Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 26 February 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 26 February 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 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 19 February 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 26 FEBRUARY 2025 at 4:30 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: FLAT 2, 3 SHORE ROAD, PORT BANNATYNE, ISLE OF BUTE, PA20 0LQ (REF: 25/0001/LRB) (a) Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation (Pages 3 - 14) (b) Comments from Interested Parties • Planning Authority (Pages 15 – 42) • Objector (Pages 43 – 44) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor John Armour Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Daniel Hampsey 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 24 December 2024 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 Zarina Shah Name Address Flat 2 Address 3 Shore Road Port Bannatyne, Isle of Bute Post Code PA20 0LQ Post Code Tel. No. Tel. No. Email Email (3) Do you wish correspondence to be sent to you X or your Agent (4) (a) Reference Number of Planning Application 24/00925/PP (b) Date of Submission 20/05/2024 (c) Date of Decision Notice (if applicable) 25/09/2024 Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
(5) Address of Appeal Property FLAT 2, 3 SHORE ROAD, PORT BANNATYNE, ISLE OF BUTE, PA20 0LQ (6) Description of Proposal Erection of replacement fence, garden pergola and 2 garden sheds (retrospective) (7) Please set out detailed reasons for requesting the review:- Refer to attached appeal document. If insufficient space please continue on a separate page. Is this attached? Please tick to confirm Page 4
Page 5
(8) Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time determination of your application was made No 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 5
Page 6
(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 X (d) Dealt with by local hearing and site inspection 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 REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION REFERENCE NUMBER: 24/00925/PP 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 If insufficient space please continue on a separate page. Is this attached? Please tick to confirm Page 6
Page 7
Submitted by (Please sign) Zarina Shah Dated 23/12/2024 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 7
Page 8
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 9
Appeal Against Fence Refusal Based on Height and Design To: Argyll and Bute Council Planning Department Subject: Appeal Against Fence Refusal Based on Height and Design (Application Reference: 24/00925/PP) Date: 23/12/2024 Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to formally appeal the decision to refuse my fence application at Flat 2, 3 Shore Road, Port Bannatyne, Isle of Bute, PA20 0LQ, citing its height, design, and location within a conservation area. I respectfully request that the council reconsider my application for the following reasons: 1. Compliance with Regulations: The fence is six feet tall, which is within the standard height regulations for fences in Scotland, even in some conservation zones. Its construction adheres to safety and structural standards, and I believe it aligns with broader regulatory expectations for residential properties. 2. Neighborhood Character and Design: The fence has been thoughtfully designed to preserve and complement the historic surroundings of the conservation area. Using high-quality timber and cast iron hinges and fittings, the fence was crafted to mimic traditional styles, blending seamlessly with the character of the 1800s-era buildings nearby. This approach was deliberately chosen to avoid the use of off-the-shelf, modern materials that could detract from the heritage look of the area. The effort and care I put into the fence’s design reflects my commitment to maintaining the aesthetic integrity of the neighborhood. 3. Privacy and Security: Privacy and security are vital for my family and me, especially given the proximity of public spaces and overlooking properties. The fence’s height and design are necessary to mitigate the intrusion caused by a neighboring property at 4 Shore Road, which includes an unapproved surveillance camera overlooking my garden. This neighbor’s behavior has caused significant discomfort and distress, as they have repeatedly made me feel uncomfortable whenever I enter my garden, to the point of feeling watched and unsafe. Their actions have created an environment where I no longer feel at ease in my own outdoor space. It is also worth noting that this same individual is believed to have made the report against my fence and submitted a final complaint comment online on the very last day of the public consultation period. This raises concerns about the fairness of the decision, as the objection appears to stem from personal grievances rather than legitimate planning concerns. I come from a Muslim religious background, where privacy is deeply valued and integral to our way of life. A private and secure garden space is not just a matter of personal preference but a cultural and religious necessity for me and my family. The lack of privacy caused by the surveillance and unwanted attention from this neighbor has made it impossible for me to use my garden freely, affecting my quality of life and ability to practice modesty as required by my faith. I would also like to highlight that, out of the four other owners in the building (excluding myself), all have expressed praise for the fence and are happy with both its construction and design. Their support underscores that the fence does not detract from the property’s shared aesthetic or communal harmony, further emphasizing the lack of valid objections. The fence is crucial for creating a private and secure environment, a basic expectation for any homeowner, and a necessity for my mental, emotional, and cultural well-being given these circumstances. 4. Support from Neighbors and the Community: My neighbors and the broader community have overwhelmingly supported the fence. My downstairs neighbor, Sheena Ferguson, has submitted a letter directly to the council expressing her support and describing the decision to reject the fence as unfair. Another supporting letter has been attached to this appeal. Passersby and other local residents have also commented positively on the fence’s design and its contribution to the neighborhood’s character and privacy. I am happy to provide letters or testimonies to substantiate this community support. 5. Inconsistencies in Application of Policy: While my fence has been criticized for its height and design, there are numerous examples within the conservation area of features that deviate far more significantly from its intended character. These include buildings covered in grey cement over Page 9
Page 10
original stone facades, PVC doors and windows, and poorly repaired structures and fences. I have documented multiple examples of fence lines throughout the conservation area that demonstrate much poorer care for both height and design than my own fence. These fences, many of which I have photographed, show a significant lack of alignment with conservation standards compared to the thoughtful and sympathetic design of my fence. Some examples of others fences throughout the conservation are below: Note: Above image is neighbour in the same block of flats. Below are a variation of photos which are fences on the conservation zone. Page 10
Page 11
Page 11
Page 12
Page 12
Page 13
Additionally, my friend Jane Simpson at 47 Ardbeg Road received approval for a six-foot fence, suggesting that height is not inherently an issue. This raises concerns about the consistency and fairness in the application of policy, leaving me feeling unfairly targeted despite the care I have taken to align my fence with the area’s character. 6. Impact on Mental Health and Well-being: On a deeply personal note, I am currently battling severe mental health challenges, which have been significantly exacerbated by the stress and anxiety caused by this situation. I am now receiving daily therapy sessions to help cope with the emotional toll that the lack of privacy and the ongoing issues with my neighbor have had on me. My therapist has recognized the severe impact this situation is having on my mental health and will be contacting the council directly via a formal letter to provide professional documentation of this. Privacy is a fundamental right, and the inability to enjoy it in my own garden has led to considerable distress. This issue is no longer just about the physical presence of the fence but the emotional and psychological well-being of an individual who is struggling to navigate the constant stress and surveillance from a neighbor. The refusal of my fence application has had a profound impact on my quality of life, mental health, and ability to feel secure in my own home. A simple six-foot fence, designed with care to blend with the historic surroundings, would resolve these issues and allow me to live with dignity and peace of mind I understand and respect the importance of preserving the character of the conservation area, and I am willing to work with the council to address any specific concerns or make reasonable adjustments if necessary. However, I believe the fence as it stands enhances the area’s character, provides necessary privacy and security, and has broad support from the community. Thank you for taking the time to review my appeal. I hope the points raised here demonstrate the appropriateness and necessity of my application. Please feel free to contact me at zarinashah66@yahoo.co.uk or 07763921686 if further details or documentation are required. Yours faithfully, Zarina Shah Page 13
Page 14
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 15
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra Ghàidheal agus Bhòid Development and Infrastructure Services Executive Director: Kirsty Flanagan LRB Reference: 25/0001/LRB Planning Case Ref: 24/00925/PP 15th January 2025 LRB Case Ref: 25/0001/LRB Appeal against decision to refuse planning permission 24/00925/PP- Erection of replacement fence, garden pergola and two garden sheds (retrospective) Description of site Planning application 24/00925/PP concerns the garden grounds associated with Flat 2 of 3 Shore Road, Port Bannatyne, Isle of Bute. The site is within the Rothesay Conservation Area and within the grounds of a C-Listed building. The garden ground is bounded on the northern side by the listed stone walls shared with adjoining B-Listed Port Bannatyne Church and the listed stone wall to the rear of the site, parallel with High Road. High Road is elevated above the site with views across the rear gardens from the public footpath. Site history No previous planning applications relevant to this application site have been made. Planning Enforcement Case ref: 23/00012/ENFHSH was opened in January 2023 following a complaint of unauthorised development. A Planning Officer attended the site in March 2023 and notified the Appellant that the erection of the fencing, sheds, and pergola was in breach of planning control. The Appellant was advised to submit a retrospective planning application to address the breach. No application was forthcoming. A s.33A Notice (Notice requiring the submission of a planning application for development already carried out) was served in March 2024. The Appellant was advised that the height of the fence as built was unlikely to be supported and advised that a reduction to 1m would likely be permissible. A planning application was later submitted for retrospective permission for the development as built. Statutory Basis on Which the Appeal Should Be Decided Section 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, 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 - Planning Application 24/00925/PP Planning application 24/00925/PP sought retrospective permission for the erection of a garden fence, two garden sheds, and a pergola within the garden grounds of the flatted dwelling. As outlined in the Report of Handling (attached), the siting of the two sheds and pergola were deemed acceptable in planning terms. The planning application was recommended for refusal on the grounds that the height and design of the fencing is inappropriate for the setting, forming an imposing structure that is likely to harm the amenity of those using the adjoining land, and detracting from the sensitive setting. The reasons for refusal are: Page 15 Agenda Item 3b
Page 16
1. Failure to preserve and enhance the historic built environment contrary to NPF4 Policy 7(d) (Historic Assets and Places); LDP2 Policy 16 (Listed Buildings); LDP2 Policy 17 (Conservation Areas); and LDP2 Policy 15 (Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment) 2. Poor or inappropriate Design, Scale, and Siting contrary to NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place); NPF4 Policy 16 (g) (Quality Homes); LDP2 Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking); and LDP2 Policy 08 (Sustainable Siting). Requirement for Additional Information and a Hearing It is considered that no new information has been raised in the Appellants’ submission. The issues raised were covered in the Report of Handling (attached), including a summary of the representations submitted by 1 objector. 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 challenging issues and has not been the subject of significant body of conflicting representation, then it is considered that a Hearing is not required. Comment on Appellant’s Submission Having regard to the reasons for requesting the review set out within the Appellant’s submission the Officer provides the following comments: 1. Compliance with Regulations: The fence is six feet tall, which is within the standard height regulations for fences in Scotland. Its construction adheres to safety and structural standards, and aligns with regulatory expectations for residential properties. It is not clear which regulations are being referred to here. Planning permission is required for the erection of a fence in excess of 1m in height when within 20m of a road, within the curtilage of a flatted dwelling, and/or when constructed within a Conservation Areas or within the setting of a Listed Building. 2. Neighbourhood Character and Design: The fence has been thoughtfully designed to preserve and complement the historic surroundings of the conservation area. The design, siting, and scale of the fence is addressed in the Report of Handling. The Officer cannot agree that the design of the fencing preserves and or enhances the character of the Conservation Area, nor is appropriate within the setting of Listed Buildings. 3. Privacy and Security: (a) Privacy and security are vital for my family and me, especially given the proximity of public spaces and overlooking properties. The fence’s height and design are necessary to mitigate the intrusion caused by a neighbouring property at 4 Shore Road, which includes an unapproved surveillance camera. This neighbour’s behaviour has caused significant discomfort and distress, as they have repeatedly made me feel uncomfortable whenever I enter my garden, to the point of feeling watched and unsafe. An external CCTV camera appears to have been erected to the rear of the building without Listed Building Consent. A planning enforcement case has been opened and this matter will be progressed separately. However, matters of privacy and surveillance as suggested by the Appellant are civil issues and/or a matter for Page 16
Page 17
Police Scotland. The responsibility to ensure appropriate camera coverage resides with the owner of the unit. Should the CCTV camera be removed, there still exists natural overlooking of the rear garden areas by the flatted dwellings and from the elevated public road adjoining the site (High Road). (b) It is also worth noting that this same individual is believed to have made the report against my fence and submitted a final complaint comment online on the very last day of the public consultation period. This raises concerns about the fairness of the decision, as the objection appears to stem from personal grievances rather than legitimate planning concerns. Members of the public can submit representations in response to a planning application up until the application is determined. One letter of objection was received in response to this application. This was submitted on 3rd September 2024. This was prior to the expiry date of both Site Notices (4th September 2024) and local newspaper publications (6th September 2024), and well in advance of the 8-week determination deadline for the application (30th September 2024). The application was determined on 25th September 2024. The letter of objection raised relevant material planning considerations which are addressed in the Officer’s report. (c) I come from a Muslim religious background, where privacy is deeply valued and integral to our way of life. A private and secure garden space is not just a matter of personal preference but a cultural and religious necessity for me and my family. The lack of privacy caused by the surveillance and unwanted attention from this neighbour has made it impossible for me to use my garden freely, affecting my quality of life and ability to practice modesty as required by my faith. As above, the site is naturally overlooked by the raised road/footpath (High Road) and by the adjoining flatted properties which overlook the building grounds to the rear. It is therefore reasonable to expect a degree of overlooking from neighbouring properties and the public road at this site. As noted in the Report of Handling, the natural overlooking of the garden ground could be somewhat mitigated through considered landscaping/planting which would be a more suitable boundary treatment. (d) Four other owners in the building have expressed praise for the fence and are happy with both its construction and design. Their support underscores that the fence does not detract from the property’s shared aesthetic or communal harmony, further emphasizing the lack of valid objections. As outlined in the Report, it is considered that the size, siting, and design of the fence is inappropriate to the setting. The height and design of the fence has the potential to impede upon the enjoyment of garden ground for the immediate neighbour. No letters of support were submitted during the course of the application process to be considered as part of the determination of this application. 4. Support from Neighbours and the Community: My neighbours and the broader community have overwhelmingly supported the fence. My neighbour has submitted a letter directly to the council expressing her support. Another supporting letter has been attached to this appeal. The planning application follows planning enforcement action following a complaint made regarding the size and scale of the fence. A letter of support was received from neighbour Ms S Ferguson on 9th October 2024, after the determination of the application and could therefore not be taken into account during Page 17
Page 18
the assessment of the application. Nonetheless, the letter submitted raised no planning matters and no material considerations that would have altered the decision to refuse the application. A copy of this letter is attached. A further letter of support from Ms S Ferguson is provided by the Appellant. The letter reiterates the points by the Appellant in regards to style, design, privacy, and other fencing examples which are addressed in the Report of Handling. No other representations of support were made or received during the application process. No further material is provided regarding the stated overwhelming public support for the Officer to comment on. 5. Inconsistencies in Application of Policy: (a) While my fence has been criticized for its height and design, there are numerous examples within the conservation area of features that deviate far more significantly from its intended character. The Officer is unable to consider the merits of all developments within the conservation area. The decision to refuse the application is made when considering the sensitive historical setting and specific characteristics of the application site. (b) 47 Ardbeg Road received approval for a six-foot fence, suggesting that height is not inherently an issue. This raises concerns about the consistency and fairness in the application of policy, leaving me feeling unfairly targeted. The Appellant appears to refer to planning application 24/00683/PP concerning the erection of a fence and summerhouse. This site is completely unrelated to the appeal site it has no bearing on the determination of this application. The planning application relates to the development of the land and not the individual applicant. The decision to refuse the application, as outlined in the Report of Handling, is made on the design and siting of the fence only. 6. Impact on Mental Health and Well-being: (a) I am currently battling severe mental health challenges, which have been significantly exacerbated by the stress and anxiety caused by this situation. These matters are beyond the remit of planning control. The Appellant was first notified of the breach in March 2023 and a formal notice only served once a retrospective application was not forthcoming over the intervening 12 months. The Appellant was advised that the existing height of the fence was unlikely to be supported prior to submitting the planning application. (b) Privacy is a fundamental right, and the inability to enjoy it in my own garden has led to considerable distress. This issue is no longer just about the physical presence of the fence but the emotional and psychological well-being of an individual who is struggling to navigate the constant stress and surveillance from a neighbour. The refusal of my fence application has had a profound impact on my quality of life, mental health, and ability to feel secure in my own home. A simple six-foot fence would resolve these issues and allow me to live with dignity and peace of mind. As above, tension between the Appellant and the neighbour are beyond the remit of planning control. As noted in the Report of Handling, the natural overlooking of the garden ground could be somewhat mitigated through considered landscaping/planting which would not require the benefit of planning permission. Page 18
Page 19
7. I am willing to work with the council to address any specific concerns or make reasonable adjustments if necessary. The Appellant was advised prior to the submission of the planning application that the existing height of the fence was unlikely to be supported and they were duly advised to reduce the height. A reduction in height of the fence to approximately 1m in height would likely be acceptable to the Planning Authority. Summary The development was erected without required planning permission and remains in breach of planning control. The subsequent retrospective planning application was refused owing to the excessive height and poor design of the fencing. The two garden sheds and pergola included in the application are considered acceptable in planning terms and are not included in the reasons for refusal of the planning application. As outlined in the Report of Handling, the design and scale of the fencing is not in keeping with the immediate garden grounds, nor appropriate for the Conservation Area and sensitive setting with regards to the Listed buildings. The Appellant has advised that the height of the enclosure is to ensure privacy when using the garden. However, there should be a reasonable expectation of overlooking within a flatted dwelling where windows from the rear elevation overlook the garden grounds and as the site is overlooked from High Road. Further, privacy from neighbouring gardens can be achieved through considered planting, for example, which would be more in keeping with the wider Conservation Area. The Appellant draws Members’ attention to a number of fencing examples within the Conservation Area. I am unable to comment on these images as they bear no relevance to the determination of this application. I would reiterate the sensitive setting of the application site as within the setting of Listed Buildings and within the Conservation Area, which are significant material considerations in the determination of this application. Yours sincerely, Emma Spence Planning Enforcement Officer Development Management Development and Economic Growth Argyll and Bute Council Email: Emma.Spence@argyll-bute.gov.uk Telephone: 01436 658712 Page 19
Page 20
23/00012/ENFHSH – Flat 2, 3 Shore Road, Bute Site Images 18.03.2024 [ES] Page 20
Page 21
23/00012/ENFHSH – Flat 2, 3 Shore Road, Bute Site Images 18.03.2024 [ES] Page 21
Page 22
23/00012/ENFHSH – Flat 2, 3 Shore Road, Bute Site Images 18.03.2024 [ES] Page 22
Page 23
23/00012/ENFHSH – Flat 2, 3 Shore Road, Bute Site Images 18.03.2024 [ES] Page 23
Page 24
23/00012/ENFHSH – Flat 2, 3 Shore Road, Bute Site Images 18.03.2024 [ES] Page 24
Page 25
23/00012/ENFHSH – Flat 2, 3 Shore Road, Bute Site Images 18.03.2024 [ES] Page 25
Page 26
23/00012/ENFHSH – Flat 2, 3 Shore Road, Bute Site Images 18.03.2024 [ES] Page 26
Page 27
23/00012/ENFHSH – Flat 2, 3 Shore Road, Bute Site Images 18.03.2024 [ES] Page 27
Page 28
23/00012/ENFHSH – Flat 2, 3 Shore Road, Bute Site Images 18.03.2024 [ES] Page 28
Page 29
23/00012/ENFHSH – Flat 2, 3 Shore Road, Bute Site Images 18.03.2024 [ES] Page 29
Page 30
Classification: OFFICIAL 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: 24/00925/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Zarina Shah Proposal: Erection of replacement fence, garden pergola and 2 garden sheds (retrospective) Site Address: Flat 2, 3 Shore Road, Port Bannatyne, Isle of Bute 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 in excess of 1m • Erection of pergola • Erection of No. 2 garden sheds (ii) Other specified operations • None (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be refused. (C) CONSULTATIONS: None (D) HISTORY: None (E) PUBLICITY: Site Notice (Conservation Area) Page 30
Page 31
Classification: OFFICIAL Date posted: 14.08.2024 Date Expired: 04.09.2024 Site Notice (Setting of Listed Building) Date posted: 14.08.2024 Date Expired: 04.09.2024 Isle of Bute News Date Published: 16.08.2024 Date expired: 06.09.2024 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: Iain MacG, 4 Shore Road, Port Bannatyne, PA20 0LQ Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of issues raised: • The replacement fence is significantly larger than the one it has replaced and contrasts sharply with the traditional garden layout that has defined our area. Approval of the fence could set a precedent that undermines the conservation objectives. Officer Comment: The siting and design of each element is considered in the assessment below. • The new fence is not a like for like replacement. Officer Comment: A like-for-like replacement fence of the same materials, design, and dimensions would have deemed consent and not require planning permission. As the fence is not a like-for-like replacement it is included in this application. • The excessive height of the pergola is a concern and not in keeping with traditional styles of the conservation area. The scale and appearance clash with the surroundings and detract from the cohesive, historic aesthetic. Officer Comment: The siting and design of each element is considered in the assessment below. • The pergola and fence encroaches on neighbour’s enjoyment of their gardens. Officer Comment: The siting and design of each element is considered in the assessment below. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☐No Page 31
Page 32
Classification: OFFICIAL (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☐Yes ☒No (iv) A Sustainability Checklist ☐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 (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒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. 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 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 Page 32
Page 33
Classification: OFFICIAL Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 17 – Conservation Areas (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. • Third Party Representations • Planning History (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Rothesay Conservation Area • Within the setting of Listed Building (3 Shore Road C-Listed) • Within the setting of Listed Building (Port Bannatyne Church B-Listed) • Bute and South Cowal Local Landscape Area (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 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 Page 33
Page 34
Classification: OFFICIAL Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? ☐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 ☒Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☐Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: None (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Preliminaries This retrospective application is made following planning enforcement action – case reference: 23/00012/ENFHSH. The Site This application concerns the garden grounds associated with Flat 2 of 3 Shore Road, Port Bannatyne. The site is within the Rothesay Conservation Area and 2, 3 & 4 Shore Road is a C-Listed building, subdivided into a number of flatted dwellings. Flat 2 shares access to the flatted dwellings to the rear of the building from a short link road between High Road and Shore Road. There are three private gardens to the front elevation and approximately three garden grounds to the rear of the building, as well as a residents’ parking area. This application concerns the northern most private garden to the rear. The garden ground is bounded on the northern side by the listed stone walls shared with Port Bannatyne Church and the listed stone wall to the rear of the site- parallel with High Road. The adjoining Port Bannatyne Church is B-Listed and accessed via Shore Road. High Road is elevated above the site with views across the rear gardens from the public footpath. The Application This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the erection of boundary fencing to two sides of the application site; the erection of a timber pergola; and the erection of two garden sheds. The two sheds and fencing are already in situ. The two cross beams of the pergola are also in situ, but the structure is not yet completed. Within the Settlement Area development will normally be acceptable where it is of appropriate scale and fit for the size of the settlement and respects the character and Page 34
Page 35
Classification: OFFICIAL appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, and design (LDP2 Policy 01 Settlement Areas). This is a small scale householder development within the Settlement Area of Port Bannatyne, Isle of Bute and is largely consistent with this policy. This householder development is within the setting of both the C-Listed main house (flatted dwellings) and shares its boundary with the B-Listed Port Bannatyne Church. The entrance to the Church and principal elevation is from Shore Road and is unaffected by this development. The original principal elevation of the main building is also taken from Shore Road. Here the front private gardens are sensitively partitioned, retaining the open frontage and grassed lawns that add to the character of the building. The quality of the principal elevation of the Listed building is not affected by this development. Sustainable Places The tall close-boarded panel fence may interrupt nature networks along the rear of the building compared to the hedging and low open fencing of the adjoining gardens. However this is considered a relatively minimal impact, with grass and vegetation retained within the enclosed garden. The siting of two garden sheds and a pergola is appropriate for the size of the garden and does not present a conflict with Biodiversity and Climate policies. This proposal in turn has a neutral effect upon the aims of Climate and Biodiversity policies: NPF4 Policy 1 (Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises); NPF4 Policy 2 (Climate Mitigation and Adaption); and NPF4 Policy 3 (Biodiversity). Erection of 2 Garden Sheds This application seeks retrospective permission for the siting of two garden sheds. The largest shed is sited towards the rear of the garden and is finished in white paint. The second shed is sited to the rear of the garden within a recess to the rear of the adjoining garden. A number of sheds are sited across the adjoining gardens, typically away from the main building towards the rear boundary. The sheds vary in size, design, and finishing, and are in keeping with reasonable expectations of the domestic garden. The two sheds proposed in this application generally follow the pattern of development from neighbouring gardens, as both are sited away from the building and towards the rear of the plot. The sheds are comfortably sited within the garden grounds, with no concerns for overshadowing or over-development of the plot, in accordance with LDP2 Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking), Policy 08 (Sustainable Siting), and Policy 09 (Sustainable Design). The siting of the sheds pose no conflict with the Local Development plan in terms of siting and design, or preservation of the historic environment. Pergola The application proposes the erection of a pergola that ranges between 2.6m- 2.1m in height. The submitted plans show the roof of the structure to be finished with wide-spaced timber beams, with open sides and a decked floor area. The two crossbeams have already been erected, although there are no connecting beams currently in place. Both cross beams are significantly higher than the boundary wall, and the overall height appears quite excessive when viewed within the adjoining garden grounds and communal areas. The structure is also close to the main building, disrupting the established pattern of garden structures to the rear of the grounds. Page 35
Page 36
Classification: OFFICIAL The pergola would be more suitably sited to the rear of the garden, where the elevated ground level at High Road and surrounding vegetation would largely screen the development. This location would also be in keeping with the siting of outbuildings to the rear of the garden plots in the adjoining gardens. However as the pergola is an open-sided structure it does not fully obstruct views of the boundary wall or detract from the neighbouring Church or main building in the same way an enclosed structure of this size may. Whilst the siting of the pergola would be more appropriate to the rear of the garden, its proposed siting and design is not significantly harmful to visual impact in itself to warrant a refusal to this application. Fencing This application seeks planning permission for the erection of fencing to enclose the garden ground. The close-boarded panel fencing is approximately 1.8m in height. The Applicant confirms that the fencing replaces an existing fence, which, from the images provided, appears to have been approximately 1m in height and comprised of spaced vertical timber slats, finished in dark green. The fence included in this application far exceeds the pre-existing fence in height and scale. The fence panels create a solid barrier between the adjoining gardens and does not allow for daylight or vegetation to pass through. Despite the clearly partitioned rear gardens, the sense of openness to the rear is maintained. The introduction of the tall closed fencing however disrupts views of the boundary wall, which is an attractive feature of the site, and undermines the previous openness of the grounds. The fence is stepped towards the main building as the land slopes in this direction. However the stepping does little to minimise the visual impact of the fence, which remains large and imposing. It is unclear whether the size of the fencing causes overshadowing of the adjacent garden ground and it is noted that this is not an issue raised via representations in response to this application. However it is considered that the high close boarded fencing is overbearing in this setting and would be imposing to those enjoying the adjoining garden grounds. Whilst timber panelling is commonly used for domestic fencing, the size and scale of the fencing is not appropriate for this setting and is contrary to the aims of NPF4 Policy 16 (g); LDP2 Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking), Policy 08 (Sustainable Siting), and Policy 10 (Design). The height and close boarded style of the fencing is considered disruptive to the immediate setting, where gardens are bounded at the edges by the listed stone walls and either 1m high fencing and or trees and hedging. The design and scale of the fencing is not in keeping with the immediate garden grounds, nor appropriate for the Conservation Area and sensitive setting with regards to the Listed buildings. The Applicant has advised that the height of the enclosure is to ensure privacy when using the garden. However, there should be a reasonable expectation of overlooking within a flatted dwelling where windows from the rear elevation overlook the garden grounds and as the site is overlooked from pedestrians using High Road. Further, privacy from neighbouring gardens can be achieved through considered planting, for example, which would be more in keeping with the wider Conservation Area. Although this is a small scale householder development, owing to the inappropriate scale and form, the fencing fails to protect, preserve, conserve or enhance the Page 36
Page 37
Classification: OFFICIAL historic built environment contrary to the policy aims of NPF4 Policy 7 (d) (Historic Assets and Places), NPF4 Policy 16 (g) (Quality Homes); LDP2 Policy 04 (h) (Sustainable Development),Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking), Policy 08 (Sustainable Siting), Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place); and LDP2 Policy 15 (Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment), Policy 16 (Listed Buildings), and Policy 17 (Conservation Areas). Conclusion The siting and design of the two garden sheds are generally consistent with the surrounding gardens and fall within the reasonable expectations of garden use, with no significant detrimental impact to the setting of the Listed Buildings, nor the wider Conservation Area. The pergola is a relatively large structure that gives rise to some visual harm given its proximity to the C-Listed Main Building and the neighbouring B-Listed Port Bannatyne Church. The structure would be more sensitively sited towards the rear of the garden, in line with the siting of outbuildings within the adjoining garden grounds. As the pergola is open-sided with open roofing of wide-spaced beams, daylight will continue to flow through the structure, and allow sight of the stone boundary wall and neighbouring church beyond. In turn any visual disturbance created by the large structure is minimised. The proposed siting and design is not significantly harmful to visual impact to warrant a refusal to this application. The design and siting of the fence however is considered to be unacceptable and contrary to the Local Development Plan in terms of design, scale, materials, and siting within the sensitive setting. The planning application cannot be partially approved, or refused in part. Therefore, whilst the two sheds and pergola are considered to be generally acceptable, the design and scale of the fence is not. On the grounds of inappropriate design and siting of the fence, and the visual impact to the setting of the Listed Building and wider historic environment, it is recommended that this application is refused. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be refused: This application is recommended for refusal on the grounds that the height and design of the fencing is inappropriate for the setting, forming an imposing structure that is likely to harm the amenity of those using the adjoining land, and detracting from the sensitive setting: Failure to preserve and enhance the historic built environment 1. NPF4 Policy 7(d) (Historic Assets and Places) 2. LDP2 Policy 16 (Listed Buildings) 3. LDP2 Policy 17 (Conservation Areas) Page 37
Page 38
Classification: OFFICIAL 4. LDP2 Policy 15 (Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment) Poor or inappropriate Design, Scale, and Siting 5. NPF4 Policy 14- (Design, Quality and Place) 6. NPF4 Policy 16 (g) – (Quality Homes) 7. LDP2 Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking) LDP2 Policy 08 (Sustainable Siting) (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Emma Spence Date: 19.09.2024 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 24.09.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 38
Page 39
Classification: OFFICIAL REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/00925/PP 1. This application is recommended for refusal on the grounds that the height and design of the fencing is inappropriate for the setting, forming an imposing structure that is likely to harm the amenity of those using the adjoining land, and detracting from the sensitive setting. The development fails to preserve and enhance the historic built environment, contrary to NPF4 Policy 7(d) (Historic Assets and Places), NPF4 Policy 16 (g) (Quality Homes), LDP2 Policy 16 (Listed Buildings), LDP2 Policy 17 (Conservation Areas), and LDP2 Policy 15 (Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment). The proposed fencing is considered to be of an inappropriate design, scale, and siting contrary to NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place), NPF4 Policy 16 (g), LDP2 Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking); and Policy 08 (Sustainable Siting). Page 39
Page 40
Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application (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 (B) The reason why planning permission has been refused: The proposal is considered to be contrary to policies 7, 14, and 16 of the National Planning Framework 4; and Policies 05, 08, 15, 16, 17 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2. There are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to grant planning permission in this instance as a departure to the Development Plan having regard to s25 of the Act. Page 40
Page 41
Page 41
Page 42
Page 42
Page 43
1 18 January 2025 16:21 Intimation of Receipt of Notice of Review - Reference 25/0001/LRB (Planning Ref: 24/00925/PP) Flat 2, 3 Shore Road, Port Bannatyne, Isle of Bute, PA20 0LQ [OFFICIAL Good afternoon, In response to your email. Parts of the fence may meet height regulations, but it exceeds the permitted limits in certain areas, violating planning rules. Although the applicant says that the fence blends with the area, its height and overall appearance are unsuitable for the conservation zone. The structure is overly prominent and undermines the open character that defines the area. Simply using traditional materials does not mitigate the negative impact of its excessive size. It s also ill-suited to the area’s harsh winter winds. It has already proven unstable during storms, with one heavy gate detaching multiple times. This poses a safety risk to both people and property, making the structure not only visually inappropriate but also potentially hazardous. While the applicant has cited other non-compliant structures in the conservation area, these should not serve as justification for further breaches of regulations. Allowing this appeal would set an undesirable precedent. With regard to these other fences cited in the appeal , none appear as large, and most are designed to allow wind to pass through. n summary, the fence’s height, design, and lack of suitability for the local environment make it inappropriate for the conservation area. Approving the appeal would harm the area’s character and introduce unnecessary safety risks during severe weather. I trust these concerns will be given due consideration. This response is offered purely on practical grounds and is not intended to be of a personal nature. Iain MacGillivray Page 43
Page 44
This page is intentionally left blank