Consider Notice of Review Request: Land East of Knipoch Hotel, by Oban, Pa34 4Qt (Ref: 26/0007/Lrb)
Argyll and Bute Council · 8 October 2026
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 8 October 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Please find below a copy of our response following the additional comments received from the planning authority and objectors with reference to the following Statement of Case to Argyll & Bute Council: Review Reference Number: 26/0007/LRB Reference Number of Planning Application: 26/00095/PP Address Of Review Property: Knipoch Hotel, by Oban, PA34 4QT It is very important that a site visit is undertaken so that the members of the Review Panel can see the entire site in full context set within the grounds of the existing hotel and proposed location for the pods in proximity to neighbouring properties. This site visit would also allow members to ask any further questions they may have regarding our Notice for Review. The statement of case states that the proposal is ‘relatively small-scale, has no complex or challenging issues and has not been the subject of significant body of conflicting representation’. Appendixes within the refusal notice state: • There is no departure from the development plan • Area Roads Officer – no concerns, adequate parking within the hotel grounds • Environmental Health Officer – No objections subject to conditions. Handling report states that an appropriate lighting scheme can be secured by planning a condition • Scottish Water – No objections subject to associated notes on foul and surface water National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) Policy 30 aims to encourage sustainable tourism while protecting local communities, the environment, and residential housing The pods would serve as ancillary guest accommodation to the main hotel building. The hotel has 26no. guest rooms and the proposed pods can accommodate two persons each. Therefore, an addition of eight persons would be accommodated within the proposed development of pods. The addition of these pods will help to maintain the growth of the hotel and secure current/ additional employment. The pods have no internal or external cooking provisions to encourage guests to use the facilities within the hotel. This helps to ensure no inappropriate noise or disturbance is generated by users of the pods which would also be managed by members of the hotel staff (including night porter) who would be responsible for making sure that any issues were managed and addressed appropriately. It is anticipated that guests staying in the accommodation pods would also make use of local tourist attractions/ facilities and help contribute towards the local economy. The hotel currently employs approximately 25no. staff members and the addition of the proposed accommodation pods will help to maintain current employment to the local area whilst also offering the potential for additional jobs to be created and provide benefit to the local economy. The geographical location of the hotel being approximately 7 miles from the town of Oban, provides it own unique challenges for the hotel to compete with similar business establishments within the town centre of Oban. NPF4 policy 30 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate sustainable tourism development which benefits local people, is consistent with our net zero and nature commitments, and inspires people to visit Scotland all of which this application provides. Residential Amenity The planning officer noted within the statement of case comments dated 10.09.26 that “over the course of the assessment of the application the Appellant was informed the propose siting of one accommodation unit (Pod A) was of particular concern, with regard to overlooking, being an
Page 2
overbearing structure, and light and noise disturbance. These concerns were also reiterated to the Applicant on site”. It should be worth noting that the first correspondence received from the planning officer regarding the position of Pod A and associated concerns were received by email on the 30th of April. It is therefore misleading to state that this was a concern over the course of the application as this only materialised following a further representation by the neighbouring property ‘Cla Mara’ on the 30th of April. Full details of the application timeline has already been provided and these concerns regarding Pod A were received 3 months after the validation date which is disappointing and clearly should have been expressed sooner. The closest neighbouring property to the site ‘Cla Mara’ rear elevation is approximately 21 meters away from Pod A. Within the Report of Handling, the remaining neighbouring properties ‘Dalmore House and Ross Mhor’ it states that it is not anticipated that occupants of these two dwellings would be impacted by overlooking from the proposed development. We have noted that ‘Cla Mara’ is currently for sale and listed on a local estate agents website. Below is a photograph taken from the estate agents website which clearly shows the relationship of ‘Cla Mara’ with the Knipoch hotel in the background and the proposed position of the pods to the east of the hotel. The dense and mature existing trees/ vegetation help to provide a significant buffer between ‘Cla Mara’ and the proposed pods which will be retained along with additional planting as noted within the proposed landscape proposal drawing previously submitted as part of the planning application. In order to try and address concerns raised by the planning officer regarding the position and proximity of Pod A and the potential harm to residential amenity to ‘Cla Mara’ only, we proposed to relocate this pod through discussions with the planning officer which clearly assisted to address these concerns. However, it was still noted within the ROH that “overlooking, overbearing structure, privacy, light and noise disturbance” that we had failed to sufficiently address these concerns which we would disagree with. We therefore feel it is important for the panel to visit site and view this for themselves. Having the pod relocated further back (approximately 23.5m away) reduces any direct site lines (if any) down towards ‘Cla Mara’. This along with the existing and proposed vegetation, ‘Cla Mara’ Application site for Pods Dalmore House Knipoch Hotel
Page 3
management of the pods by hotel staff, exclusion of any cooking facilities and a lighting design which could be covered under a relevant planning condition should allow this application to be supported. The client has also expressed that if the panel felt there were still concerns notwithstanding the fact that the environmental health officer stated in the ROH that an appropriate lighting scheme can be secured by a planning condition with the proposal of Pod A, and the appropriate condition would overcome the objection noted within the refusal, then it could be removed entirely reducing the scheme down to three singular pods. Flood Risk and Interception ditch After receiving a flood risk assessment, prepared by Kaya consulting, JBA – the councils flood risk assessors, advised that the development was acceptable in terms of flood risk and removed their holding objection on the 16th of April 2026. (appendix 10 of our request for review application). However, within the ROH – additional notes to applicant noted “there remains outstanding concerns raised by the council’s flood risk assessors regarding appropriate management of surface water drainage”. We are unsure what these concerns are as they were never sent over to us for comment nor have they been uploaded onto the public access portal. All correspondence with the council’s flood risk assessors – JBA Consultants was through the planning officer and therefore if updated drawings and information was being provided, then it was the planning officers responsibility to ensure they were issued to relevant parties for review. Upon preparing this further response, we have contacted JBA consultants direct to see what further information is required regarding the interception ditch, connection and whether this could raise concerns over the existing surface water system having sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional flows arising from the interception ditch. JBA would not provide any constructive response and referred us to the ROH. However, upon reviewing back over previous correspondence from our flood risk specialists - Kaya consulting, on the 28th of April they advised that the inclusion of the interception ditch was just a precautionary measure and could easily not be installed as the upslope catchment is very small (~0.001km²) and represents negligible surface water flood risk to the glamping pods. In conclusion, due to the minimal upslope catchment being very small, this proposal to connect an interception ditch into the existing surface water drainage system should not raise any concerns and a satisfactory planning condition could be proposed to address this.
Page 4
Enforcement Investigation – The planning officer has referred to the site having a live planning enforcement investigation (case reference 26/00084/ENOTH2) for the current siting of timber stalls and pergola for use as an occasional market/event space for the public. The client has never been made aware of this enforcement investigation and upon further discussion with the planning enforcement officer last week, notice of this enforcement has never been served to the client and merely a case has been opened. However, all of the temporary structures used to facilitate the winter market have now been dismantled. We have passed this information onto the planning enforcement officer to update the case file accordingly. The photo below shows all of the temporary structures now dismantled.
Page 5
Conclusion The proposed accommodation pods are modest in scale and would integrate appropriately within the hotel grounds and the wider landscape, without giving rise to an unacceptable visual impact on neighbouring properties. The proposal would provide additional ancillary accommodation for hotel guests and does not involve complex or challenging planning issues. The proposal is not a departure from the development plan. No concerns have been raised by the Area Roads Officer, and the Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection subject to appropriate conditions. The hotel grounds provide sufficient existing parking to serve the pods, while the occupants would be managed by the hotel’s existing staff to minimise the potential for noise or disturbance to neighbouring properties. The development accords with the objectives of NPF4 Policy 30 by supporting sustainable tourism, benefiting the local economy and employment, making use of established hotel infrastructure, and providing distinctive visitor accommodation within a natural landscape setting. The proposal is also consistent with the other relevant provisions of NPF4 identified in this submission, including Policy 2 (Biodiversity), Policy 12 (Zero Waste) and Policy 13 (Sustainable Transport). The hotel context is an important material consideration. Its established infrastructure can readily accommodate the proposed pods, which would enable the hotel to offer distinctive guest accommodation within the natural landscape. The hotel is professionally operated and employs approximately 25 members of staff; the proposal would help safeguard those jobs and provide the potential for additional local employment. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Review Panel takes account of the matters set out above, undertakes a site visit to assess the proposal in its full context, and allows the review by granting planning permission subject to such appropriate conditions as the Panel considers necessary.