Knipoch Hotel, Local Review, Objection, Dalmore House
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
Local Review Body 26/0007/LRB | Planning Application 26/00095/PP FURTHER REPRESENTATION TO LOCAL REVIEW BODY Knipoch Hotel – Proposed Siting of 4 Accommodation Pods Local Review Body Reference: 26/0007/LRB Planning Application Reference: 26/00095/PP Site: Knipoch Hotel, By Oban, PA34 4QT Representation from: Ian McIntyre, Dalmore House, Knipoch Dear Sir/Madam, We write in response to the Notice of Review submitted in respect of the above planning application and wish to confirm that we maintain our objection to the proposed development and respectfully request that the Local Review Body uphold the Planning Authority's decision to refuse planning permission. We have considered the applicant's Request for Review and accompanying appendices. In our view, the additional arguments and proposed mitigation do not overcome the fundamental reasons for refusal, particularly the effect of the development upon neighbouring residential amenity and the character and landscape setting of this part of Knipoch. The Planning Authority refused the application on 27 May 2026, concluding that the development's siting would result in overlooking and an overbearing relationship with neighbouring properties together with noise, disturbance and lighting pollution detrimental to residential amenity. The Authority also concluded that the prominent siting and design of the development, exacerbated by its elevated position, would be detrimental to the Local Landscape Area. Having considered the applicant's review submission, we see no material change which adequately addresses those fundamental concerns. 1. Residential amenity, overlooking and elevated position The applicant places considerable reliance upon the proposed relocation of Pod A by approximately 2.5 metres and its rotation by approximately 10 degrees. We do not consider this relatively modest adjustment addresses the underlying problem. The issue is not simply whether a direct line can be drawn from one particular window of Pod A towards one neighbouring window. It is the overall relationship between a commercial visitor accommodation development and established residential properties situated immediately below an elevated site. The applicant's own supporting statement emphasises that the pods have been positioned specifically to take advantage of their elevated position and views towards Loch Feochan, and confirms that their principal elevations will be extensively glazed to maximise those views. That design objective itself illustrates why the effect upon properties below cannot simply be resolved by rotating one pod by approximately 10 degrees. Furthermore, the proposal comprises four units of short-term visitor accommodation rather than a single domestic dwelling. Occupants will continually change, and the use will naturally extend into evenings and nights. Associated activity includes people moving between the hotel and pods, use of the proposed external paths and central seating area, internal illumination through the extensively glazed elevations, and external lighting.
Page 2
Local Review Body 26/0007/LRB | Planning Application 26/00095/PP The revised landscape proposals include a central paved seating area and low-level lighting together with paths connecting the hotel and accommodation units. These features reinforce rather than remove our concerns regarding the intensification of activity, noise and artificial light immediately above neighbouring residential properties. 2. Landscaping does not remove the impact The applicant relies heavily upon existing vegetation and proposed additional planting as mitigation. We do not consider landscaping provides an adequate solution to an inherently unsuitable relationship between the development and neighbouring homes. Planting is not an immediate or permanent visual barrier. Its effectiveness varies with species, maturity, maintenance and season, and it cannot reasonably be relied upon to eliminate overlooking from an elevated site. Likewise, a 1.1 metre timber fence and additional boundary planting cannot fundamentally overcome the difference in elevation between the development platform and the properties below. The issue should therefore be considered in terms of whether the development itself is appropriately sited, rather than whether planting can subsequently be used to screen an otherwise unacceptable relationship. This accords with the Planning Authority's original assessment that the prominent siting, exacerbated by the elevated site, was itself detrimental both to residential amenity and to the Local Landscape Area. 3. Lighting We remain concerned about light pollution. The applicant refers to low-level external lighting as mitigation, and Environmental Health indicated that lighting could potentially be controlled by condition. However, this addresses only part of the issue. The pods themselves incorporate extensively glazed principal elevations specifically designed to maximise outward views. Consequently, artificial light generated internally by occupied pods will also be visible from surrounding properties and across the wider landscape during the hours of darkness. Given the elevated position, landscaping and low-level external fittings do not in our view adequately address the cumulative effect of four illuminated accommodation units, associated paths and external amenity space in what is presently a comparatively dark rural setting. 4. Noise and disturbance The review submission concentrates predominantly upon visual screening and Pod A's orientation but provides little substantive mitigation for the Planning Authority's separate concerns regarding noise and disturbance. Four independent short-term accommodation units will inevitably introduce a different intensity and pattern of activity to this elevated area. This includes guest arrivals and departures, movement between the hotel and accommodation, use of paths and the proposed communal seating area, and activity during evenings. The fact that the development is associated with an existing hotel does not mean that neighbouring residents should reasonably be expected to experience a significant extension of hotel guest activity into land immediately adjoining and overlooking their homes. 5. Landscape impact We also continue to support the Planning Authority's second reason for refusal. The Council concluded that the prominent siting and design, exacerbated by the site's elevation, would be detrimental to the Local Landscape Area. The proposed planting does not alter the fundamental fact that four accommodation structures with pitched metal roofs, substantial glazing, paths, lighting and an external seating area would occupy an elevated and visually exposed site.
Page 3
Local Review Body 26/0007/LRB | Planning Application 26/00095/PP The applicant's contention that the impact would be limited, localised and capable of mitigation is an assertion made in support of the review; it does not in itself demonstrate that the Planning Authority's landscape assessment was incorrect. 6. Surface water and drainage We acknowledge that, following submission of the Kaya Consulting Flood Risk Assessment, JBA Consulting concluded that the development site itself was acceptable in flood-risk terms and formally recorded no objection. We therefore do not seek to suggest that JBA continues to maintain a flood-risk objection. Our concern is more specific. The Kaya report recommends installation of an interception ditch running west to east immediately south of the development to capture runoff from the steep ground and redirect it towards the Unnamed Watercourse East gully. Our original representation specifically raised concern regarding the existing downstream culvert/drainage arrangement through Dalmore House and its capacity to accommodate flows. Importantly, the applicant's own Request for Review acknowledges that: "The FRA does not directly consider the capacity of the culverts/pipes within the Dalmore House property boundary." That distinction is important. Demonstrating that the pod development platform is not itself at significant flood risk is not necessarily the same question as demonstrating that a proposed interception and redirection arrangement will have no adverse consequence downstream. We are not seeking to contradict the professional conclusion reached by JBA regarding flood risk to the application site. We simply maintain that, where an existing watercourse/drainage route passes through an immediately neighbouring residential property and the proposal involves deliberate interception and redirection of runoff, the downstream arrangement and its capacity should be properly understood before development is authorised rather than left as an assumption. 7. Alternative siting We also remain concerned that the review submission does not demonstrate why four pods must occupy this particular elevated part of the hotel grounds. The economic and tourism benefits advanced by the applicant relate principally to the provision of additional accommodation associated with Knipoch Hotel. Those benefits do not inherently depend upon placing that accommodation on this specific elevated area immediately adjoining existing homes. Where alternative land within the hotel's control may permit visitor accommodation with substantially less impact upon residential amenity and the landscape, we consider this reinforces the conclusion that the present siting is inappropriate. 8. Conclusion We are supportive in principle of Knipoch Hotel operating successfully and investing in its tourism offering. Our objection is not to the principle of additional guest accommodation at the hotel; it is to the siting, configuration and resulting impacts of these four pods in this particular location. The Request for Review does not, in our opinion, overcome the fundamental reasons identified by the Planning Authority. Moving one pod approximately 2.5 metres, rotating it by approximately 10 degrees and relying upon landscaping does not remove the inherent relationship between four commercial accommodation units on elevated ground and the established residential properties immediately below. For those reasons, we respectfully request that the Local Review Body dismiss the review and uphold the refusal of Planning Application 26/00095/PP.
Page 4
Local Review Body 26/0007/LRB | Planning Application 26/00095/PP Should the Local Review Body consider that the relationship between the site and neighbouring properties cannot adequately be appreciated from the submitted drawings and photographs, we would strongly support a site visit. We believe a site inspection would clearly demonstrate the elevation, proximity, visibility and relationship between the proposed development and the neighbouring residential properties. Yours faithfully, Ian & Laura McIntyre Dalmore House Knipoch