page 50
Page 50
Page 51
Page 51
Page 52
Page 52
Page 53
" © Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 25/0004/LRB Seaview House, Bruichladdich, Islay of Islay O 1:1,000 0 9.5 194.75 Meters Site Page 53
Page 54
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 55
Classification: OFFICIAL Dear Review Committee I am responding to the Statement of Case from Argyll and Bute Council (25/0004/LRB) "Taking account of the above, it is respectfully requested that the application for review be dismissed." Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that in determining planning applications, decisions should be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Therefore I understand that whilst the development plan is the primary consideration for the planning department, other factors such as the fundamental safety of my son should be considered as a material consideration and I understand that this is within the scope of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Having researched the Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, it states that material considerations cannot be defined as such as there are many different aspects to consider for each individual planning application, however there is evidence that material considerations should include and are not limited to the following: • The impact on the local environment. • The impact on the character and amenity of the area • The impact on public health and safety. • The impact on heritage sites. It appears that Argyll and Bute council’s planning department have displayed rigidity in applying the relevant statute to this planning application and have only considered the first 2 of these points and completely ignored the safety aspect despite being informed by myself as the appellant of the very real danger my son faces on a daily basis. In response to the statement stating "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.” Prior to me submitting my retrospective planning application, I researched how information is used for planning applications. This is what I found and this affected my decision not to include details of my son’s disability in my duty to uphold his privacy and dignity. Argyll and Bute Planning Portal is in the public domain All planning application information, including plans and documents, is accessible through the council's online public access system. Hardcopy information and plans can also be inspected by the public at local area planning offices. Page 55 Agenda Item 3c
Page 56
Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council makes this information available to the public for review and comment. Anyone can access this information and participate in the planning process. I could not see anywhere that certain sensitive information can be withheld and who decides this when the application is submitted? It is convenient for the council to point this out after the event. I ask that full consideration be given to the confidentiality of my son’s circumstances when deliberating why this information was not included in the initial application. I also attach a letter from my GP in support of the erection of this fence in order to maintain the safety of my son. Please see attached. Kind regards Katie MacLellan Confidential Appendices issued to Members of Argyll and Bute Local Review separately from Agenda pack. Page 56