Minutes , 09/06/2026 Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee (Civic Hearings)
Argyll and Bute Council · 19 August 2026
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 19 August 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 (CIVIC HEARINGS) held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 9 JUNE 2026 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager Susan Mair, Legal Manager Janeanne Gilchrist, Applicant Daniel Gillespie, Applicant Stewart MacLennan, Applicant Iain MacKinnon, Applicant Neil MacKay, Applicant Superintendent Mark Stirling, Police Scotland 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE An apology for absence was intimated on behalf of Councillor Daniel Hampsey. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 SECTION 41: APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT LICENCE (TIREE MUSIC FESTIVAL CIC) 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 meeting the Applicant opted to proceed by way of video call and Janeanne Gilchrist along with Daniel Gillespie, Stewart MacLennan, Neil MacKay and Iain MacKinnon joined the meeting by MS Teams. Police Scotland also opted to proceed by way of video call and Superintendent Mark Stirling joined the meeting by MS Teams. Following a Civic Hearing which took place on 20 May 2026, consideration of the application was continued to allow further discussions between Police Scotland and the Applicant, and to enable clarification of outstanding matters, including consideration of the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018. Only those Members who had been present at the hearing on 20 May 2026 participated in the determination of the application. The Chair invited the Legal Manager to provide an update on the outstanding matters.
Page 2
Ms Mair advised that two matters had arisen at the previous hearing. Firstly, a query had been raised regarding the relevance of the Islands (Scotland) Act. She advised that this had since been considered and it was confirmed that the Act is not directly relevant to the Committee’s quasi-judicial determination of the application, as it primarily relates to policy and strategic considerations. Secondly, further discussions had taken place between Police Scotland and the Applicant in relation to the proposed policing resource. It was noted that a meeting had taken place between the parties, at which Police Scotland had presented a revised proposal involving a significantly reduced cost. The Applicant, however, had confirmed that their position remained unchanged and that they were not satisfied that sufficient evidence had been provided to justify the level of policing resource proposed by Police Scotland. Councillor Philand sought clarification on whether details of the revised offer from Police Scotland could be outlined, noting that this may be significant to the Committee’s deliberations. The Legal Manager advised, based on discussions with Police Scotland, that the revised proposal involved a reduction in the policing resource. She understood that this included replacing one of the six previously proposed officers with a Special Constable and confirming that the cost for one officer would not be charged to the Applicant. The Chair advised that the Committee required to adhere strictly to the agreed procedure and that if either party were to be brought into discussions at this stage, the matter should be referred back through the appropriate procedural stage. He suggested that if clarification of the position was required, the Legal Manager could seek clarification directly with Police Scotland. In order to facilitate the required clarification the Chair moved and the Committee agreed to adjourn the meeting at 14:45. The meeting reconvened at 14:50, with all those present as per the sederunt. At this time Ms Mair confirmed that five officers (including one Special Constable) would be present and the Applicant would be charged for four. A further point of order was raised in relation to fairness, noting that Police Scotland had been given the opportunity to clarify their position through the Legal Manager. The Chair advised that if any Member required a point of clarification from the Applicant, that this could be facilitated. The Chair invited the Members to debate and come to a decision on this application. DEBATE Councillor Kain outlined his extensive experience of over 40 years working with police forces across the UK. He advised that threat assessments are inherently imprecise and rely significantly on the experience and judgement of those undertaking them. He referred to the level of policing previously considered acceptable in circumstances where large numbers of people were unpoliced and questioned whether the current requirement for six officers was proportionate. He noted that there was no statutory requirement specifying the number of police officers to be present and emphasised that the primary responsibility rests with the Applicant to ensure a robust and credible risk assessment is in place, including appropriate contingency planning and liaison with emergency services. He further commented that assumptions regarding the likelihood of a terrorist incident should be carefully considered, noting that while such events are theoretically possible, risk
Page 3
assessments should focus on credible and evidence-based scenarios rather than hypothetical extremes. Councillor Kain advised that in his opinion, the Applicant had demonstrated, over a number of years, the ability to undertake appropriate risk assessments and manage events effectively through the use of private security. He summed up by advising that providing that the current risk assessment adequately addresses all likely scenarios, he could see no reason why the Application should not be granted. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Ms Mair on the available options for determination, noting that the application could be refused, granted or granted subject to the conditions outlined within the recommendations at paragraph 5.1 of the report. Councillor Hardie advised that from a public safety perspective, he would feel more reassured by a police presence and indicated support for granting the Application subject to the inclusion of the conditions outlined at paragraph 5.1 of the report. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle indicated support for granting the application but was of the view that the proposed policing requirement, as set out in the report, was excessive. She suggested that the condition relating to the requirement for up to six police officers should be removed. Councillor Green clarified that it was not for the Committee to determine the operational number of police officers and sought and received confirmation from Councillor Kennedy- Boyle that the proposal was to remove the requirement for a police presence as a condition. Discussion around the wording of condition 5(2) was had with it being noted that the number of police officers to be deployed, up to a maximum of six remained an operational matter for Police Scotland. Motion That the application be granted in accordance with the recommendations as set out in paragraph 5.1 of the report, subject to the removal of condition 5(2). Moved by Councillor Andrew Kain, seconded by Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Amendment That the application be granted in accordance with the recommendations as set out in paragraph 5.1 of the report. Moved by Councillor Graham Hardie, seconded by Councillor Jan Brown. With there being no further debate, Members proceeded to consider the Motion and Amendment. As the meeting was held on a remote basis, the vote required to be taken by calling the Roll and Members voted as follows:- Motion Amendment Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor John Armour Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Graham Hardie
Page 4
Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Decision The Amendment was carried by 6 votes to 2 and the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee resolved accordingly. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted)