October 2025 Objections to proposed extension
On 27/09/2025 the committee sent the email below to all shareholders, excepting the owner who wishes to build an extension. The committee was as much interested in owners views about the estate remaining as it is and that it is common to us all for our mutual enjoyment, as this is our 'threshold of interest', aswell as the number of objections.
Note: Kettlewell v Turning Point Scotland 2011
Dear Shareholders,
We need as many of you to respond to this email as soon as possible.
As you know the Committee's main remit is to bring in the levy, maintain the grounds, run a Ltd company correctly, and uphold the burdens.
The estate has changed little since being built, owners have upheld the burdens that they agreed to when purchasing their property. There have been instances in the past when burdens were broken for example, a porch and a conservatory, both were eventually dismantled. In recent years EV chargers have been allowed, cladding and solar panels which do not change the chalets shape also (the astronomy dome is on a garage that is not covered by the burdens).
If our chalets were on a normal housing estate, extensions, conservatories, dormer windows etc would be added to properties and would cause little problem to residents as these alterations would appear over a long period of time. Laigh Isle is not a normal estate, alterations have not happened during the last fifty years because we all abide by the burdens and we owners enjoy our estate as it was meant to be.
As you know the same burdens apply to us all, everywhere on the estate (we are all benefitted) so for that reason we are not disclosing which chalet is proposing this extension as we wish to present the owner with the number of owners who have objected, and your comments about Laigh Isle but without letting them know who or which chalet responded
We also would ask you to write a paragraph about how your enjoyment of Laigh Isle and your chalet could be diminished if owners start to add extensions, extra bedrooms, dormers, conservatories etc to their chalets. There would be noise for example, also builders vans, blocked drives, parking issues, radios blaring. Your property value may be reduced. The burdens will then count for nothing and we're sure no one would volunteer to be on any committee that had the responsibility of dealing with the angry shareholders.
In law a court would normally look to the nearest adjacent properties and assess if they have the right to enforce burdens, those owners would need to show their enjoyment is diminished. We are suggesting that one chalet affects all chalets, irrespective of where it is as part of the group scheme. We act as a group and Laigh Isle remains as beautiful as it is.
We are writing to the owner who wishes to build an extension to state that an extension is not permissible, however we also wish to present the owner with the number of objections and list of comments. We hope that they will then decide to put their extension plans aside.
We hope the action we are taking may avoid legal fees for our company, thus we ask you to respond before the tenth of October.
Yours faithfully
The Committee
Note
The committee decided not to leave chalet numbers/names on the replies below, nor have we edited them except to remove identifying text. There are thirty objections in total.
We have also not published the email from the owner that agreed with extensions.
Replies
-
I can't think of anything worse for Laigh Isle & the burdens than for permission be given for an extension/s on any chalet. The site would become a hotchpotch of different 'add ons' taking away the beauty of Laign Isle that is home.
Thankyou to all the members of the committee for working so hard on this matter'
-
Just voicing my opinion on extending chalets ,we do not need more people coming ,which it would bring if they were bigger ,the chalets are already over subscribed to the drains on here wont take more ,it cost me a lot of money this year to get the main drain running past my chalet unblocked ,if chalets are no longer fit for purpose for the owners then time to find something that meets their needs,
Most people know it wouldn't stop at just a squared of chalet .
-
As owners of chalet, my wife and I fully endorse the existing Laigh Isle Burdens in respect of NOT Permitting structural alterations or extensions to the chalets as originally built.
Such adherence continues to ensure, as far as possible, the spacious tranquility of this unique estate and at the same time allowing the voluntary Board and Committee to maintain the necessary responsible and economical controls, for the overall benefit of all the estate shareholders.
In the past 50 or so years, a fair number of extension proposals have been attempted, and thankfully failed to materialise. The existing Burdens have ensured this and should continue in this respect.
-
We are writing to express our strong objection to the proposed extension and porch construction on one of the properties within our unique and cherished residential site.
Our community is built on a foundation of shared responsibility and mutual respect for the environment and aesthetic integrity of our homes. For over 50 years, the site has remained beautifully unspoiled, thanks to the collective adherence to the burdens placed on each property owner — including the prohibition of extensions, conservatories, and structural alterations. These rules are not arbitrary; they are essential to preserving the character, harmony, and peaceful nature of our surroundings.
Allowing an extension would set a precedent that risks unravelling the very qualities that make our site special:
-
Visual Harmony and Ambiance
The uniformity of our homes contributes to a tranquil and cohesive atmosphere. Introducing extensions would disrupt this balance, leading to a patchwork of styles and structures that could quickly become visually chaotic and diminish the charm of the site.
Noise, Disruption, and Environmental Impact
Construction inevitably brings noise, dust, and disruption. This would disturb the quiet enjoyment of our homes and the natural serenity of the area — something many of us deeply value, especially given our proximity to the sea and countryside.
Impact on Views and Privacy
Extensions could obstruct views, reduce natural light, and infringe on the privacy of neighbouring properties. What begins as a single alteration could cascade into multiple changes, each affecting the spatial and visual relationships between homes.
Risk of Escalation
Once one extension is permitted, others may follow. Over time, this could lead to complete rebuilds, fundamentally altering the nature of the site. The generous plot sizes might tempt owners to construct larger, more imposing buildings, eroding the original vision and spirit of the community.
Property Value and Community Identity
The uniqueness of our site — its uniformity, peacefulness, and scenic location — contributes to its desirability and value. Alterations could undermine this, making the area less attractive to future buyers who seek the charm and simplicity we currently enjoy.
In conclusion, we believe that maintaining the current restrictions is vital to preserving the integrity, beauty, and peacefulness of our community. We respectfully urge all residents to consider the long-term implications and stand together in protecting what makes our site so special.
Warm regards,
-
Much of the charm of Laigh Isle is that all of the chalets are very similar. The hamlet seems rooted in the 1970's – a slower, more relaxed time.
The commonality of style endows a gentle feeling of equality and mutual cooperation and there is no competition to have the biggest, showiest, most up-to-date building.
On a more practical level, any changes to building footprints could have a very detrimental effect to views from some of the more landward chalets and may alter some of the walking routes around the site.
There have already been relaxations of control over the past few years to allow changes to exterior finishes or enclosure of gardens and I can see no good reason to relax these further.
Anyone who has bought a chalet at Laigh Isle would have known that extensions were not allowed so should not expect now to be able to change the rules of the entire village just to suit themselves.
We are very much against allowing extensions and external changes.
-
-
Hi again
xRedactedx then there is a possibility it might not be done in a sympathetic way (in fact could be a bit of a bodge) - and then of course if they get away with it, it will open the doors for anyone else to do the same. I'm wondering whether some specifications to a permitted extension/conservatory/porch/greenhouse might work. Times 'have' changed but at the end of the day, we all bought our Chalets knowing the Burdens were in place so if you wish me to send you a letter supporting this I will do.
I know there are problems you struggle to deal with and you are doing a great job for us, thank you. Laigh Isle is looking really nice, inspite of the few unkempt chalets/garages.
-
I would like to add to my previous email registering a complaint against proposed extensions that part of the attraction of Laigh Isle is that its maintenance is more or less guaranteed it being the responsibility of an elected committee.
The Burdens limit what can be done on and to the grounds and buildings, keeping the site’s uniformity and neatness which I find important.
It is a peaceful, attractive place to live as evidenced by the number of holidaymakers who take advantage of the holiday lets available.
Many comment on how well kept the site is with the absence of the clutter of mismatched structures which often accumulate.
I undertook committee duties in order to keep Laigh Isle as it is and do whatever I can to uphold standards and keep to the spirit of the Burdens as set out by the developers to achieve those ends.
Kathryn Norgate
14 Laigh Isle.
--
I have owned 14 Laigh Isle since 1991. Prior to that my parents owned number 4 from new. I have the original sales brochures from the developers and selling agents which make it clear that a residents’ committee would be set up to run the site in accordance with the conditions (Burdens) laid down by the developers and arrange general maintenance to preserve the attractiveness of the site.
Over the years there have been a few challenges to the Burdens which, in one case at not insignificant cost in legal fees, the outcome was successful and an offending structure removed.
Minor adjustments to move with the times have been allowed by successive committees. In spite of these the site remains relatively unchanged and attractive.
The chalets provide compact accommodation making them unsuitable for large family use. In the past as the space has proved too restricted as (say) grandchildren get older, people have purchased larger properties within the village. That was the case with Mr. and Mrs. Beattie the previous owners of 14. If an owner finds that the chalet no longer suits their needs they should move.
When a chalet is purchased the solicitor should make it clear that the Burdens exist and should be observed thus ensuring the continued enjoyment of the property for the reasons it was probably originally bought i.e. quiet enjoyment of a small, well kept site which will stay that way.
All residents and visitors have benefitted from observance of the Burdens. This has allowed owners to have a pleasant permanent home, holiday or receive income from holiday lets.
To allow extensions would depart from the uniformity of the external appearances and embolden others to build their own. If one person goes against the Burdens others will follow, even if the original proposal specifies matching construction, roof lines, finishes etc.
As it is the minor allowances previously referred to are being used to justify further deviation from the original Burdens. An added factor is that some chalets have private back gardens which can be seen by very few. In contrast others are open front and back to all and alterations to those would have a big impact.
I oppose the proposed extension as it threatens to undermine the Burdens and all they stand for.
Kathryn Norgate.
14 Laigh Isle.
-
Hi Kathryn - thanks for carrying out this consultation.
In general, I think the houses are too close together to allow extensions or conservatories that don't have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties. There may be situations that cause little impact, for example, at the back of properties on the edge of the site, but allowing any extension might act as a precedent. Therefore, as a general principle, I would object to an extension and support the current burdens. I don't think that we can object to building noise etc, as I expect this wouldn't be any worse than for building maintenance such as re-roofing, which we do want to be carried out. I really appreciate the peace and quiet at Laigh Isle and wouldn't want to see that change.
many thanks
-
Dear Committee,
In response to your email, I would like to say I would strongly oppose any applications to build any additional structure onto the existing chalets.
We all were aware of the burdens at point of sale and made our purchase knowingly. So therefore agreeing to the principles that make Laigh Isle the special place it is.
Allowing one small alteration could potentially open the "floodgates" that may encourage residents to apply for the opportunity to change the whole footprint of Laigh isle. I for example, could ask to double the size of no X, extend into the corner , as no one would see it, and I would have a lovely space, and who would I be bothering? I would then possibly like to add a conservatory towards the car park to finish off my new house!
The impact of any extra structures would be a detriment to the estate and can cause an eyesore to your neighbours, causing friction between residents. You might like it your new addition but some might not. This is a point, with some of the shed structures, it could be in the eyeline of a window of your neighbours and not entirely pleasant to view.
There also, as is noted in your correspondence, another level of noise, parking and disruption to what is the most lovely place, and one that I hope, the majority of us are happy to keep as we found it.
Yours sincerely,
-
Proposed extension
As one of the original owners in Laigh Isle, over the decades, on every return, I appreciate the character and style of Laigh Isle which has continued as a gentle adjuct to the Isle of Whithorn village community, inclusive also though retaining its privacy with standards established from the outset. It has provided all of this for permanent residents, many of whom have been local, for those who have been able to return regularly to their holiday 'home' and for those who repeatedly rent out for holidays.
Maintaining the bounds of each Chalet has been essential in safeguarding the expectations of the above, who have not bought into a Caravan campsite or an Estate with multi-faceted outlooks and parking encroachments. Deviations outwith the burdens would result in a deterioration in maintaining this and the practicalities of sustaining all that the Committee undertake selflessly. In addition consequential reduction of the value of the properties would ensue. Extensions to properties would change this unique and rather special place.
-
Interesting.
Am sure you are aware that many years ago a similar situation arose. From memory I am sure an owner wanted to, applied for and was granted full planning permission from Dumfries and Galloway Council to carry out building works to their chalet. As this was against the Burdens the then Management Committee of Isle of Whithorn Leisure Limited subsequently actioned a court case against the owner in carrying out such works. Isle of Leisure won the case and no such work was undertaken. Unfortunately both parties had costs and there was bitter resentment from some owners towards the owner who wanted the extension.
Everyone prior to purchasing, or inheriting, property in Laigh Isle are aware of the Burdens. They are there for a reason, and as with any Conditions specified in any Title Deeds, the Burdens should be adhered to. Albeit as time progresses and in order to move with modern living certain stringent aspects of the Burdens should be considered as draconian and a sympathetic solution sought - such as has happened over the years (EV chargers, cladding, rear fences for dogs, new doors/windows, etc). these are all minor modifications. The proposal for an extension is not a minor modific ation is it major and if the owners proceeds then we will certainly object to any plans to extend their property (front, rearnd or upwards).
Perhaps this owner should reconsider their overall position, ie is Laigh Isle the best place for their main residence, their second or holiday home or their rental property?
-
Thank you for drawing our attention to the proposed breach of the burdens by one of the chalet owners.
We would object strongly to any proposal which breaches the burdens on the Laigh Isle development. The burdens were created for the purposes of maintaining the appearance, character and enjoyment of each and every property on Laigh Isle. That objective has been fulfilled for just over 50 years, leading to the beautiful and peaceful built environment which we all benefit from. The original purpose of the burdens has not changed.
We would be interested to know more about what is proposed, as it may be that a small addition or alteration to a property which isn't visible to others would not give cause for undue concern however, in principle, we would oppose any proposal which would alter the character of the chalet and especially if it would affect any other individual chalet's privacy, daylight or other valid grounds for objection to a regular planning application.
It would seem to us particularly selfish of any individual owner to go against the wishes of their neighbours, and to deliberately change the character of their property and, inevitably, others on Laigh Isle.
We have no wish to see a precedent set whereby others would seek to follow with proposals which would breach the burdens and destroy what is a unique and attractive streetscape.
Kind regards,
-
We are against the proposed extension application. We think this would have a knock on effect and eventually everyone would be putting up extension which would spoil the beauty of the estate as it is now. If people want bigger properties they should think of moving elsewhere. Everyone knows about the burdens before they buy at laigh isle.
This proposal has the potential to ruin a very beautiful estate.
--
My opposition to any extension is as follows. The burdens clearly do not allow this. The burdens are there for everyone, we live on a very unique development, the only one in Scotland, and it should be kept that way, that is part of its beauty and attractiveness. Even if any development is seen as being "nice", or "pretty", that is irrelevant. It is not allowed, and should not be allowed, or even considered in the first instance.
My view is that any such "work" would be detrimental to the estate, and using the term "moving with the times" or similar, to justify any extension, or otherwise, is simply just an excuse and therefore unacceptable. Laigh Isle does not need to move with the times. This would be a precedent that would be a disaster for Laigh Isle, and could lead to the break up of the community, whereby each property would become an individual entity. Who would pay for the grass cutting, where would the boundaries lie, neighbours arguing over future building extensions etc. So please, no extensions.
--
Objection to proposed extension:
These properties are sold, and purchased, with the burdens a clear stipulation of ownership.
To propose an extension that could potentially block the view, a view that many - including ourselves - see as one of the highlights of living here is extraordinarily selfish. Should such a project be undertaken it could potentially open the floodgates for further development. These stipulations exist to ensure that all inhabitants can enjoy the complex as it is.
I would query that if you wanted a bigger property, then why didn't you buy one?
-
It is not clear what is being proposed by way of the extension you refer to and nor can I see any pending planning applications, so I am unable to respond in any detail to the proposals.
As you rightly say, however, it is clear from the deeds to the chalets that there is a burden stipulating that no alteration or addition to the external structure shall be made to the chalets and no additional buildings shall be erected on the plot, without the consent of the Management Company.
Historically, I understand that all attempts to seek such consent have been refused, so unless there are any exceptional circumstances, I cannot see that it would be right to grant permission for any development at this stage.
The chalets are well past their life expectancy and some leniency may be necessary, due to natural deterioration, in the future, however, I don't believe that is the case here.
The chalets, having been designed for holiday and recreational purposes, are small, but then the owners/occupiers were aware of this when purchased and of the burden imposed regarding potential development.
In the event that permission is granted, it will open the floodgates for other chalet owners to make additions and I would envisage that this would create a lot of noise and disruption for the complex, disrupting use of the chalets as holiday lets and of course, cause disruption to those in permanent residence. This in my view should therefore be avoided. The joy of staying in the chalets is that it is peaceful and relaxing.
There is also the issue of the burden on shared utilities, should the anticipated occupancy be increased.
I would suggest that if it is simply a lack of space for holiday accommodation, that the owner of the chalet in question, looks to rent another chalet, for any additional occupants, which is what some of our guests do.
Should the proposed development proceed, in any event and without the necessary consent, it will of course be open to the Management Company or any individual owner who benefits from the burden, to seek injunctive relief.
I would hope however, that will not be necessary.
--
I am writing to register my objection to the proposed extension to a chalet at Laigh Isle. I do not wish to appear as some kind of nimby who is opposed to any kind of change at the site but I, as with all the other chalet owners, bought the property understanding the limitations imposed by the burdens attached to them. If I had required a larger property then I would have bought something else and not tried increase the size by the measly 10% which will slip through planning.
Laigh Isle has managed to maintain its open, spacious appearance due to the Burdens being adhered to. An identical development near Kilmarnock, I believe, did not, and allowed uncontrolled development resulting in a shanty town appearance with the eventual demolition of the site.
Being pedantic I know that adding satellite dishes, solar panels and cladding goes against the Burdens, but these are modern improvements which update the chalets to current standards and could not have been foreseen when the development was built. This is very different to changing the size of a chalet just to obtain more space.
I feel that things will eventually change when and if a chalet burns down or is destroyed. A new identical one could not be built, if only because of current building standards, and so something different will be built. However that has not happened yet and now is not the time to start challenging the burdens.
-
I was very saddened to hear that a chalet owner is intending to put an extension of some sort on their chalet. If they wanted a bigger property they should have bought something elsewhere.
When choosing to buy a property on Laigh Isle all owners are aware of the burdens and consequently agree to adhere to the burdens upon purchase.
This proposal will have a detrimental and adverse impact upon our small development and could lead to further development which will diminish the unique nature of our homes. It will have an even more severe impact on those of us who live here permanently with the noise and disturbance that will occur.
This is a selfish and inconsiderate proposal and I wholeheartedly object to it.
-
Many thanks for bringing this to our attention.
We enjoy the Isle in its present format. Someone when buying a property on the Isle is made aware of the rules and regulations regarding property extensions etc. before purchase, so that changes do not impact other owners. Once one owner is allowed to change the rules then every owner should have the right to change them and then the whole ambience of the estate is altered. At present, each property has an enjoyable view and surroundings which could totally change if extensions or external major changes are made to the properties. We would not wish you to approve this application.
We are in total agreement with your views and comments as stated in your email.
-
To the management committee re proposed extension
We are strongly opposed to building an extension on one of the Laugh Isle bungalows for a number of reasons:
1. This would contravene one of the legally binding Burdens that we all sign up to on purchasing the property and is clearly pointed out by the conveyancing solicitor. Anyone wishing to extend should buy one that is not restricted. If one extension is allowed it could easily lead to other ill thought out development.
2. The site has been well designed to be open plan and the similarity of dwellings is one of it's main appeals. This would be compromised by adding ad hoc extensions and could lead to a decrease in the attractiveness of the site and general financial devaluation of properties.
3. We visit our property for peace and quiet. The proposed building works would violate this by creating noise, dust and probably other inconveniences for some considerable time. This would inevitably cause ill feeling towards the perpetrator.
4. Generally adding an extension would increase the value of a property but the bungalows are of non traditional construction and are not mortgageable as pointed out in the home condition survey. This inevitably puts a cap on house prices which I suspect would come into force so adding value to a property would not necessarily be reimbursed on sale. A gamb
-
We have had our chalet for just short of 20 years now and have enjoyed every minute. The layout of the 'estate' is perfect and ensures everyone has at least some sort of view, be it fields, sea or both. The views are sometimes passed or between other chalets and the uniformity of then ensures this works. Adding extensions would have a detrimental effect on the whole ambience of the estate and dependant on positioning could have an adverse effect on the view and enjoyment of the outlook to others. I know we would be extremely disappointed if our view to the sea suddenly became obstructed.
As has also been stated it would of course be in breach of the burdens. And every owner agreed to abide by these legally binding 'rules' when purchasing. They knew what they were buying and the size of the accommodation.
-
We wish to register an objection to the proposed extension at Laigh Isle for the following reasons
1) The Burdens are the Burdens. We bought our chalet because we liked the Burdens not in spite of them. Our lawyer emphasised the importance of adhering to them.
2) The chalets have been positioned to ensure as much privacy as possible. Each chalet is an integral part of the whole. Any additional building will upset this balance.
3) In Scottish law any new build must be behind the building line of the current buildings. How would this affect Laigh Isle?
4) There was a similar site in Ayrshire where extensions were allowed. In time the complex became a "shanty town" and it is no longer in existence. This point was noted approximately twelve years ago at an AGM.
5) We regularly meet people walking through the site who remark on the beauty of the site.
-
In reply to the request above regarding extensions.
The burdens do clearly state that we can't have outside alterations to our chalets. Hope this helps.
-
Thank you for your email and apologies for the delayed response.
In short, we would both strongly oppose any extensions to any chalet at any time whatever the reason may be
Permitting one person would set a dangerous precedence for anyone else wanting to do the same, which could seriously affect the look and design of the Estate/Chalets and ruin the outlook for everyone.
The Burdens have not been updated for the last 50 years, as you state; but from experience, could be, if a suitable case was raised and enough people wanted them updated (a cynic may question why they haven’t been)
However, this case certainly does not warrant approval. The Estate appears to function well as it is - why spoil the peace, tranquility and enjoyment of the other residents unnecessarily!
The issue of noise, parking, additional mess/debris etc. does not really come into it as all these points and more, would have to be agreed, recorded and sorted out at a Pre-Start meeting with the contractors, prior to the commencement of any works - as in normal in construction and to comply with current CDM regulations. 4
We definitely do not want the Estate turned into a building site at any cost, any time for any reason
-
Thank you for letting us know that one of the chalet owners is considering a substantial change to the appearance of their chalet by adding an extension.
We would be very strongly against any such development. The burdens are clear about permitted developments, and we, like the owner considering the development, agreed to respect and abide by the burdens on the purchase of a chalet - as did all the other chalet owners. Once the burdens are breached, then it is possible that a wide range of different developments could be argued for. This would have the effect of materially reducing the attractiveness of the site and the monetary value of each chalet could easily be adversely affected.
The Laigh Isle chalet site remains, at the moment, as attractive as when it was originally built in 1974 and the recognition of, and respect for, the burdens has enabled this. Just a few years ago a director of the original developer, Christian Salveson, visited Laigh Isle and was very pleased to see that it's original character had been preserved.
Should any development go ahead, we would strongly object to the local authority planning committee, as well as consider approaching any involved architect and builder to explain they also would be involved in breaking the burdens.
We have no problem about the owner knowing our identity and our objections.
-
I object strongly to the attempted extension as part of the charm of the estate at Laigh Isles is its' uniformity and this would encourage others to follow suit or attempt to. The other site at which these properties were built is no longer there a direct result of the burdens not being followed. As part of the purchase process is to read and accept the burdens as they stand I do not see where this idea is coming from - it quite clearly states no amendment to the property is possible and this has to be agreed to as part of the purchase process. If a larger house is required then sell @ Laigh isle and move to a larger house...
-
Yes you can add our names to the objection list.
One of the attractions to Laigh isle is the simplicity and peacefulness. This is a bolt hole for ourselves and family, and this would clearly be effected of it was to be turned into a building site.
In this day and age I can understand the reasons for wishing to increase the size of the chalet, it is a wonderful place to live.
I am not aware of the full building proposal, but my main worry would be any changes to the footprint size of the actual building , once one chalet is extended for example , encroaching towards others burdens , then where would this actually stop and what boundaries would be pushed.
I am all for some modernisation to increase the properties life span using techniques and materials that weren't around at the time of development, but again sticking to the original building features.
You mention properties decreasing in value , yes this is also a concern.
Thanks for your efforts.
Note