Appendix 1 - Request for Review for Refusal of Planning Permission ref 26_00095_PP
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
Appendix 1: Request for Review for Refusal of Planning Permission ref: 26/00095/PP
Page 2
Appendix 1: Request for Review for Refusal of Planning Permission ref: 26/00095/PP Introduction: A planning application was submitted on the 15thJanuary 2026 by Wilson Designs on behalf of The Sonas Hotel Collection which was validated on the 21st of January 2026 ref: 26/00095/PP. The application was to seek permission for the sitting of 4no. accommodation pods auxiliary to the main hotel use for guests. The pods were located within the landscaped grounds of the Knipoch Hotel, by Oban, on an elevated site located east of the hotel. Following a lengthy planning process, the application was refused under delegated powers on the 27th of May 2026 (Appendix 3) for the following reasons: The proposed development gives rise to inappropriate siting (overlooking and overbearing), noise, disturbance, and lighting pollution to be suƯiciently detrimental to local residential amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to NPF4 Policies 09 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings), 29(b) (Rural Development), and 14 (Design, Quality and Place); and LDP2 Policies 05 (Design and Placemaking), 14 (Bad Neighbour Development), and Policy 23 (Tourist Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities) which, collectively, seek to ensure that developments are compatible with surrounding land uses, are of an appropriate scale, sustainable design and finishes, and ensure that no adverse visual or amenity impacts arise. The prominent siting and design of the proposed development, exacerbated by the elevated site, would be detrimental to the LLA designation. The proposal therefore is contrary to NPF4 Policy 04 (d) (Natural Places); and LDP2 Policies 02 (Outwith Settlement Areas), 04(i) (Sustainable Development), 08 (Sustainable Siting), and Policy 71 (Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas). There are no other material considerations of suƯicient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to grant planning permission in this instance as a departure to the Development Plan having regard to s25 of the Act During the planning process and within the delegated report of handling, the reasons for the refusal of this application are based on: concerns relating to potential flood risk to the site through consultation with the flood risk assessors - JBA consulting privacy and overlooking issues to adjoining properties We will discuss both of these matters separately in detail within our document. Planning process and timeline of events: A summary of the entire planning process is noted as follows: Application Received Date: Fri 16 Jan 2026 Application Validated Date: Tue 20 Jan 2026 Latest Neighbour Consultation Date: Wed 27 May 2026 Neighbour Consultation Expiry Date: Thu 12 Feb 2026 Standard Consultation Date: Tue 27 Jan 2026 Standard Consultation Expiry Date: Wed 11 Feb 2026 Internal Target Date: Wed 18 Mar 2026 Agreed Expiry Date: Fri 01 May 2026
Page 3
Decision Made Date: Wed 27 May 2026 Decision Issued Date: Wed 27 May 2026 Determination Deadline: Thu 19 Mar 2026 Following the validation of the planning application on the 20th of January 2026, Fiona Scott was initially assigned as the planning oƯicer for the application but this subsequently changed to Emma Spence who dealt with the majority of application until a refusal was issued on the 27th of May 2026. As part of the planning process, statutory consultations were sent out to the following consultees: A&BC Roads Consulted: 21/01/2026 – Response: 22/01/2026 No concerns raised and no suggested planning conditions required Environmental Health OƯicer Consulted: 21/01/2026 Response: 17/02/2026 No objections subject to condition. A Planning Condition is recommended regarding external lighting in order to protect the amenity of the area in terms of light nuisance Scottish Water Consulted: 21/01/2026 Response: 26/01/2026 No objection. Notes to Applicant re waste water and surface water Flood Risk Assessors (JBA) Consulted: 27/01/2026 - Response: 17/02/2026 & 16/04/2026 Defer decision and requirement for flood risk assessment (appendix 4) Following all of the responses received back from the above listed consultees, a recommendation to defer any decision was requested from the flood risk assessors JBA Consulting due to potential flood risk on the site which is noted in further detail below. Flood Risk: As noted above, an initial consultation was sent to JBA consultants on the 27th of January and their first response was received on the 17th of February requesting that the planning decision be deferred for the following reason: It is recommended that a decision be deferred on this application until the following be supplied: Flood Risk Assessment that assesses, on a site-specific basis, the fluvial flood risk to the site from the small unnamed watercourse to the east of the site and surface water flood risk to the site from the slopes to the south. The FRA should define the 200-year with climate change flood extent from these sources to determine the area of the site outside of these extents which may be developable, and provide appropriate Finished Floor Levels for the site. The FRA should assess the impact of the culvert under the A816 and if modelling is undertaken this culvert should be included within the model extent. Upon receipt of this recommendation, the client engaged a specialist consultant - Kaya Consulting and from their initial review of the information available and upon checking the SEPA flood and OS maps for the site, Kaya Consulting concluded that the current information was not correct or accurate. There was no LiDAR data for the site or surroundings, so the maps are
Page 4
based on very crude topography and could be why the flow pathways look odd and don’t follow the watercourses identified within JBA consultants recommendations. Kaya Consulting were then instructed to carry out a site visit and prepared a report based on their findings (appendix 5) which in summary, they concluded that: the site is not predicted to experience direct inundation during the 1 in 200 year plus climate change event from the Unnamed Watercourse East, the development will not increase flood risk elsewhere, and the proposals are consistent with the flood risk policy framework set out in National Planning Framework 4. The development is therefore considered acceptable in flood risk terms. These findings and report were then sent via email to the planning oƯicer on the 27th of March and asked if this could be sent onto JBA Consulting for their comment/ review. On the 10th of April, we received an email from the planning oƯicer with an update on our application which stated that a response was still awaited from JBA Consulting following the report prepared by Kaya Consulting. The planning oƯicer also advised they would contact JBA consultants for a response having acknowledged we were now clearly passed the initial planning determination date of the 19th of March. However, we were advised they still envisaged to have a final decision issued by the end of April. On the 15th of April, a request for time extension was received asking for another two weeks to allow additional time for JBA Consulting to respond to our Flood Risk Assessment. We agreed to this and the new determination date for the application was the 1st of May. On the 21st of April, we were contacted by the planning oƯicer to advise that a response had been received from JBA Consulting which concluded upon review of the submitted flood risk assessment prepared by Kaya Consulting, suƯicient evidence had been provided to demonstrate that the site is not at significant risk of flooding during the 1 in 200 year plus climate change event and the development is acceptable in flood risk terms thus removing their holding objection. At the same time, we were advised that a further representation had been received from a potential purchaser of an adjoining property - Dalmore House suggesting that the existing culvert(s) and their capacity to take additional flow had not been considered within Kaya Consulting’s report and would potentially cause surface water flooding to this property (Appendix 6). It should be noted that the neighbour consultation expiry date was set at the 12th of February and we expressed our concerns that this further representation was received 9 weeks after the consultation expiry date and 4 weeks after the original determination deadline, as such we felt it was not reasonable to keep extending the period of the application as the consultation period has clearly passed. Taking into account there may currently exist a possibility of flooding to Dalmore house as noted within the neighbour consultation appendix 6, which could result in flooding to their garden if the existing culvert running through the centre of the property is not properly maintained by the owner. However, in order to try and assist with the progress of the planning application, we contacted Kaya Consulting for their comment on the further representation received. Upon review, Kaya Consulting in principle did not agree with the assessment that the development itself or the installation of an interception ditch would increase flood risk at the neighbouring Dalmore House. This is based on their site visit which suggests that any surface water that the interception ditch is proposing to capture would make its way to Dalmore House regardless, considering the local topography. The FRA does not directly consider the capacity of the culverts/pipes within the Dalmore House property boundary, as these do not have a tangible impact on flood risk to the site.
Page 5
The formation of the hardstanding and associated landscaping has already reduced flood risk to the properties north of the site via the raised ground present along the north site boundary truncating the very small upslope catchment and routing flows down the track, west to the hotel car park area. These comments from Kaya Consulting were reverted back to the planning oƯicer on the 30th of April of which no further dialog was received. Landscape Proposals: (privacy and overlooking issues to adjoining properties) Following an initial site visit by the planning oƯicer on the 5th of February, a detailed landscape plan was requested for the site which took onboard their comments and observations on the current site conditions. This included the existing access track leading up from the hotel car park to the application site and also the current stepped access from the upper floor hotel accommodation. A landscape scheme was prepared and issued on the 20th of April to address all of the comments received from the planning oƯicer and included the following items: Scheme of boundary treatments including timber fencing (to hillside behind pods) and additional tree planting between site and house below Access paths leading from hotel upper entrance to pods Central paved seating area Low-level lighting polls Existing access track omitted and new shrub planting proposed Drainage pipe positioned to base of hill to capture water run-oƯ (as proposed within flood assessment report) Grass shown to flat area where pods are located to provide soft landscaping Following the submission of the landscape proposal plan, the planning oƯicer had concerns over the use of the access track and whether this could be omitted entirely. Having discussed this further with the client, they were happy for this to be removed and landscaped accordingly advising that all access to the pods would be through the upper floor access route from the hotel. The landscape drawing was updated and re-submitted back to the planning authority on the 30th of April. (Appendix 8) Upon receipt of this drawing, the planning oƯicer informed us that another representation from a neighbouring property ‘Cla Mara ‘ had been received which now raised some concerns over the position of Pod A and potential privacy issues this would cause to their house. (appendix 7) FYI, this is almost 3 months after the neighbour consultation period had expired. We submitted a further response to the planning authority regarding the position of Pod A in relation to the position of the house ‘Cla Mara ‘ sited on the lower ground outlining how the position of this pod would have little or no impact on this house in terms of privacy or light. There is an existing bank directly behind the house, a cluster of trees and the existing ground vegetation which are all placed between the house and our site. The position of Pod A is elevated approximately 4-5m above the house and approximately 15m away and we therefore felt there would be minimal impact on this existing house. We then received a further request for an additional two-week time extension to allow the privacy concerns raised by the neighbouring property to be reviewed. As this was now the second request for an additional time extension we felt it was not reasonable to keep extending the period of the application based on representations from neighbours which had been received well after the consultation expiry date. We then emailed the planning oƯicer and the corresponding email address contained within the ‘request for time extension’ letter to advise we would not agree to the extension of time being requested. On the 1st of May, we received an acknowledgement email confirming this would be passed to the relevant case oƯicer who will be in touch in due course.
Page 6
No further correspondence was received from the planning oƯicer so we sent an email on the 13th of May requesting an update on the application and also noted that this was now a further two weeks on from when the request for additional time that was not agreed to. A response was received advising that their report was being prepared and we should expect to receive the determination next week. We then requested clarification that all of their concerns raised regarding the landscape proposals and privacy issues had now been resolved and would ultimately allow for a positive planning determination to be issued - namely the further representation regarding the perceived privacy and amenity conflict with the adjoining property ‘Cla Mara ‘ and position of Pod A and also the further representation made regarding surface water to Dalmore House. No further response was received from the planning oƯicer. On the 21st of May and following a telephone conversation with the planning oƯicer, it was noted that they still had concerns over the privacy issues raised with ‘Cla Mara ‘ and position of Pod A. They asked if we could look to re-position Pod A further back and away from ‘Cla Mara ‘ which would help with the privacy issue concerns raised. We reviewed this and agreed that the position of Pod A could be relocated further back (2.5m) and we would also rotate the pod around 10deg inwards from its current position. This then puts any direct sightline from this pod positioned between the two house and should hopefully address any privacy concerns from the neighbouring property below (Appendix 9). The planning oƯicer advised that they would attend site for a second visit on the 22nd of May to review the potential privacy impact on the adjoining neighbour whilst reviewing our landscape proposals and following this, have a discussion with the planning team leader and then discuss the matter with us further early the following week. No further correspondence was received and we then were issued a planning determination for refusal on the 27th of May 2026. Planning Policy Assessment: The proposal falls to be determined in accordance with section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, namely that the decision should be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The relevant development plan comprises National Planning Framework 4 and the adopted Local Development Plan 2, and the proposal should be assessed against those policies as a whole rather than by isolating individual impacts from the wider planning balance. In principle, the development is supported by NPF4 Policy 29(b) and LDP2 Policy 23 because it provides small-scale visitor accommodation directly related to an established rural hotel business, within its existing landscaped grounds, and without introducing an unrelated or separate commercial use into the countryside. The siting, scale and design of the pods are capable of complying with NPF4 Policy 14 and LDP2 Policies 05 and 08, as the proposal is modest in extent and supported by a landscape strategy that removes the access track, introduces new planting and limits external lighting. The amenity matters raised under LDP2 Policy 14 do not justify refusal, as the applicant proposed a revised layout relocating and rotating Pod A to reduce direct sightlines, with existing topography, vegetation and proposed boundary planting providing further mitigation against overlooking, overbearing eƯect, noise and lighting impact. In landscape terms, the proposal is not contrary to NPF4 Policy 4(d) or LDP2 Policy 71, as any eƯect on the Local Landscape Area would be limited, localised and capable of mitigation
Page 7
through siting, removal of hardstanding, planting, boundary treatment and control of materials and lighting by condition. Overall, the proposal complies with the development plan when NPF4 and LDP2 are read as a whole, and any residual matters relating to landscaping, external lighting, drainage, materials or final siting details can be addressed by condition; accordingly, the Local Review Body is respectfully requested to undertake a site visit if considered necessary, allow the review and grant planning permission. Summary: The proposal seeks planning permission for four accommodation pods within the landscaped grounds of the Knipoch Hotel, ancillary to the established hotel use and intended to provide modest additional visitor accommodation within an existing tourism site. The review should proceed on the basis that the principal technical matters raised during the assessment were capable of resolution within the application process and did not justify refusal when assessed against the development plan as a whole. In flood risk terms, the applicant appointed Kaya Consulting to prepare a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment in response to the initial deferral request from JBA Consulting, and JBA subsequently accepted that suƯicient evidence had been provided to demonstrate that the site is not at significant risk of flooding during the 1 in 200 year plus climate change event (appendix 10). The residual neighbour representation relating to Dalmore House did not identify a direct flood risk arising from the proposed development, and Kaya Consulting advised that the proposal would not increase flood risk elsewhere or materially alter existing surface-water flow paths aƯecting that property. With regard to residential amenity, the applicant responded constructively to the concerns raised in respect of Cla Mara by preparing a revised layout that relocated Pod A further from the neighbouring property and rotated it inwards to reduce any direct sightline, in addition to relying on existing landform, vegetation and proposed boundary planting to provide further separation and screening. The submitted and revised landscape proposals also removed the existing access track, introduced new shrub and tree planting, incorporated boundary treatments and low-level lighting, and provided a coherent mitigation package capable of being secured by planning condition if the Local Review Body considers any further control necessary. The consultee position is material: Roads raised no concerns, Environmental Health raised no objection subject to a lighting condition, Scottish Water raised no objection, and the initial flood risk holding position was resolved following submission of the specialist assessment. The application should not therefore have been refused on the basis of unresolved technical objection, and the remaining planning matters could reasonably have been addressed through minor design amendment and appropriately worded planning conditions. The applicant engaged positively throughout the process and provided additional information in response to each substantive issue raised; however, the refusal was issued before the applicant was given a clear opportunity to agree an acceptable solution, including the potential omission or further adjustment of Pod A if that was considered necessary to overcome amenity concerns.
Page 8
For these reasons, the Local Review Body is respectfully requested to carryout a site visit to view the existing site topography, proximity to adjacent properties and ask any further questions you may have regarding this Notice for Review and grant planning permission, subject to any conditions considered necessary in relation to landscaping, external lighting, drainage and final siting details.