Printed minutes
Argyll and Bute Council · 17 September 2026
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee (Short-term Let Hearings) — 17 September 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE (SHORT-TERM LET HEARINGS) held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on THURSDAY, 17 SEPTEMBER 2026 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Roderick McLean, Licensing Standards Officer David Walker, Solicitor Carolyn Watt, Applicant Michael Pentland, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Daniel Hampsey, Graham Hardie, Liz McCabe and Luna Martin. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Fiona Howard declared a non-financial interest in the following application as both the Applicant and Objector with close neighbours of hers. She left the meeting at this point and took no part in the consideration of the application. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS) ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXISTING SHORT-TERM LET LICENCE TO C WATT, FLAT 2/2 URYBANK, SHORE ROAD, COVE, HELENSBURGH The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of video call and Carolyn Watt joined the meeting by MS Teams. Michael Pentland, Objector, also opted to proceed by way of video call and joined the meeting by MS Teams. The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report. Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 8 of the report was followed and the Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support for her application. APPLICANT Ms Watt advised that she had been operating the property as a short-term let since April 2022 and carried out the cleaning and changeovers herself and noted when any repairs needed to be made. She was also the main contact for her neighbours.
Page 2
She advised that she first operated the short-term let before there was a requirement for a licence. Once the short-term let legislation came into force she applied for the short-term licence, and this was granted in August 2023. She said that she took her role as a short- term let operator very seriously and understood and complied with the conditions in place. She also advised that she responded to any complaints promptly when they arose. She referred to the visits made by the Licensing Standards Officer in October 2025 and, jointly with Environment Health Officer, in May 2026 and it was shown that she was compliant with the short-term let policy and additional conditions placed on her licence. She advised that the Environmental Health Officer and Licensing Standards Officer had said to her that the noise experienced within the lower flat was consistent with what would be expected from a flatted property, where a degree of domestic noise was unavoidable. She referred to the additional condition regarding appropriate floor coverings in bedrooms, living rooms and hallways, and advised that carpets with appropriate underlay were fitted in these areas in advance of her first licence being granted in 2023. She also advised of information packs being issued to guests in advance of their arrival which asked them to be respectful of neighbours and to not arrive later than 11 pm or leave earlier than 7 am. It was also requested that washing machines not be run between 9 pm – 9 am. Notices about keeping noise to a minimum were also displayed within the property with guests asked not bang doors and windows and advised that no parties were permitted. She said that guests with dogs were asked to keep dogs on leads when outside, to clear up any dog fouling, and to not leave dogs alone at any time in the property, the building or back garden. Guests were also sent a Holiday Charter and terms and conditions from Travel Chapter who traded as holidaycottages.com which Ms Watt advised was the booking agency she used. She confirmed that areas of improvement were suggested to her to help reduce noise transfer and she listed the extra mitigation measures she had put in place. She said she had received no complaints from other neighbours. She advised that on each visit to the property by two different Licensing Standards Officers and the Environmental Health Officer they found that the noise experienced was consistent with what would be expected in a flatted property and that they were satisfied that she met the conditions of her licence. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTOR Mr Pentland did not have any questions but did point out that dogs consistently ran about without leads. He also advised that there was no one living next door as this was a second home and he suggested that would be why there were no complaints from that property. OBJECTOR Mr Pentland advised that he lived in the flat directly below the application premises with his wife and their three young granddaughters, aged 3 months, 2 years and 5 years. They were placed in their care as legal guardians after witnessing domestic abuse. He said they were already highly sensitive to loud and sudden noise.
Page 3
He asked the Committee to refuse this application but if they were minded to grant, he asked for stronger conditions than those recommended in the Officer as follows: 1. This is not ordinary flat occupation This is a licensed short-term let with changing groups of guests, often four people and two dogs. That is different from a settled household. Argyll and Bute Council’s own Short Term Lets Licensing Policy imposes extra conditions on flats above another dwelling for that reason. The noise we experience is the product of high turnover, unfamiliar guests, dogs, and repeated use of doors, windows and the kitchen above our bedrooms. 2. The officer inspections were not representative The assessments involved officers walking around the property. That does not reproduce the noise of typical occupancy of four guests and two dogs. The kitchen and hallway have laminate flooring. The kitchen sits directly above a bedroom used by the baby. A single inspection when the property is empty or lightly occupied cannot show the noise we live with when the short-term let is in use. 3. The claimed improvements have not stopped the problem After the joint visit the owner was advised about doors, windows, a squeaky floor section and the television. Some work was done, but the noise continued. The floor repair moved the noise rather than removing it. Doors and windows still bang. We have had to contact the owner about different guest groups after that visit, including: • 14 July and 19 July 2026 – separate noise incidents. The owner said she would ask the guests to keep the noise down. It continued on both occasions. • 1 August 2026 – banging on the floor and windows from about 7am until around 11.30pm. • 3 August 2026 – noise still after midnight and stomping in the front room from 6.45am, waking the baby. • 10 August 2026 – banging and jumping on the floor. On each occasion the owner said she had contacted the guests. The disturbance did not stop. 4. Health impact In January 2025 Dr Felix Kauye, Consultant Psychiatrist, wrote that noise from the short-term let was worsening my wife’s health condition. The same noise now also prevents the three young children from settling and sleeping. I accept that some domestic noise occurs in any flatted building. The issue is the frequency, duration and nature of noise from short-term guests, including dogs, early-morning and late-night activity, and repeated door and window slamming. The officer report says a refusal must be based on a problem specific to short-term let use, rather than something that could arise from any occupancy. That is exactly the
Page 4
point. A permanent household does not produce this pattern of changing guests, dogs, late activity and repeated disturbance after the owner has already been asked to intervene. 5. What I ask the Committee to do I ask that the application be refused. If the Committee is minded to grant it, I ask for clear extra conditions, including: • no dogs; • occupancy limited below the current typical level of four guests plus dogs; • carpet or equivalent noise-suppressing covering in the kitchen as well as the other rooms; • no first arrival or final departure between 23:00 and 07:00, enforced through booking terms; • a requirement that the licence holder keeps a written record of neighbour complaints and the action taken; • a review of the licence after 6 or 12 months. In conclusion he advised that since the inspection of the premises by Officers they had experienced late night check ins and noise from guests and dogs. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT Ms Watt advised that when the assessments were undertaken by Officers there were people staying in the property for a few days. She pointed out that looking back at her records it was very unusual to have 4 people and 2 dogs staying in the property at the same time. She said that when any complaints were made she intervened straight away. She asked that if there were still issues following a complaint, that she be alerted again so that she could intervene and visit the property again if necessary. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Ms Watt that there were currently 2 adults and 2 dogs in the property. Councillor Brown asked Ms Watt if people were checking in after 11 pm. Ms Watt said this was the first time she was being made aware of this. Mr Pentland said that there were late check ins after 10 pm with a dog and on other occasions after 11 pm with dogs. Ms Watt confirmed that these incidents had not been reported to her. Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Mr Pentland that he had not reported any noise disturbance to the Police. Councillor Brown suggested to him that this was something he may wish to consider if the there was no resolution after speaking to Ms Watt. Councillor Green said he had noted that Ms Watt had said it was rare to have 2 dogs in the property with 4 people. He asked if Ms Watt would be willing to restrict the number of dogs further particularly in combination with the number of people. He asked if she assessed the types of dogs, for example, small dogs or large dogs. Ms Watt said she did not have anything in place regarding the size of dogs permitted but advised that she could
Page 5
say that the property was only suitable for small dogs. She said she would be interested to hear if the Committee made any more recommendations given she was already complying with the current conditions. Councillor Green commented that he was not sure if this would lead to a formal condition but suggested it could be something Ms Watt could consider in terms of good practice to ensure good neighbour relations. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle asked Ms Watt what the occupancy of the premises was before it became a short-term let in 2022. Ms Watt said she was not sure. She advised that she had purchased the property through an estate agent and believed that one female had been living there on her own. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle sought and received confirmation from Ms Watt that the current occupancy rate of the flat was around 65% with half of that including dogs. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle sought and received confirmation from Mr Pentland that the previous occupant of the flat was a lady with her boyfriend. He said they were permanent residents that worked away a lot and so were only there half the time. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle asked Mr Pentland if he had undertaken any sound proofing measures himself within his own property. Mr Pentland advised that he had not. He said that he was in a rented property so any works would have to be undertaken by the landlord. He said he thought it would be difficult to lower ceilings or put up partitions. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle sought and received confirmation from Mr Pentland that he had not approached his landlord regarding installing acoustic panels. Mr Pentland said he did not think it would be possible to carry out this type of work. Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Ms Watt that she was not aware that following repair of the squeaky floorboard that the noise had moved elsewhere. She said she believed that Mr McLean had stated in this report that he did not hear any squeaky floorboards after the repair was made. Councillor Brown asked Ms Watt if she would consider putting carpet down in the kitchen. Ms Watt replied that she thought carpet in the kitchen would be unsanitary. She suggested putting linoleum down on top of the laminate. Councillor Brown asked Mr Pentland if he had contacted Ms Watt to advise of the squeaky floorboard noise moving elsewhere. Mr Pentland said this was just a minor issue and that the noise from footsteps on the floor was a bigger issue. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation that Mr Pentland had not received any noise complaints in respect of his grandchildren. He said that as far as he was aware there was no noise travelling up from his property. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr Pentland that the baby slept in the bedroom below the kitchen area and that he had no pets. Councillor Blair referred to the suggestion of putting linoleum down on the kitchen floor. He commented that he had a small dog and that you could hear him tapping across laminated floors. He said that he had put mats down to help with that, and asked Ms Watt if she would consider mats on her laminate floor. Ms Watt advised that mats on a
Page 6
laminate floor could raise a safety issue in terms of slips and trips. She said that if she needed to do anything different it would need to be a permanent floor covering that would have no slip or trip issues and would also be sanitary and hygienic. SUMMING UP Objector Mr Pentland advised that after listening to everything that had been said he would ask for better underlay in the front room and in the kitchen, with maybe linoleum to deaden the sound and a bit of carpet and underlay in the front room. Applicant Ms Watt confirmed that in addition to underlay there was already 2 layers of floor coverings in the front room. She reiterated that she took her responsibilities very seriously to make sure she was complying with all the conditions. She said that there were neighbours living across from her property and that there was a person living there permanently until recently. She said they had never made a complaint. She advised that when she did receive complaints, she contacted the guests to ask them to keep the noise down. She said that if she received no further complaints, she assumed that the issue had been rectified. She said that she needed to know if this was not the case so that she could respond again. She advised that during each of the 3 visits by Officers she had been found to be consistently compliant with the short-term let policy including additional conditions. When asked, both parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Kennedy-Boyle advised that she had read through the Officer’s report and all the other paperwork. She said that she appreciated the submissions from both the Applicant and the Objector and felt that the Applicant had taken all reasonable steps and had also gone beyond that in responding to complaints that had been raised. She said she understood that the Objector did not feel that this was enough but pointed out that he had not addressed these issues with his own landlord, adding that it was his right to do that. She suggested that Mr Pentland should make a request to his own landlord to act if he was experiencing excessive noise. She advised that the landlord would probably have a policy in place on how to deal with noise complaints especially if it was affecting the health and wellbeing of a household. She advised that she felt on balance that should be his next stop and that she was minded to support the application for renewal of the short- term let licence. Councillor Green referred to living in a flat for 12 years and said he appreciated the compromises living in a flatted property sometimes meant dealing with a degree of noise from neighbours and that disturbance was a matter of life whether neighbours were permanent residents or visitors. He said he could see where the Objector was coming from but felt that due to the nature of the property all steps had been taken to minimise the impact and that any impacts could easily come from a permanent resident. He said you could get a family of 4 with 2 dogs moving into a flat above and then have to deal with that volume of noise every day. He said that he felt the Applicant had done everything they could and that he could see no reason to refuse the application.
Page 7
Councillor Brown said that like her colleagues she also felt the Applicant had taken more than reasonable steps to try and minimise the noise. She said she had sympathy for the Objector but could see no reason to refuse this renewal. She urged the Objector, if he was not happy with the way things were being dealt with, to go and raise his concerns again, and if the noise got too excessive, he should contact the Police. Councillor Blair referred to the points made about laying linoleum on the floor and the number of dogs. He said he understood the comments made about the size of dogs but pointed out that small dogs could be noisy. In terms of agreeing conditions, he wondered if it would be possible if the number of dogs could be limited to 2 small dogs or one larger dog and if linoleum could be put down on the kitchen floor. He said he took onboard Councillor Kennedy-Boyle’s comments regarding the landlord’s responsibilities. He referred to Housing Regulations in force to improve the environment people lived in. Councillor Wallace said he thought the Applicant had done all she could to address the issues although he felt it was not unreasonable for the Objector to ask for some sort of cushioned flooring in the kitchen area as laminate was bad for noise. He said he would support the application and urged the Applicant to consider some sort of cushioned flooring in the kitchen. Councillor Kain said he had taken onboard all that had been said and that for him there were 2 things outstanding. The first was whether a condition could be put on the licence regarding the number of dogs. He said the other issue was whether a review of the current policy was required in respect of the types of property that were suitable as short- term let premises. He referred to the housing situation in Argyll and Bute. He said there needed to be a review of the types of properties that were suitable as holiday lets. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from the Applicant that she would consider covering the laminate with linoleum. She said the number of dogs permitted now was limited to two. Councillor Green asked Officers if it would be competent of have a condition regarding the size of the dog. Mr Walker said that the behaviour of dogs could be managed under the anti-social behaviour condition and that there was also separate legislation regarding the control of dogs. He said there could be a condition limiting the number of dogs. Mr Walker also advised that there would be nothing to stop the Applicant having her own additional guest rules over and above the conditions. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle referred to the Applicant having records regarding the occupancy rate of the property and the number of times this had included dogs. She suggested the data was there that would allow the property owner to look back at the complaints made and what the configuration of guests and dogs were at that time that would allow her to adjust her house rules if required. She referred to ongoing dialogue between the neighbours and thought a compromise could be reached regarding the issue of occupancy. DECISION The Committee: 1. agreed to approve the application and, in order to manage the concerns raised by the Objector, in addition to the mandatory conditions set by the Scottish Government,
Page 8
agreed to apply additional conditions relating to anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, damage to property, littering and wase disposal, noise control in flatted premises, and wood burning stoves/open fires; 2. noted the Applicant would take on board the suggestion of putting linoleum down in the kitchen area and consider the number of dogs permitted; 3. noted the advice given to the Objector in respect of raising issues with his landlord; and 4. noted that the Applicant would receive written confirmation of the decision within 7 days of the hearing. (Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager, submitted)