26 00161 PP Supplementary Report 3
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
26/00161/PP - Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Delegated or Committee 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 Development 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 _________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 3 1. INTRODUCTION This local application was initially heard at Planning, Protective Services and Licensing (PPSL) Committee on 20th May 2026. Members voted to defer determination until PPSL Committee scheduled for 17th June 2026 in order to review an Operational Management Plan to be submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant has since submitted an Operational Management Plan to be considered alongside the proposed development (see Supplementary Report 2). The purpose of this Supplementary Report is to bring Members’ attention to an Objection raised in response to this application by Cllr Julie McKenzie; And to a further representation made in response to the submitted Operational Management Plan by Neighbour Mr Ali Anderson. 2. ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING MATERIAL – OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT PLAN. The objections can be read in full on the Public File on the Council’s website: 26/00161/PP | Change of use of existing private/family use pod to short term letting accommodation | 11 Etive Park North Connel Argyll And Bute PA37 1SJ Summaries of the objections raised are as follows: Objection: Cllr Julie McKenzie, received 15.06.2026 • Cllr McKenzie raises concerns on behalf of her Constituents regarding privacy, overlooking, visitor turnover, additional vehicular movements,
Page 2
amenity, and residential character. Members are asked to consider the culminative impact introducing visitor accommodation into what is a small and quiet residential cul-de-sac. • In response to the Operational Management Plan, Cllr McKenzie writes that the acceptability of the proposal appears to rely heavily upon management arrangements, occupancy restrictions, and behavioural controls. Members are urged to consider the extent to which they can be realistically monitored and enforced over the lifetime of the development. • Cllr McKenzie advocates for a site visit prior to determination so that Members can benefit from seeing the relations between the proposed development and neighbouring properties, which she feels are not fully conveyed in the plans and photographs. • Cllr McKenzie states that, having visited the site, they are not convinced that the proposed change of use is appropriate for this location and that the fundamental issue, namely, whether a commercial short-term-let use is compatible with such a close residential relationship, remains. Objection: Mr Ali Anderson, 12 Etive Park, received 15.06.2026 A summary of the objection is as follows: • The OMP does not provide any meaningful new information capable of overcoming the concerns previously raised by neighbouring residents, nor does it address the underlying planning harm identified throughout this application. • The key planning issue remains unchanged: Whether a commercial short- term-let use can operate within this constrained residential garden setting, immediately adjacent to 12 Etive Park, without causing unacceptable harm to neighbouring residential amenity, privacy, character and enjoyment of property. • The OMP fails because it attempts to manage behaviour rather than address the suitability of the land use itself. • The OMP provides no mitigation whatsoever for privacy, overlooking, residential amenity or neighbourhood character. • From the perspective of neighbouring residents, guests remain transient strangers whose identities are unknown and who change regularly throughout the year. • The OMP limits occupation to two persons. However, the concern is not simply the number of occupants. The concern is repeated turnover. Two occupants changing every two nights will generate significantly more activity than a stable long-term residential relationship. The OMP does not address this issue. Nothing within the OMP prevents continuous occupation by successive guests throughout the year
Page 3
• The OMP states guests will be requested to check in by 9pm "where possible". This wording is vague and unenforceable. It is not a restriction. It does not prevent late arrivals; delayed travel; evening disturbance; vehicle movements, headlights and engine noise; noise associated with luggage and arrival. • The rules consist largely of couples only; no smoking in the pod; no parties; keep noise to a minimum after 9pm; no BBQs; be respectful. These are aspirations rather than planning controls. Terms such as "keep noise to a minimum" and "be respectful"; are subjective and incapable of objective enforcement. No measurable standards are provided. • While the OMP states that smoking is not permitted in the pod, it does not state whether smoking is permitted in the land surrounding the pod. Due to the close proximity of the access area and outdoor areas of the pod to neighbouring properties, and to woodland, this is an important safety consideration. • The OMP states that if complaints arise the owner will address them and may ask guests to leave. This highlights a fundamental weakness. The system only operates after harm has already occurred. The burden is placed on neighbouring residents to experience the disturbance; report the disturbance; await intervention. This is reactive rather than preventative. • Furthermore, no detail is provided regarding response times; complaint recording; escalation procedures; independent verification. • The submitted Operational Management Plan fails to demonstrate that the proposed short-term-let use can operate without causing unacceptable impacts upon neighbouring residential amenity, privacy and neighbourhood character. • The OMP appears to have been published only shortly before the reconvened committee meeting and after the original period for representations had expired. I make no allegation of wrongdoing. However, given that the committee itself requested this document before reaching a decision, principles of openness, transparency and procedural fairness suggest that affected neighbours should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to comment upon the contents of the OMP before any final determination is made. The objection also raises conflict with NPF4 NPF4 Policy 16(g) (Quality Homes), NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place), NPF4 Policy 23 (Health and Safety), and Policies 30 (Tourism); and LDP2 Policies 05 (Design and Placemaking), LDP2 Policy 08 (Sustainable Siting). These concerns have been raised previously by the Objector and have been addressed in the Officer’s report, and within Supplementary Report 1 (Further representation form Mr Anderson). Environmental Health Response to Operational Management Plan:
Page 4
Further consultation has been sought with Environmental Health to review the submitted Operational Management Plan. No objections and no amendments have been raised by the Environmental Health Officer. Officer Response: The submitted Operational Management Plan provides sufficient information to demonstrate how the proposed use of the pod as short-term-let accommodation will be managed. It is the view of the Officer that the OMP demonstrates an appropriate management of the proposed use in sufficient detail to discharge the proposed planning condition. The OMP is not intended to address all material planning concerns raised as part of this application. The material planning considerations raised (i.e residential amenity, privacy, security, road safety, siting and design) raised in these two further objections have previously been addressed by the officer in the main report. The request for a site visit by Members has been raised in previous representations by the objector. The Officer has completed two detailed site visits and- as stated in the Officer’s report- it is considered that Members have sufficient information before them to determine this application. In terms of procedural fairness, Mr Anderson has raised a further representation in response to the OMP and has thus not been prejudiced by any delay in uploading the OMP to the public file. No new material planning considerations have been made that have not already been addressed in the assessment of this application. The representation presents no new further information or material that may alter the Officer’s recommendation. The Officer’s recommendation to grant approval for the application as outlined in the Report of Handling remains. 1. RECOMMENDATION It is the Officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted as per the Report of Handling. ______________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Emma Spence Date: 16.06.2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth