Plans for a zip slide and chute in the back garden of a Troon home sparked an objection from a neighbour.

But planners have given Lawrence Dalgleish the go-ahead to build the recreation area in the ‘expansive’ back garden of his home in Bentinck Crescent, despite claims it would breach the neighbour’s privacy and rules around conservation.

A planning report stated: “Planning permission is sought to erect a timber platform structure supporting recreational equipment comprising of a chute and zip line."

The application only attracted one objection, from a resident who lives adjacent to the garden where the 3m high platform and chute will be sited.

They argue that the proximity of the platform to the boundary between the two properties would lead to a potential loss of privacy and risk of noise.

Loss of light due to ‘significant scale’, and detrimental impact of the proposed structure on the visual character of the Troon Conservation Area as well as the potential for the structure to damage adjacent trees, also protected due to location within conservation area.

However, planners dismissed all of the points, saying that the mitigations in place will prevent any issues.

The report said: “While it is acknowledged that the proposed platform shall maintain a separation distance of approximately nine metres from the neighbouring residential dwelling house located at Lochend Road at its nearest extent, it is considered that the potential loss of amenity to the neighbouring property, in terms of privacy, shall be sufficiently mitigated by way of the proposed screen fencing – essentially obscuring direct line of sight from the platform towards the neighbouring property.”

Planners added that the use will be ‘intermittent’ and that fencing and hedging will dampen any noise sufficiently.

They also pointed out that the claim about a loss of light would be minimal, with the mature woodland already limiting the light to the property from the direction of the proposed platform and chute.

The objection relating to Troon Conservation Area was also thrown out, with planners saying that the structure would not be visible from public space nor would the development impact on the health of the surrounding trees.

The report said: “It is assessed that the proposed development shall not negatively impact the visual character of the application site nor that of the wider conservation area.

“Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed design and timber construction of the platform shall enable the visual profile of the development to be absorbed against the backdrop of the wooded area within which it is set, further mitigating any perceived impact of the proposal upon the visual character of the property and the wider conservation area.”

The application was approved by planners under delegated authority.