Reply to LRB 8 Sept 26 - FINAL
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
Cla-Mara Knipoch OBAN PA34 4QT 8 September 2026 Argyll and Bute Council Legal and Regulatory Support Kilmory Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8RT Dear Sirs LOCAL REVIEW BODY REFERENCE : 26/0007/LRB PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE : 26/00095/PP KNIPOCH HOTEL, BY OBAN, PA34 4QT We thank you for your letter of 27 August 2026, regarding the above Request for Review dated 26 August 2026. Please find attached our further representations regarding this matter. We shall be grateful if you could acknowledge safe receipt. Yours faithfully David and Lynn Gibson Appendix 1 Further representations regarding the Request for Review dated 26 August 2026 (26/0007/LRB) Appendix 2 Copy of original objection letter, dated 2 February, with supporting photographs. Appendix 3 Copy of original email dated 30 April 2026 - regarding the Landscaping Proposal submitted on 20 April 2026 and registered on Planning Portal 29 April 2026 enc.
Page 2
Appendix 1 Further representations regarding the Request for Review dated 26 August 2026 (26/0007/LRB) We understand all 7 objections from the immediate neighbours, together with attached photographs, in support of the objections to this proposal, will be duly considered at this time. We take this opportunity of attaching copies of our objections, to the original application, dated 2 February and 30 April 2026, for ease of reference. We would also like to confirm that we have the same concerns and objections to this planning proposal, despite various attempts, by the agent and applicant to change aspects of the original planning application. We note from the Review Request dated 26 August, the agent has made various comments. We appreciate this opportunity to clarify our position, here at Cla-Mara. The agent has claimed in the review request, there is no impact to the immediate neighbouring properties. As stated in our objection letter of 2 February, copy attached. Our home at Cla-Mara will be impacted by light pollution, noise pollution and loss of privacy at the rear garden together with overlooking and overbearing issues, all strong material planning considerations, specifically aligning with National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2). Chalet A, has a direct line of sight into our rear windows due to the elevation of the proposed site, which dominates the skyline and overlooks our home. Photos are attached to our letter of 2 February, in support of this claim, which indicates a recently moved food shed (light green) which was located at the proposed position of said Chalet A. The proposed Chalet, will approximately be 3.8m in height together with an additional raised plinth - making the said Chalet in excess of 1 metre higher than the height of the aforementioned food shed - which is approximately 3m in height. As a Landscaping proposal had not been submitted with the planning application of 15 January 2026. A request for a Landscaping proposal was made by the planner on 5 February and received from the agent, on 20 April, to address the planner’s continued concerns regarding:- Loss of privacy: to rear garden of immediate neighbours, due to the elevated site and position of Chalet A. Overlooking aspects: which would impact immediate neighbours, due to the elevated position of the site and the height and pitched roof of the chalets, along with full glass frontals.
Page 3
Light Pollution: which would impact immediate neighbours, from the chalets and proposed lighting. The Chalet design has full glass frontals and the proposed site lighting (approximately a further 6 light posts) described as “low level lighting at 1 metre in height” - given the site elevation, this would cause a large degree of further light pollution and overshadowing, as the 1 metre lighting posts are not low level. Noise and Odour Pollution: Currently we are disturbed by members of staff, whilst on their smoking breaks, during the day and evening, on the steps leading to the proposal site, to the rear of our home. Drifting odours from the smoking and vaping, which are toxic and obnoxious, together with the occasional burning of rubbish at the site, restricts the use of our rear garden and we are unable to open our rear windows. By introducing potentially, 8 guests (2 per chalet) plus any pets, on this proposed elevated site, will create additional noise and increased smoking/vaping odour transmissions. Due to the elevated site proposal, there are no natural ground level acoustic buffers (such as topsoil, standard boundary fencing or dense low level foliage to absorb sound. Noise generated on an elevated site, radiates outwards unimpeded, significantly magnifying vocal disturbance to the immediate neighbours. We refer to the Council’s Bad Neighbour Policy in this regard as the above adversely impacts the immediate neighbours, through noise, odours, fumes and light pollution. It is noted that within the submitted Sustainability Checklist - TNO6 - under “What measures to improve/restore the natural environment” - there was a mention of landscaping - but stated that after the Chalets had been constructed their surroundings will be landscaped. It is also noted, the question “is the site Brownfield” - the response was N/A. The question “would the proposal involve the loss of trees/woodland - the response was - No. The proposed site does not contain any trees. We confirm the trees were removed from this site prior to the submission of the planning application. As further detailed below. It is also noted within the Sustainable Buildings Checklist - TNO7. Does the Design provide adaptability for changing needs - The response noted was “Due to the small nature of the chalets, alternative layouts are limited” Provide details of any porous surfacing materials for drives, paths and hardstandings. Response noted “gravel finish to access road and hardstanding area where the chalets will be located. As mentioned as there was no landscaping proposal submitted with the original planning application, we had only been made aware of the proposal when we received notification from the planning portal on 29 April. We were also aware that the agreed determination date of 1 May was imminent. We wished our
Page 4
further concerns and objections noted regarding this landscaping proposal before a decision was made by the Planning Authority. As the agent pointed out in his review request, our further representations, regarding the landscaping proposal, was received 3 months, after the consulting period had expired but had the landscaping proposal been submitted with the planning application of 15 January, we would not have required to make further representations at a later date. The late submission of the Landscaping proposal could have potentially prevented the immediate neighbours making further comments thereon. The Scottish planning guidance states any representation, submitted after the consultation period may still be considered if a decision has not yet been issued by the Planning Authority. In this case the decision for Refusal was made on the 27 May 2026. We confirm submitting an email response dated 30 April (copy attached) again outlining our concerns and objections. In response to our objections regarding Chalet A, the agent claims that because there is an existing “bank” directly behind Cla-Mara, a cluster of trees and the existing ground vegetation, all placed between the house and the proposed site, the elevation of approximately 4-5 metres above the house and approximately 15 metres away there would be minimal impact on this house in terms of privacy or light. We disagree with the agent’s claims and confirm that Cla-Mara will indeed be affected by the impact of the proposed positioning of Chalet A. We respond as follows:- There is a “sloping” area, to the rear of Cla-Mara, but not directly behind, as claimed by the agent. This area is part of our rear garden. This has no relevance to the agent’s review request due to the fact it is on lower ground than the proposal site. Despite having some ground vegetation, it certainly does not protect Cla-Mara from any intrusions regarding privacy, overlooking and light pollution. Photos attached to our letter of 2 February, verify our comments. There is only one tree, as seen in attached photo with our letter of 2 February - but if looking at the newly produced additional/adjusted drawing - Appendix 9, submitted with the review request and after the refusal of the planning application, there is a detail of trees and foliage, but not on the boundary of Cla-Mara and the proposed site, but belongs to the dwellinghouse named, Dalmore House, which is located next door. There is existing ground vegetation on the boundary - which runs east to west along the length of the slope. Photos attached to our letter of 2 February, clearly outlines the impact the position of Chalet A, would have on our privacy and the overlooking and overbearing issues. (For the avoidance of doubt the actual timber structure shown in the photo (coloured green) is purely for illustration purposes). This has now been removed from said proposal site. Chalet A, itself would be more visible due to the increased height of 3.8m along the with the proposed plinth, the pitched roof and the full glass frontal. All of which dominates the skyline and over looks Cla-Mara.
Page 5
The suggestion of low level shrubs and a rockery, cannot fix fundamental planning issues, namely, overlooking, loss of privacy or visual dominance. The planting of the low level shrubs and the rockery are not to be planted directly on the boundary, but closer to the proposed site of the chalets. The lighting proposal, of “1 metre high posts” (approximately 6 posts), to be positioned within the proposal, are described as “low level”. Taking into account the elevated site position, this is not low level lighting. There does not appear to have been included within the lighting proposal any design factors, ie. using a flat glass optic or shield on the side facing the immediate neighbours or any suggestion of using a warm light spectrum. Therefore, this will not address the overshadowing and light pollution issues as previously mentioned, especially when there has been no lighting design factors, submitted to address these issues, impacting the neighbouring properties. As mentioned in the immediate neighbour objection letters, the land in question was a level grassy area which could be accessed by a grass slope with mature Fir trees, various mature shrubs along with well established Rhododendrons. At this time the site would have been classed as a “Greenfield” site. Also mentioned in the Report Handling, under the History of the site, is a planning application, 03/00312/OUT. This application was refused on 6 May 2004, on the reasons as noted below (copy of Decision Notice - reasons for refusal):- The proposal site started to change approximately 3 years ago, when initial land clearing took place, as the Hotel were looking to increase their car parking capacity but this site was never used for car parking, due to the gradient of the access slope. The proposed site was left untouched for approximately 2 years thereafter. Further work on the site started September/October 2025, when the whole site was completely removed of vegetation and organic topsoil, along with the clear felling of the mature Fir trees. A mechanical rock breaker was on site during these 2 months which resulted in vast amounts of rock and soil being removed from the site - leaving it as it is today, a waste piece of land with a
Page 6
selection of timber structures thereon. The proposed site, has been issued with an Enforcement Notice, reference 26/00084/ENOTH2 - for the unauthorised siting of stalls and pergola for use as public market/events and potential unauthorised ground works. The proposed site is the only remaining dark sky environment, as mentioned in our letter of 2 February. As the whole of the hotel grounds, to the west of the proposed site and the immediate neighbours, is facilitated by approximately 17 triple headed lamp posts, set on raised concrete plinths, approximately 2.2m in height along with lower level lighting within the surrounding grounds and projected coloured lighting to the front of the hotel as well as a selection of floodlights mounted below the roof gutters. There is a need to protect our dark sky environment to allow nature to survive in and around the proposal site, for example, the owls, the bats and any other nocturnal creatures wandering the grounds. In this instance we would like to refer to the NDF4 Policy of (Natural Places) - which seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making the best use of the nature based solutions. The site is located within the Countryside Area and within the North West Argyll (Coast) Local Landscape Area (LLA). The Council’s Landscape Capacity Assessment (2010) notes that the area encompassing Knipoch has limited capacity to absorb development. The Assessment advises that development would be possible around the Knipoch hotel, provided that these developments are set into trees to minimise their impact on views along the road. As mentioned within the planners Report Handling:- Whilst the proposed development is set back from the road and has partial tree cover, the elevated site would exacerbate the relative size and bold finishings (black timber and red roof) of the proposed units. The proposed development would be prominent in the surrounding landscape, and therefore detrimental to the Local Landscape Area designation, contrary to NPF4 Policy 04, as underpinned by LDP2 Policy 04 (i) (Sustainable Development), and Policy 71 (c) (Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas) Noting contained in the review request, dated 26 August, there is an additional/adjusted drawing, Appendix 9. This drawing appears to show a very slight repositioning of Chalet A. This additional drawing had not been submitted during the original planning process. The actual relocating/rotating of Chalet A, consisted of a relocation of 2.5m further back and a rotation of the chalet around 10 degrees inward. This clearly does not address any of the existing privacy and overlooking issues due to the elevation of the proposed site and the design and height of said chalets. This confirms that the agent and the applicant are aware of the overlooking and loss of privacy issues to our home, but clearly continue to claim that there will be minimal impact issues to amenity concerns.
Page 7
The proposed slight relocating/rotation of said Chalet A, will bring further overlooking, loss of privacy and light pollution issues for the dwellinghouse known as Dalmore House. We also note from the Report Handling that the potential Flood Risk issues remain outstanding at this time - as there would appear to have been insufficient evidence submitted. The agent has stated the planning application should not have been refused on the basis of a unresolved technical objection - namely the unresolved flood risk issues. The agent also makes claim that the Refusal was issued before the applicant was given a clear opportunity to agree an acceptable solution. It is noted that the agent and the applicant, did not wish to agree to a further extension of two weeks. In the agent’s summary to the review request, we note that the applicant has introduced new solutions - “including the potential omission or further adjustment of chalet A’’. Bearing in mind the information submitted in the Sustainable Buildings Checklist - TN07:- Does the Design provide adaptability for changing needs. The response noted was “Due to the small nature of the chalets, alternative layouts are limited” On checking the Planning Authority website, regarding the introduction of new solutions. The website confirms, generally an applicant cannot introduce new solutions, evidence or materials during an appeal request. When an application has zero support, multiple neighbour objections, and clear planning policy violations regarding privacy - the applicant should not be permitted to use the Planning Authority processing time as a “loophole” to force an approval for a poorly designed proposal. TO CONCLUDE OUR FURTHER REPRESENTATION ON THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW The council evaluated the proposal under "Bad Neighbour Development" guidelines (Local Development Plan 2 Policy 14) and determined that the chalets would cause unacceptable harm to the surrounding area. The proposal was refused by the planning department for the following reasons, based on the current planning guidelines and policies:- Proximity to Residential Homes: The planning officers concluded that siting commercial holiday chalets directly bordering local homes would inappropriately expand business activity into a quiet residential space. Noise and Disturbance: Due to the close proximity to the bordering homes, the planners noted that noise control would be highly problematic for nearby permanent residents. Overlooking and Overbearing Design: The council ruled that the chalets would cause unacceptable harm to residential privacy through direct overlooking, overbearing visual impact,
Page 8
and light pollution. Site Capacity and Over Development: The hotel already features 26 guest rooms. Adding 4 chalets would scale guest capacity from 52 to 60 people (excluding staff and restaurant visitors), which was deemed an excessive commercial intensification for that specific site. We appreciate, personal comments are not permitted, but we would like to add, this location was a beautiful and tranquil place to live in and enjoy as we have done so for the last 20 years. Recent events have made that challenging. FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, WE CONFIRM WE CONTINUE TO OBJECT TO PLANNING PROPOSAL 26/00095/PP AND REVIEW REQUEST OF 26 AUGUST 2026 Appendix 2
Page 9
Copy of original objection letter with supporting photographs dated 2 February 2006. Cla-Mara Knipoch Oban PA344QT 2 February 2026 Argyll & Bute Council Development Management Kilmory Castle Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8RT Dear Sirs Planning Application 26/00095/PP Land East of Knipoch Hotel, Knipoch Siting of 4 Accommodation pods We thank you for the Neighbour Notification regarding the above noted matter dated 22 January 2026. We would like to take the opportunity to make comments, concerns and objections regarding this application as follows:- We would like to point out that the track access is a very recent development. The previous owners of the Hotel only ever had it as a grass slope and no vehicular access was experienced during our 20 years of occupation of our home. During the construction of this track, late 2025, as there were no mitigations in place which recognised the change in elevation from the track to our garden we experienced damage to property in our garden area due to large rocks falling from the track. This gives us cause for concern with this proposal. The access to this proposal, we consider not to be adequate as both the gradient and the materials used to construct the track does not provide easy access to the flat site of the proposed application ie. during the recent Christmas Market the stallholders were observed to struggle to access the site without losing traction on the steep slope, which created noise as vehicles revved their engines to attempt to overcome the loss of traction and the gradient of the slope. Given that the application is for 4 pods on a seasonal short term let basis. This would subject us to undue traffic noise on a daily basis which will impact the enjoyment of our home and rear garden. Due to the proximity of the track to our boundary this will potentially create a “bad neighbour” 2.
Page 10
The Hotel presently generates a high degree of traffic noise from commercial deliveries, motorbikes, cars, buses, (reversing sounders, idling motors, car alarms, doors and boot lids banging), all to the west side of our home and this proposal will create further traffic noise to the rear and east of our home. As the track sits on an elevated position, adjacent to our boundary, with the proposed vehicular access and pedestrian traffic to the site, which overlooks our home and garden, resulting in the loss of privacy. The siting of Pod A gives us particular cause for concern and we strongly object to the intrusion that this Pod will pose as it would appear to be directly over looking our home which will result in the loss of privacy as Pod A will provide unrestricted views into three of our rear windows. The proposed application states the Pods will be 3.8m in height with a raised support and associated decking. This will result in a height in excess of 4m. This height will mean Pod A dominates the skyline and our home. There is no lighting to the proposed site and we assume lighting will require to be installed due to the remote location within the hotel grounds. This will subject us to a level of light pollution that will result in the complete loss of our remaining dark sky environment and overshadow on our home. With the pods being located so close to our home and boundary and with the provision of outside decking areas, there is a probability for noise to be generated by guests/tourists through uncontrolled consumption of alcohol along with its associated antisocial behaviours also potential for fire pits, barbecues, (causing fire hazards), portable music, barking dogs, hot tubs, communal recreational areas, this list is non exhaustive. Currently there are five residential properties either side of the hotel and there has to be an element of co-existence where mutual respect is required from all parties so that we can all live in harmony. The commercial property should not be allowed to dominate what is a mixed use location. The proposed application is totally out of character for the area and will have a detrimental effect on our well being. As a result we will lose the feeling of rural living through the increase of noise and intrusion that will be caused by the addition of these Pods. We enclose photos to support our comments, concerns and objections. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Yours faithfully, David and Lynn Gibson. enc.
Page 11
Photos to support this letter:- Taken from track above house. Taken from West Gable of house. Taken from proposed position of Pod A with access track in foreground between the two lines of wooden stakes - indicating where the proposed low level shrubs are to be planted.
Page 12
Taken from rear bedroom and back garden ground. Showing existing green shed (3m in height). Currently in proposed position of Pod A which will be in excess of 1m higher with full glass frontal giving a direct sight line over our home. Wooden stakes indicate the access track position in relation to our home and garden. Appendix 3
Page 13
Copy of original email dated 30 April 2026 - regarding the Landscaping Proposal submitted on dated 20 April 2026 and on Planning Portal on 29 April 2026 Good Afternoon We have attempted to go through the proper channel via the planning portal to register this correspondence but unfortunately the planning server seems to be offline. We refer to the above Planning Application and wish to make further comments on the recent addition of a Landscaping proposal. We are immediate neighbours to this application and have made our objections and concerns to this matter previously. As this landscaping proposal has just been added to the application, a few days before possible determination of the application, we feel we require to respond to this proposal. As follows:- We still strongly object to the siting of Pod A as no amount of bushes will provide any kind of privacy to our back garden and rear windows given the elevated position of this Pod. We previously mentioned the height of the Pods in our objection letter and again wish to reinforce our concerns regarding the amount of light pollution that will be emitted from the full height of the glass fronted Pod again overshadowing our rear garden and rear windows. The Pods in general, given the height of their pitched roof is not in keeping with the concept of Pod accommodation. These give the appearance of a mini Chalet as opposed to a Pod. The proposed colour of the Pods would also seem not discreet and sympathetic to the current environment. We again would like to reinforce our concerns regarding the light pollution. Detailed on the Landscaping proposal it was noted that a minimum of 6 further lights to be installed - noting the proposal states these are ‘low level’ but we think a height of 1 metre is not ‘low level’ and will still produce high levels of light pollution together with the light emitted from the actual Pods. We would like to reiterate that the installation of these Pods and lights and associated lighting will remove the last of our dark sky environment. We would like also to mention the position of the Pods are placed to allow privacy to their occupants but unfortunately there has been no consideration given for our privacy. We would like also to mention the position regarding the flood risk element, which has already been mentioned by our neighbours. We have noted the comments on the report regarding this matter. The report refers to an ‘unnamed’ watercourse. We are aware that this watercourse was indeed moved/redirected some years ago, by the present Hotel owners, during their initial ground works in this area. Has consideration been given to this when the report was carried out.
Page 14
2. We continue to object to this planning application on the grounds of our earlier objection letter together with the above further points in respect to the recently submitted landscaping proposal. We wish these comments to be included within the planning application file. Please acknowledge receipt. Regards David and Lynn Gibson Cla Mara, Knipoch.