00161 PP PPSL ROH EES 11 ETIVE PARK, 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
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth 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 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 DECISION ROUTE ☐Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☒Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Change of use of existing accommodation pod to short-term-let use (ii) Other specified operations • None (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Scottish Water Consulted 05.02.2026 Response 10.02.2026 No objection, no further comment Roads Authority Consulted 05.02.2026 Response 06.02.2026 No objection. The proposal is situated off the UC117 Etive Road within a rural 30mph speed restriction. Parking for one vehicle for the pod is to be provided. Officer Comment: The Site Plan shows allocated parking for one vehicle to serve the accommodation pod to the front of the dwelling. The Area Roads Officer confirms that the dwellinghouse fronts onto an unadopted section of road and that there is sufficient parking at the dwelling to serve the accommodation pod and occupants of the dwelling.
Page 2
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Environmental Health Consulted 05.02.2026 Response: 18.02.2026 No Objection. The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short- term Lets) Order 2022 will require the host of any new short-term let to apply to the Council for a licence. Conditions applied to short-term let licences are intended to address noise and antisocial behaviour from the operation of short- term lets. Officer Comment: Note to Applicant appended to this report. (D) HISTORY: 22/00938/PP - Extension of roof and erection of first floor balcony. Granted 06.07.2022. (Not implemented) 96/00054/DET – Erection of garage. Granted 21.03.1996 (E) PUBLICITY: Oban Times Published 19.02.2026 Expired 12.03.2026 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: 11 objections and one neutral representation have been received in response to this application. These representations are summarised below: Neutral: Oban District Access Panel, 25.02.2025 • The Panel note that the restrictions imposed by the constrained size and structure of the unit and the stepped access would not achieve a satisfactory accessible/disabled friendly unit. The panel would welcome the Applicant to consider an inclusive design. Officer Comment: Comments duly noted and have been included for the awareness of the Applicant. To note the pod is in situ and no built development is proposed. Objections: • Alistair Anderson, 12 Etive Park, North Connel. 19.02.2026; 09.04.2026 • John Anderson, 3 Woodbines Avenue, Kingston-Upon-Thames, KT1 2AZ. 08.03.2026 • Margaret Anderson, 42 Cruachan Cottages, Taynuilt, PA35 1JG. 10.03.2026 • David Bleazard, 12A Etive Park, North Connel, 25.02.2026
Page 3
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • Ann Buchanan, Straithaird, Connel, 27.02.2026 • Hugh Buchanan, 3 Kincraig Terrace, Inverness, IV3 8RP. 10.03.2026 • Kathleen Buchanan, 12 Etive Park, North Connel. 19.02.2026 & 10.03.2026 • Mary Buchanan, 8 Foxhills Place, Glasgow, G23 5NG. 10.03.2026 • Lisa Cawood, 42 Cruachan Cottages, Taynuilt, PA35 1JG. 10.03.2026 • William Green, 4 Etive Park, North Connel, 24.02.2026 • Leanna Macaulay, 8 Etive Park North Connel. 12.02.2026 Objections (summary) The key concerns raised in response to this application concern residential amenity, siting and design, and road safety. A summary of issues raised is as follows: Residential Amenity Privacy & Security • The pod is accessed via a path which runs the length of the boundary between Nos. 11 and 12. • The development would result in a continuous interface of activity along the boundary. • The pod is higher than the dividing fence and guests will be able to see over the fence and into the windows of No. 12. • The development will cause alarm to the occupants of No. 12 as they will be overlooked and overheard by strangers/ transient visitors. • A two-night minimum stay will result in a continuous cycle of new occupants and an unpredictable presence of strangers. • The development will give rise to a severe and continuous loss of privacy due to the proximity of the development. • A new access gate and path, through the communal woodland, has been created, giving rise to security and privacy concerns. Officer Comment: An increase in fence height to 1.8m will remove overlooking between the rear gardens of Nos. 11 and 12 Etive Park. A partial increase in fence height to the front boundary will reduce potential overlooking of the closest habitable room of No.12. There are no shared private or semi-private spaces or access arrangements that would be impacted by this development. Users of the pod will in effect be guests of the host dwelling and therefore known through the booking details. The potential for interactions within the public street with non-residents as a result of this development would not be of significant intensity to disrupt the established residential character. Externally there is a designated semi-enclosed amenity area for guests, set away from the boundary fence, and looking out towards the adjoining woodland. It is not considered that use of this space by guests would significantly impact residential amenity.
Page 4
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The woodland does not form part of the application site. Whilst it is acknowledged that there appears to be a community agreement or responsibility in place to maintain the woodland, it is still publicly accessible. The proposed change of use may lead to an increase in people enjoying the woodland, however it is unlikely to be of a significant volume to cause undue disturbance to residents. Noise disturbance, odour, and light pollution • The development introduces a significantly more intensive and fundamentally different pattern of use • As a short-term-let it is reasonable to assume an intensified noise disturbance • The occupants of no.12 work from home and so will be acutely aware of any disturbance and be distracted from work. • Disturbance from car doors, engines, headlights and from talking, phones, consuming alcohol, BBQs etc by strangers Officer Comment: It is accepted that this development would increase the use of the site, but it is the opinion of the Officer that the proposed use would not lead to any material loss of amenity, given the scale of the development. Residential amenity is further considered in the main assessment. Antisocial Behaviour • There is a strong likelihood of antisocial behaviour by holiday makers who will be using the pod during unsociable hours. • Neighbours will be reliant on the host to manage behaviour • This is a Bad Neighbour Development for the local community and a Bad Neighbour Development in reverse for guests. Officer Comment: It is unlikely that antisocial behaviour would be typical given the nature and scale of the development. As owner-occupier of the host dwelling, the Applicant would have oversight of the use of the pod including a responsibility to dispel anti-social behaviour via the Short-Term-Let License (outwith Planning Control). Siting, Design, and Character • The proposed development is incompatible with the character and functioning of private residential cul-de-sac • The development would increase footfall, introduce transient visitors into shared private spaces and change the quiet residential character into a quasi-tourist space • Short-term-let use would go well beyond what could reasonably be expected from ancillary residential use and would materially harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents. • The garden of No. 12 is slightly higher level than the site • Any letting pod that is over 3 meters in height should be sited more than 2 meters from the nearest boundary. • The submitted plans do not accurately represent scale and proximity
Page 5
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • The site is too constrained to accommodate a separate visitor accommodation unit. • This pod is sited within very close proximity to neighbours, with one window facing the neighbour’s private garden • Obscured glazing on the windows does not address the wider amenity impacts Officer Comment: The size and siting of the pod is in accordance with Class 3A of the Householder Permitted Development Rights (PDR). The design of the pod is consistent with timber hut design, and not dissimilar to modern sheds and ancillary units found in many domestic gardens. Nonetheless, this application is for the change of use of the unit, rather than the design itself. Whilst the proposed change of use to short-term holiday let accommodation is materially different to the existing use of ancillary accommodation the development is not considered to represent a significant intensification of use at the site to warrant a refusal to this application. There is a defined guest amenity area away from the boundary fence, which will help to mitigate disturbance at the boundary. Further, the Applicant is required to demonstrate sufficient noise mitigation measures within the Operational Management Plan, as required by planning condition. Site ground levels have not been provided as part of this application. However, the Officer observed the ground level within the rear garden of No. 12 Etive Park has a slight upwards slope towards the rear boundary. The aforementioned increase in fence height should be measured from the adjoining ground. Siting • Commercial glamping pods are typically ancillary to a hotel, within a designated caravan park, or in rural areas with ample green space • The development represents an intensification of use and potential overdevelopment of the plot. Officer Comment: The siting of the pod and associated patio area and fencing are well accommodated within the wider garden plot. Boundary Screening • Attaching a trellis to the existing fence would not be a suitable privacy screen • A high solid fence would also result in loss of light to my garden. • Fencing would not address noise or activity associated with the use of the pod. • Even if the boundary fence were increased to around 2 meters in height, the pod would still remain significantly higher and occupants would continue to have clear views over the fence into my garden and windows. Officer Comment: An increase in the existing fence height between the two properties is proposed to address privacy and overlooking concerns directly associated with guests using the garden path which runs parallel to the boundary fence. The purpose of the fence is not to screen the pod in its entirety. As noted above, the height and width of the pod is well within the permitted
Page 6
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 development of ancillary garden buildings/structures. As observed on site, a short section of trellis is attached to the fence adjacent the pod. The trellis currently provides no meaningful screening. A planning condition is duly attached to ensure the erection of a timber boarded fence is installed prior to the accommodation first being brought into use as a short-term-let unit. Given the direction of the rising and setting sun, and the presence of established woodland directly to the rear of the site, there are no perceived issues regarding overshadowing with the erection of a 1.8m high fence. To note, no planning permission is required for the erection of a fence to the rear garden grounds up to 2m in height. Road Safety • The photographs submitted fail to show the car parking area, overlooking, proximity to neighbours, the pathway to the rear of the pod, the proximity of vehicular movement to gardens and play areas. • Etive Park is a shared access road which is narrow, mostly single lane, with blind spots and no pavement. • This development represents a material intensification of vehicle use from unfamiliar drivers and introduces avoidable risk and disturbance. • A constant turnaround of holiday makers will increase traffic flow and will be a strain on local infrastructure, including damage to the communally owned access road, flooding and drainage issues. • Repeated manoeuvring by unfamiliar drivers close to a play area is inappropriate • Play areas and gardens do not have barriers or fences to segregate them from the road • Parking and access into the estate is already tight with many households owning 2 or more vehicles and more traffic would add to that burden. Officer Comment: Given the small-scale development it is not expected that the development would result in a significant intensification of use to result in road safety issues. Further, no concerns have been raised by the Roads Authority regarding road safety. The adopted element of Etive Park road terminates approximately at the entrance of the cul-de-sac. Maintenance of the private/unadopted road is a civil matter outwith planning control. No evidence has been provided to suggest that flooding or drainage are a concern at the site, and it is noted that there are no flooding issues indicated on the SEPA mapping systems. Nonetheless, as an application for a change of use (rather than built development), the proposed development does not present an increased risk of flooding or drainage issues. Other Matters Woodlands & Biodiversity • The Residents Community own the surrounding woodland • The development would bring more non-residents into the woods
Page 7
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • Any further groundworks could damage the roots of nearby Scots Pine trees • The adjoining area of ancient natural woodland whose ecosystem could be damaged looks out onto the Lorn of Lynn National Scenic Area and Connel Open Space Protection Area. • The pod is directly underneath the canopy of Scots pine trees in the adjacent woodland. BBQ smoke, noise, antisocial behaviour from users of the pod could disturb nesting birds. Officer Comment: This application proposes no tree works and no built development affecting trees. This proposal is not considered to give rise to harm from odour/noise to surrounding wildlife. The built development is already in situ, with no further works proposed (excluding fence height increase. Land ownership and Association duties are outwith the scope of planning control. Owing to the Scheduled Monument to the rear of the housing development, and the impressive views of Connel Bridge and Loch Etive, it is likely that non-residents would be attracted to the woodland and immediate surrounding area. The potential increase in visitor numbers to the woodland, as a result of this development, is unlikely to adversely affect the woodland. • The development conflicts with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Officer Comment: It is not clear what this is in reference to. The development is entirely contained within a private residential garden. • There is a coastal walk to Benderloch running through Etive Woods. This is not shown on the ‘constraints’ on the website. Officer Comment: Core Path C179(b) (Ledaig Beech, North Connel) runs south of the site at approximately 25m at its closest point, at a considerably lower elevation to the Etive Park dwellings. The proposed development has no material bearing on the presence or use of this path and is not considered a constraint to development for the site. Economic benefit • Any economic benefit associated with tourism accommodation attract limited weight when compared to its detrimental effect on residential amenity. • No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the development would support the local economy Officer Comment: The Planning Statement suggests the development would support the local tourism industry by providing further short-term accommodation. However, it is acknowledged that no further material has been provided to demonstrate the potential economic benefit. The relevant tourism and accommodation policies of the Local Development Plan are considered in the main report.
Page 8
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Planning Precedent • Concerns have been raised that the granting of permission to this development would encourage further short-term-let installations within the grounds of the host dwelling and/or within the grounds of other neighbouring properties. Officer Comment: Each planning application is assessed on its own merits, and the granting of planning permission in this case would not necessarily ensure the same response in a separate application. Should further applications be made for the siting of a further pod within the grounds of the host dwelling, and/or similar proposals within the immediate residential area, due consideration would be given to the level of intensification and potential planning harm given the specific details and circumstances of the application. Loss of green space • All grass and shrubs have been removed from the front garden and replaced with gravel • Valuable green space has already been lost in this small housing development Officer Comment: The Officer understands the ‘loss of green space’ to refer to the replacement of grass for gravel to the front garden area of No. 11 Etive Park. This area is identified on the Site Plan as the parking area for use by guests of the pod. The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a hard surface for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse is permitted under Class 3B of Householder Permitted Development Rights. Communal Land • The proposed development would place unanticipated pressures on shared communal land and infrastructure • The development relies on communal land not intended to support visitor accommodation Officer Comment: The Officer takes shared communal land to mean the unadopted section of road serving the cul-de-sac and the central green. Maintenance of private land/ shared private access is outwith the scope of the planning process. Nonetheless, as a small-scale development it is not anticipated that the development would result in a significant intensification of use resulting in damage or undue wear to the public road, or unadopted section serving the site. Title Deeds • Consent to this application would be contrary to the Etive Park deeds (second declaration by the Council) which prohibits the use of the dwellinghouses or associated buildings as a hotel, Public House or other place for the sale of excisable liquor. Officer Comment: These comments are noted, however title deed directives are outwith the scope of planning control.
Page 9
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Inaccuracies • The Applicant fails to specify the orientation of each side elevation. • The number of windows on the plan is inaccurate as there are Velux windows to each side of the pod • The plans are misleading as they show Etive Park road go fully around the circular play area. The incorrect plans imply there is more manoeuvring space and that vehicles can pass in front of No. 12 Etive Park. • The applicant’s plan incorrectly shows the rear garden of No. 12 extending further into the woodland than No. 11. • The plans fail to show that the shared woodland reaches the pod’s fence boundary Officer Comment: The Officer is satisfied that, as the built development is already in situ and has been observed via site visit, there is no confusion as to the orientation of the pod for the purposes of this assessment. The omission of the window opening to the eastern elevation on the plan is noted. The Roads Authority have clarified that the adopted public road at Etive Park terminates after 0.10Km (approximately at the entrance of the cul-de-sac) and that the section of the road around the central circle is private. The Roads Authority raise no concerns regarding parking and manoeuvring space for users of the pod. Whilst Registers of Scotland (ROS) show the property boundary of No.12 to fall approximately in line with the rear boundary of No.11 Etive Park, standard mapping systems (including those used by the Planning Authority) show the boundary extends beyond that of No.11 as depicted in the submitted plans. Nonetheless, as the rear boundary fence in situ is in line with the ROS title this has limited relevance to the assessment of this application. Similarly, the boundary lines including that of the woodland is taken from standardised mapping and has limited significance to the assessment of this application. Planning Conditions • The mitigation measures proposed do not materially address the concerns raised. • The mitigation statement relies heavily on behavioural controls rather than land-use solutions, they are not reliably enforceable through planning conditions. Officer Comment: The recommended increase in fence height addresses overlooking in the rear gardens of Nos. 11 and 12 Etive Park. There are no shared private or semi-private spaces affected by this application. A detailed Operational Management Plan, secured by planning condition, is to be approved by the Planning Authority prior to the development first being brought into use. In addition, and separate to planning control, further conditions are applied to short-term let licences which are intended to address noise and antisocial behaviour from the operation of short-term lets.
Page 10
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 ☐Yes ☒No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☐Yes ☒No (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist The relevant Sustainability Checklists have been submitted and examined. It is the assessment of the Case Officer that the applicant has understood and given adequate consideration to the sustainability aspects of the proposed development, sufficient to accord with the core sustainability requirements of both national and local planning policy, specifically the relevant details of the ‘Sustainable Places’ group of policies within NPF4 and LDP2 policies 04, 08 and 09. ☒Yes ☐No ☒Yes ☐No (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: A Supporting Statement and further Operational Statement has been submitted with the application. ☒Yes ☐No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No
Page 11
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 01 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 02 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 03 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 09 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 23 – Health and Safety Productive Places NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 11 – Design – Conversions and Change of Use Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 23 – Tourism Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Connected Places Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision
Page 12
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Sustainable Communities Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 81 – Open Space Protection Areas (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting (Feb 2020) • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No It is considered that Members have sufficient information within the report and supporting documentation on public access to enable them to determine this application and properly evaluate the application against the statutory planning framework having regard to any other material planning considerations. As such it is not considered that a pre-determination hearing would add significant value to the decision-making process. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Scheduled Monument (SM3710 – barrow/ cairn) approximately 27 meters to the west of the site • Open Space Protection Area (Land between road and loch, Black Crofts) to the rear of the site • Tree Preservation Order (TPO 01/02 - Land Adjacent to Etive Park, North Connel) to the rear of the site • Site within the Oban Airport Safeguarding Zone (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area
Page 13
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? ☐Yes ☒No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☐No details to be secured by condition ☒N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☒Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☐Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations This application seeks planning permission for a change of use of an existing pod from ancillary accommodation to short-term-let accommodation. The pod is sited in the rear garden of the detached dwelling 11 Etive Park, North Connel. Etive Park terminates in a cul-de-sac of approximately 11 detached dwellings, with a central grassed area towards which the dwellings are orientated. The pod comprises a kitchenette, sleeping area, and shower room and accommodates up to two guests. Externally, an enclosed patio area serves as a semi-private amenity space for occupants of the pod. A parking space is provided forward of the host dwelling, with a connecting footpath along the boundary fence with No. 12 Etive Park.
Page 14
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The pod was erected in June 2024 and used as ancillary accommodation in accordance with Householder Permitted Development Rights (Class 3A) and thus did not require planning permission for its current siting or use. As the unit is already in situ and there are no proposed physical alterations, this assessment is primarily concerned with whether the proposed development is acceptable in terms of its impact upon residential amenity and road safety, and whether it is in accordance with the relevant LDP Policies. More than 10 objections to the proposed change of use have been received, broadly on the grounds of residential amenity, siting and design, and road safety. A summary of the objections and Officer response can be found in Section (F) above. In summary, given the specific circumstances of this application, it is considered that the development would not lead to unacceptable harm to residential character and amenity that would warrant the refusal of planning permission in this case. With appropriate planning conditions to secure screening and to ensure continued site management oversight from the host dwelling, the proposed change of use is considered to be in accordance with relevant national and local planning policies and it is therefore recommended that the application be approved. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and National Planning Framework 4 and there are no other material considerations of sufficient weight, including issues raised by third parties, to conclude that it would be appropriate to withhold planning permission having regard to Section 25 of the Act. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Emma Spence Date: 29.04.2026 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 29.04.2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 15
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 26/00161/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 05.02.2026; supporting information and, the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Location Plan 31326-0001-01 01 03.02.2026 Proposed Site Plan 31326-0002-02 02 06.04.2026 Existing/Proposed Elevations and Floor Plan 31326-0003-01 01 04.02.2026 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Landscaping The increase in fence height as detailed on Proposed Site Plan - 31326-0002-02 shall be completed prior to the pod first being brought into use as short-term-let accommodation and shall thereafter be retained. Reason: In the interests of privacy and residential amenity. 3. Occupancy Restriction Notwithstanding the provisions of Class 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 the residential accommodation hereby approved shall be used for short-term holiday occupancy or ancillary accommodation related to the main dwellinghouse 11 Etive Park and not as a main residence and shall not be occupied by any family, group or individual for a cumulative period of more than three calendar months in any one year. A register showing dates of arrivals and departures shall be maintained at the premises and shall be available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to define the permitted occupancy having regard to the operational details submitted by the applicant and in order to avoid any potential privacy or amenity conflict which could otherwise arise.
Page 16
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 4. Operational Management Plan Prior to the short-term-let accommodation being first brought into use, a detailed Operational Management Plan is to be submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Management Plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Minimum stay requirements 2. How bookings will be recorded (pursuant to Condition 3) 3. Cleaning provision (frequency and access) 4. A description of parking and access for guest use 5. Description of facilities provided for guest use 6. Description of information to be provided to each guest including behavioural code of conduct 7. How the pod and guest behaviour will be overseen and managed and the actions that the site manager will take to ensure compliance with the above. Reason: To ensure the short-term-let use is managed appropriately in the interests of residential amenity.
Page 17
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT • Short-Term-Let License The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022 will require the host of any new short-term let to apply to the Council for a licence. Conditions applied to short-term let licences are intended to address noise and antisocial behaviour from the operation of short-term lets. For further information and to apply, see the ‘Short-Term-Let’ pages on the Council’s website.
Page 18
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 26/00161/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Proposed Development 1.1 This application seeks planning permission for a change of use of an existing pod from ancillary accommodation to short-term-let accommodation. 2. Location and Nature of Proposed Development 2.1. The pod is sited in the rear garden of the detached dwelling 11 Etive Park, North Connel. Etive Park terminates in a cul-de-sac of approximately 11 detached dwellings. The dwellings are orientated to face a central grassed area. 2.2. The pod comprises a kitchenette, sleeping area, and shower room and accommodates up to two guests. Externally, an enclosed patio area serves as a semi-private amenity space for occupants of the pod. 2.3. Dedicated parking for one vehicle is provided to the front of the dwellinghouse, and guests will access the pod via a footpath which runs parallel to the boundary fence with No. 12 Etive Park. 2.4. There are no proposed changes to existing water, waste, and power connections. 3. Settlement Strategy 3.1. In terms of the adopted LDP2 the site is defined as being within a ‘Settlement Area’ where LDP2 Policy 01 (Settlement Areas) gives a general presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is compatible with surrounding uses; provides suitable access and infrastructure; is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; it respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and it complies with all other relevant LDP2 policies. 3.2. As the application seeks permission for a change of use, with no proposed alteration to the existing built development, this assessment is primarily concerned with the compatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding land uses including its impact upon residential privacy and amenity, access and parking and fear of antisocial behaviour.
Page 19
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 4. Compliance with the Local Development Plan (NPF4 & LDP2) 4.1. NPF4 Policy 1 (Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises) seeks to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions; it requires to be applied together with other policies in NPF4. 4.2. Guidance from the Scottish Government advises that it is for the decision maker to determine whether the significant weight to be applied tips the balance in favour for, or against a proposal on the basis of its positive or negative contribution to climate and nature crises. 4.3. In this case, given the small-scale nature of the development proposed and its alignment with all other relevant policies in the Local Development Plan, it is considered that the development proposed would be in accordance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 1. 4.4. NPF4 Policy 2 (Climate, Mitigation and Adaption) seeks to ensure that new development proposals will be sited to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and that proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. 4.5. Guidance from the Scottish Government confirms that at present there is no single accepted methodology for calculating and / or minimising emissions. The emphasis is on minimising emissions as far as possible, rather than eliminating emissions. 4.6. The Spatial Settlement Strategy set out within LDP2 seeks to deliver sustainable levels of growth by steering the majority of development to our existing settlements as these are where the most of our current infrastructure, services, employment opportunities, housing and community facilities are to be found. However, LDP2 recognises that there are instances where a different approach to significant development has to be taken particularly where existing infrastructure or services are at capacity and where a more sustainable option would be to provide new facilities elsewhere. 4.7. NPF4 Policy 3 (Biodiversity) seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. 4.8. No material biodiversity impacts have been identified in the assessment of this application by the Planning Authority, and it is considered that there are no issues of compliance with Policy 3.
Page 20
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 4.9. Whilst Policy 3(c) would ordinarily require measures for the conservation, restoration and enhancement of biodiversity, such measures are required ‘where appropriate’ and should be ‘proportionate’ to the nature and scale of the development proposed. 4.10. In this case, given that the scope of the development proposed is limited solely to the change of use from ancillary to short-term-let accommodation, and given that the development will not prejudice any existing biodiversity value, it is not considered appropriate or proportionate to seek biodiversity restoration or enhancement in this specific case. 4.11. The woodland to the rear of the site is subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO 01/02 - Land Adjacent to Etive Park, North Connel). The Preservation Order ensures that permission is first granted from the Planning Authority in the event that one or more trees within the designation are to be felled, lopped, topped, or removed. This application proposes no tree works and no built development affecting trees. 4.12. No material biodiversity impacts have been identified in the assessment of this application and, as the built development is in situ with no further works proposed, the proposed change of use would have a neutral effect on the site. The proposed development is therefore in accordance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 3 and requirements of LDP2 Policy 73 (Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity). 4.13. NPF4 Policy 7 (Historic Assets and Places) seeks to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. 4.14. Part (h) of Policy 7 supports development proposals affecting scheduled monuments only when direct adverse impacts on the integrity of the setting of a scheduled monument are avoided. 4.15. The site is approximately 27 meters to the east of a Scheduled Monument (Cairn). This is an undisturbed Cairn (burial site) that is grassed over and appears as a large mound to the rear of Nos 12 and 12a Etive Park. The proposed development would potentially give rise to an increase in visitors, given the ease of access from the rear garden gate. However, it is likely that the Cairn and woodland already attract some members of public, whether local residents or visitors, throughout the year. As the pod is already in situ, and confined to within a private residential garden, the development is not considered to have a material effect on the setting of the Scheduled Monument, nor how the site is experienced by others. 4.16. Separately, a representation has been received from West of Scotland Archaeological Service (WOSAS) requesting information of any further ground works. As the built development is complete there are no proposed works that would require the input of WOSAS in terms of safeguarding archaeological interests.
Page 21
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 4.17. In turn, the proposal is in accordance with NPF4 Policy 7 (h), as underpinned by LDP2 Policies 15 (Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment), 19 (Scheduled Monuments), and 21 (Sites of Archaeological Importance). 4.18. NPF4 Policy 9 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. 4.19. The proposal is considered brownfield development by virtue of it being located within the established residential curtilage of the dwellinghouse. In turn, the development represents the sustainable reuse of brownfield land directly supported by NPF4 Policy 9(a) and LDP2 Policy 01 (Settlement Area). 4.20. NPF4 Policy 12 (Zero Waste) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that is consistent with the waste hierarchy as defined within the policy document. 4.21. Whilst this is a development likely to generate waste when operational, the waste would be collected and sorted on site, and the collection of such waste would be managed through existing household collection arrangements and in accordance with the Council’s recycling and reuse strategy. In this regard, the proposed development complies with NPF4 Policy 12 and does not conflict with the requirements of LDP2 Policy 63 (Waste Related Development and Waste Management). 4.22. NPF4 Policy 13 (Sustainable Transport) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. 4.23. The adopted road section of Etive Park terminates towards the entrance to the cul- de-sac, whereby the circular road becomes unadopted (private). The road is blocked between dwellings No. 11 and No. 12, preventing vehicles from completing a full loop of the cul-de-sac. 4.24. The Roads Authority have raised no objections to the proposed development, subject to the provision of one vehicular parking space, which is included in the Site Plan. 4.25. The small-scale pod development is not considered to be a significant travel generating use or a proposal where it is considered important to monitor travel patterns resulting from the development. The introduction of one vehicle at any one time is not considered to amount to a significant intensification of vehicular traffic and therefore unlikely to be detrimental to road safety.
Page 22
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 4.26. As the application includes a dedicated vehicular parking space for the development, in addition to existing residential parking, a planning condition to secure additional parking is not required. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 13 and the requirements of LDP2 Policy 40 (Vehicle Parking Provision). 4.27. NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the ‘Place Principle’. 4.28. As the proposal concerns the change of use of the existing pod, the design and siting of the unit is of limited weight in the determination of this application. Rather, it is necessary to consider how the proposed use will be materially different from the existing, and whether this gives rise to harm to privacy and amenity. 5. Overlooking and Privacy 5.1 The boundary between No.11 and No.12 is marked by a timber fence of approximately 1.5 meters in height. The rear garden ground of No.12 has a slight upwards slope towards the rear boundary, meaning the fence height from this side of the boundary is reduced to between approximately 1.3 to 1.4 meters in places. 5.2 The position of windows to the western elevation (kitchen) and northern elevation (shower room) potentially gives rise to overlooking to the rear garden and rear elevation of the neighbouring dwelling (No. 12). Guest use of the access pavement alongside the boundary pavement also gives rise to potential overlooking, which is likely to be exacerbated by the proposed use. 5.3 However, an increase in fence height to 1.8m would prevent direct overlooking between the rear gardens. A planning condition is duly attached to this recommendation to ensure the increase in fence height is completed prior to the pod first being brought into short-term-let use. 5.4 The kitchen window on the western elevation of the pod looks out towards the rear garden of No.12. This window is partially obscured with opaque film, yet this is relatively redundant when the window is open. However, the suggested increase in fence height, to be secured by condition, would prevent overlooking from this window within the pod. 5.5 Concerns have been raised that guests are likely to access the woodland to the rear of the site, enabling overlooking into the rear gardens of neighbouring properties. However, the woodland is publicly accessible, and it is not accepted that the presence of members of the public within the woodland would give rise to a material intensification of overlooking and invasion of privacy as a result of this development. 5.6 Further, given the relatively large rear garden ground and the enclosed semi-private amenity space afforded the pod, sufficient privacy between the host dwelling and the pod is maintained. Nonetheless, a planning condition is recommended to ensure the pod remains within the same planning unit and within the same control as the
Page 23
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 occupants of the dwellinghouse to ensure an appropriate level of management oversight in the interests of protecting residential amenity, and to ensure that the potential for antisocial behaviour is adequately and appropriately controlled. 6. Disturbance 6.1 At the front elevation, neighbouring property No. 12 is orientated slightly towards No.11 Etive Park which means the large window of the habitable room closest to the boundary overlooks the parking space at the front of No.11. This is relatively characteristic of the compact residential cul-de-sac, where properties are orientated towards the central green and there is a degree of overlooking between properties. As the development does not amount to a significant intensification of vehicular traffic or movements, it is not expected that the proposed use would intensify overlooking, light pollution, vehicular noise disturbance, or amount to loss or privacy above reasonably expected activity attributed to the dwellinghouse. 6.2 Nonetheless, a partial increase in fence height to 1.8m for a total of 1m in length from the front elevation of No.11 is to be secured by planning condition. This will help mitigate potential overlooking and disturbance at the front habitable room window of No.12 which may arise from arriving and departing guests. 6.3 It is accepted that the proposed development will give rise to marginally more activity and, therefore, has the potential to give rise to a slightly elevated level of disturbance. However, the limited occupancy of two guests; the proximity and site management oversight of the host dwelling; the semi-private amenity area away from the boundary fence; and an increase in privacy screening between the site and the adjoining property will all serve to appropriately mitigate the potential disturbance, and safeguard residential privacy and amenity and the fear of antisocial behaviour. 6.4 Further privacy screening, such as planting to the front garden boundary, is not considered necessary in this case. It is noted however that planting remains an option for either occupants of No. 11 or No. 12 Etive Park beyond the planning application process. 7. Perceptions of safety & security 7.1 The cul-de-sac is a quiet and compact residential area and it is acknowledged that residents are likely to know and interact with their immediate neighbours. 7.2 A footpath between dwellings Nos.12a and 14 provides access to the woodland to the rear of the cul-de-sac. The footpath is not readily identifiable within the cul-de- sac, and it is unlikely to be a typical through-way taken by visitors to the area. However, owing to the proximity to the main road, nearby Hotel, and woodland walk(s), in addition to routine services and visitors to Etive Park, it is likely that there exists some interaction in public spaces with non-residents.
Page 24
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 7.3 Therefore, the presence of up to two unknown guests to the cul-de-sac at any one time as a result of this development is not considered to amount to an intensification likely to materially disturb the established residential character and perception of safety within the cul-de-sac. 7.4 The proposed development is considered to be designed to an appropriate standard to ensure compliance with the six qualities of successful places set out in NPF4 Policy 14 as follows: Healthy: being situated in a domestic garden with ease of access to adjacent woodland, shoreline and Core Path; Pleasant: being an attractively designed and finished development; Connected: situated a short walk to local bus provision, with cycling and walking opportunities within the local area and connection to nearby Oban; Distinctive: being of a simple design commensurate with domestic garden outbuildings; Sustainable: being designed using sustainable finishing materials and with minimal ground works; Adaptable: being of a design which is capable of adaption for alternative future uses. 7.5 With the recommended planning conditions, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 14 as underpinned by LDP2 Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking), Policy 08 (Sustainable Siting), Policy 09 (Sustainable Design), Policy 10 (Design – All Development), and Policy 11 (Design – Conversions and Change of Use). 7.6 NPF4 Policy 23 (Health and Safety) seeks to protect people and places from environmental harm, mitigate risks arising from safety hazards and encourage, promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing. 7.7 NPF4 Policy 23(e) states that development proposals that are likely to raise unacceptable noise issues will not be supported. 7.8 In this case, given the limited occupancy and on-site management by the host dwelling, it is not anticipated that the proposed use would have materially unacceptable adverse effects on the amenity of neighbouring residents and their perceptions of security, safety, and potential for antisocial behaviour. In turn, the proposal adheres to the requirements of NPF4 Policy 23 and LDP2 Policy 14 (Bad Neighbour Development). 7.9 NPF4 Policy 30 (Tourism) 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. 7.10 Policy 30 supports short-term let proposals, where they would not result in (i) an unacceptable impact on local amenity or character of an area, or (ii) loss of residential accommodation is not outweighed by local economic benefits. 7.11 Part (e)(i) of this policy states that development proposals for the reuse of existing buildings for short term holiday letting will not be supported where the proposal will result in an unacceptable impact on local amenity or the character of a neighbourhood or area.
Page 25
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 7.12 As outlined above, the potential for harm to residential amenity in respect to privacy, overlooking, and disturbance can be mitigated through the recommended planning conditions and direct management from the host dwelling. Although guests would have the opportunity to interact with existing residents on the public road, it is not considered that the addition of up to two guests would be materially detrimental to the living conditions and amenity of the other residents within Etive Park. In the event further applications for short-term-let accommodation were made in the immediate locale, an assessment of the culminative impacts on character and amenity would be required. 7.13 It is considered therefore that there is no conflict with the amenity related policies of the LDP or NPF4 Policy 30 Part (e) (i) and LDP2 Policy 23 (Tourist Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities). 8. Open Space Protection Area 8.1 Etive Park adjoins an Open Space Protection Area (Black Crofts) which stretches along the shoreline of North Connel, comprising woodland and green space between road and shore. Confined to the residential garden grounds of No. 11 Etive Park, this development would have no material impact upon the Open Space Designation, in accordance with LDP2 Policy 81 (Open Space Protection Area). 9. Conclusion 9.1 The key consideration in this application is whether the material change of use has an unacceptable impact on residential privacy and amenity, on road safety, and on security and the fear of antisocial behaviour. 9.2 A suitable condition to secure an increase in timber boarded fencing to the rear garden grounds and to 1 meter beyond the front elevation of the host dwelling will address overlooking and privacy concerns. 9.3 Given the limited occupancy and the direct oversight from the host dwelling it is not considered that this development would leave to disturbance beyond reasonable expectations of domestic garden use within a compact residential area. Therefore, with the application of appropriate planning conditions, the proposed development is considered compliant with the relevant LDP policies. 9.4 Should further applications be made for the siting of a further pod within the grounds of the host dwelling, and or similar proposals within the immediate residential area, due consideration should be given to the level of intensification and potential harm, taking into account the specific details and circumstances of the application and the cumulative effect(s) of such development.
Page 26
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 9.5 The proposed development has been assessed against the above potential constraints and designations and has been determined to raise no significant issues or concerns beyond that addressed in this report. It is therefore recommended that permission is granted subject to the appended conditions.