26 00161 PP Supplementary Report 1, 20/05/2026 Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee
Argyll and Bute Council · 17 June 2026
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 17 June 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
26/00161/PP - Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Delegated or Committee 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: 26/00161/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Mr Brian Mangan Proposal: Change of use of existing private/family use pod to short term letting accommodation Site Address: 11 Etive Park, North Connel, PA37 1SJ _________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 1 (A) INTRODUCTION This local application is due to be determined at Planning, Protective Services and Licensing (PPSL) Committee on 20th May 2026. The purpose of this Supplementary Report is to bring Members’ attention to a late representation received regarding the proposed development. (B) ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATION A further four-part objection has been received from Mr Ali Anderson, 12 Etive Park, North Connel: Document 1: Committee Briefing Note This document sets out the perceived planning issues, and outlines the reasons as to why the application should be refused, with suggested wording for refusal (summarised below) Document 2: Objection to Officer’s Recommendation Letter to the Committee to formally object to the Officer’s recommendation to approve this application. Document 3: Visual Guide to Objection 16 site images included taken from neighbouring 12 Etive Park including within the property, from the rear garden, from the woodland to the rear of the properties. Document 4: Request for Committee Site Visit Letter to the Committee requesting Site Visit prior to determination
Page 2
This objection is summarised below. The full document(s) can be viewed on the Council’s Website. Key Issue (Why the officer recommendation should be rejected) This application is not simply about a garden pod. It is about introducing a commercial short-term-let use into a highly constrained residential relationship directly beside 12 Etive Park. The pod: • sits extremely close to the boundary with No.12; • is accessed via a path running along the boundary; • contains windows facing towards No.12; • introduces repeated turnover of transient guests (a potential of 365 different strangers per year) beside a family home. The officer’s report accepts: • overlooking exists; • the access path creates overlooking; • the pod window faces No.12; • the proposed use intensifies activity. Despite this, the recommendation concludes that a 1.8m fence and management plan solve the problem. Respectfully, they do not. Main Planning Concerns: 1. Unacceptable Loss of Privacy & Residential Amenity The proposal would introduce: ● Repeated guest movements along the boundary; ● noise from arrivals/departures; ● voices, phones, footsteps and doors; ● overlooking from the pod and path; ● activity beside the private garden and windows of no.12. ● safeguarding issues next to a daily garden and children's play area. A fence does not prevent: ● Noise; ● disturbance; ● transient guest activity; ● perceived loss of security; ● open-window overlooking; ● woodland access overlooking. 2. Commercial Visitor Use in a Residential Cul-de-sac Etive Park is: ● a quiet residential cul-de-sac; ● not a tourism site; ● not a hotel complex; ● not a holiday park. The proposal changes the use from: ● occasional family/ancillary use to: ● rolling commercial guest occupation.
Page 3
This materially changes the character and functioning of the immediate area. 3. Conditions Do NOT Solve the Problem The recommendation relies heavily on: • Higher fencing; • “host oversight”; • Operational management plan; • Behavioural controls. These are not reliable planning solutions. The proposal remains unsuitable because of: • The siting; • The boundary relationship; • The guest access route; • The proximity to no.12. 4. Policy Conflict The proposal conflicts with: NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism Short-term-let proposals should not be supported where they cause: • Unacceptable impact on local amenity; • Unacceptable impact on neighbourhood character This proposal directly affects: • Privacy, • Amenity, • Security, • Residential character. 5. Weak Economic Justification The applicant claims tourism/economic benefit. However, the officer report confirms: “no further material has been provided to demonstrate the potential economic benefit.” Unproven tourism benefits should not outweigh direct harm to neighbouring residents. Why The Fence Condition Fails The officer recommendation relies heavily on a 1.8m fence. However, the fence: • Does not stop guest movement; • Does not stop noise; • Does not stop headlights; • Does not stop open-window overlooking; • Does not stop transient activity; • Does not stop woodland access; • Does not restore residential privacy / safeguarding. This is not simply a screening issue. It is a land-use compatibility issue. The Operational Management Plan: • is not yet written; • relies on future behaviour; • cannot control guest conduct in practice; • cannot prevent disturbance before it occurs.
Page 4
A fundamentally unsuitable use cannot be made acceptable purely through management paperwork. Request To Members I respectfully request that Members: 1. Reject the officer recommendation; 2. Refuse planning permission; OR 3. Undertake a site visit to properly assess: • proximity, • overlooking, • boundary relationship, • guest route, • impact on No.12. This case is highly dependent on physical relationship and cannot be fully appreciated from plans alone. Suggested Refusal Reason: The proposed short-term-let use, by reason of its constrained siting, close relationship with 12 Etive Park, boundary access route, window orientation and repeated use by transient visitors, would result in unacceptable harm to residential privacy, amenity and perceived security, contrary to NPF4 Policies 14, 23 and 30 and relevant policies of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2. The representation also raises the following concern: ‘Insufficient weight has been given to the sensitive setting surrounding the site, including the adjoining Tree Preservation Order woodland; the Open Space Protection Area; and the Scheduled Monument approximately 27 metres from the site. While these matters may not independently justify refusal, they reinforce the unsuitability of intensifying visitor activity in this location.’ A Tree Preservation Order (TPO) is a safeguarding measure related to the lopping, topping, felling, or removal of any tree within the designation. As discussed in the Report of Handling, there are no tree works proposed as part of the application, and the proposed development has no impact on the TPO with regard to the lopping, topping, felling, or removal of trees within this designation. The Black Rocks (North Connel) Open Space Protection Area (OSPA) stretches along the shoreline of North Connel, from (17.9 ha) Connel bridge (to the rear of the site) to Black Crofts. The proposed development is confined to the existing garden grounds and has no bearing on the OSPA designation. The Scheduled Monument (Cairn) to the rear of dwellings 12 and 12a Etive Park is included in the assessment. The proposed development would have no material adverse effect upon the SM. The representation objects to the Officer’s recommendation to grant approval to this application and cites the Officer’s oversight of the harm to residential amenity
Page 5
and conflict with the Local Development Plan as reason for refusal. The representation also calls for a pre-determination site visit by Members. The matters raised, namely harm to residential amenity and proposed planning conditions, have already been raised by the Objector in previous representations and have been addressed in the Report of Handling before Members. The representation presents no new further information or material that may alter the Officer’s recommendation. The Officer’s recommendation to grant approval for the application as outlined in the Report of Handling remains. _________________________________________________________________________ (C) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Members note the content of this report. It is the Officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to the recommended planning conditions, as per the Report of Handling. ______________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Emma Spence Date: 19.05.2026 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 19.05.2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth