Public reports pack
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
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 605522 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 10 June 2026 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 17 JUNE 2026 at 10:30 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (IF ANY) 3. MINUTES (a) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 20 May 2026 at 11.30 am (Pages 3 - 4) (b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 20 May 2026 at 2.00 pm (Pages 5 - 6) (c) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 20 May 2026 at 2.30 pm (Pages 7 - 18) (d) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 May 2026 at 10.00 am (Pages 19 - 22) (e) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 May 2026 at 2.00 pm (Pages 23 - 26) 4. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW (Pages 27 - 38) Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support 5. MR BRIAN MANGAN: CHANGE OF USE OF EXISTING PRIVATE/FAMILY USE POD TO SHORT TERM LETTING ACCOMMODATION: 11 ETIVE PARK, NORTH CONNEL (REF: 26/00161/PP) (Pages 39 - 82) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
6. WEST KINTYRE COMMUNITY COUNCIL: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING PUBLIC TOILETS AND ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT PUBLIC TOILETS: PUBLIC TOILETS, TAYINLOAN (REF: 26/00436/PP) (Pages 83 - 100) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 7. HELENSBURGH GOLF CLUB, CALA MANAGEMENT LTD & DUNBRITTTON HOUSING: PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING HOUSING ASSOCIATION); DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING AND RELOCATION OF A NEW CLUBHOUSE WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND FACILITIES; A REVISION OF NEW AND RETAINED GOLF HOLES PROVIDING A REFRESHED 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE AND BIODIVERSITY ENHANCEMENT AND MANAGEMENT: HELENSBURGH GOLF COURSE, 25 EAST ABERCROMBY STREET, HELENSBURGH (REF: 26/00856/PAN) (Pages 101 - 106) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 8. PROGRAMME OF PROPOSED PLANNING TRAINING FOR MEMBERS (Pages 107 - 108) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth E1 9. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER (Pages 109 - 122) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth The Committee will be asked to pass a resolution in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public for items of business with an “E” on the grounds that it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in the appropriate paragraph of Part I of Schedule 7a to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The appropriate paragraph is:- E1 Paragraph 13 Information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the authority proposes- (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment. Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green (Vice-Chair) Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Hazel MacInnes Tel. No. 01546 604269
Page 3
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 20 MAY 2026 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager Peter Bain, Development Manager Kirsty Sweeney, Area Team Leader – Bute, Cowal, Helensburgh and Lomond Tim Williams, Area Team Leader – Oban, Lorn and the Isles Francis Newton, Senior Planning Officer Emma Spence, Planning Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gordon Blair and Audrey Forrest. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. MINUTES a) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 April 2026 at 10.30 am was approved as a correct record. b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 April 2026 at 2.30 pm was approved as a correct record. c) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 April 2026 at 3.30 pm was approved as a correct record. 4. MR BRIAN MANGAN: CHANGE OF USE OF EXISTING PRIVATE/FAMILY USE POD TO SHORT TERM LETTING ACCOMMODATION: 11 ETIVE PARK, NORTH CONNEL (REF: 26/00161/PP) The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report and to supplementary report number 1. This application seeks planning permission for a change of use of an existing pod from ancillary accommodation to short-term let accommodation. The pod was erected in 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. Eleven objections have been received broadly on the grounds of residential amenity, siting and design and road safety. It is considered that the development would not lead to unacceptable harm to residential character and amenity that would warrant refusal of planning permission in this case. Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
It was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons appended to the report. Motion To agree to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report. Moved by Councillor Liz McCabe, seconded by Councillor Graham Hardie. Amendment To continue consideration of this application until the Operational Management Plan is submitted for consideration by the Members of the PPSL Committee. Moved by Councillor Dougie Philand, seconded by Councillor Andrew Kain Motion Amendment Councillor Hardie Councillor Armour Councillor Kennedy Councillor Brown Councillor McCabe Councillor Green Councillor Wallace Councillor A Hampsey Councillor D Hampsey Councillor Howard Councillor Kain Councillor Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Philand The Amendment was carried by 9 votes to 4 and the Committee resolved accordingly. Decision The Committee agreed to continue consideration of this application until the Operational Management Plan was submitted for consideration by the Members of the PPSL Committee. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 29 April 2026 and supplementary report number 1 dated 12 May 2026, submitted) 5. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE - FQ4 2025/26 A report providing an update on the performance of the Development Management Service for the reporting period FQ4 2025/26 was considered. Decision The Committee reviewed and agreed the content of the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 28 April 2026, submitted) Page 4
Page 5
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE (CIVIC HEARINGS)held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 20 MAY 2026 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager David Walker, Solicitor Cavin McKay, Applicant Thomas McKay, Applicant’s father 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gordon Blair, Audrey Forrest and Paul Kennedy. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF TAXI CAR LICENCE (C MCKAY, OBAN) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of audio call and Mr Cavin McKay joined the meeting by telephone along with his father Mr Thomas McKay. The Chair then outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application. APPLICANT Mr McKay advised that both his parents were taxi drivers and that his father had ran a local taxi company in Oban for 20 years. He said that he hoped to work for the family business. He said that he currently worked part-time in Costa and that he would like to have more independence and a better source of income. He added that he had his own vehicle and that he had invested quite a bit of money to be a taxi driver. He said he would like to help his family and also work for himself. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mr McKay’s father that there was a need for more taxi drivers in the town. Mr Thomas McKay said that his taxi company in Page 5 Agenda Item 3b
Page 6
Oban had been struggling over the past few months. He advised that they had 2 cars out every day and that it would be great to have another car to join the company and assist with demand. He said that if they got a call for a taxi and they could not provide a taxi within 10 minutes the customer would go elsewhere. He said they were losing a lot of customers due to not having another car. He advised that his son would be an asset to the company. Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Mr McKay that he would like to join the family business and also provide an income for himself out with the family business. He advised that he planned to work for himself from the taxi rank and assist the family business through the telephone calls they received. He confirmed that the family business only operated through telephone calls. Councillor Philand sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor, Mr Walker, that there were currently 51 taxis in the Oban, Lorn and the Isles area. He advised that there were 52 taxis when the LVSA survey was carried out in 2019 and if the Committee granted this application today the total number of taxis in the area would be 52. SUMMING UP Applicant Mr McKay advised that this was a career that he would like to go into and said that having his own taxi car licence, especially with the summer coming up, when it would be busy, would be beneficial to the family business. He said it would also improve his finances by having a better job than he was currently in. He said he was brought up with taxis and had a lot of experience of how the business operated Mr McKay confirmed that he had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Amanda Hampsey advised that based on the submission from Mr McKay, she thought he sounded like a hardworking and motivated person looking to better his life. She thought that he would be well suited to going into a career as a taxi driver and that he would be an asset to Oban. She confirmed that she would be happy to approve the application. Councillor Brown said she had no issues with this application and that she would be happy to approve the licence. The Chair sought and received confirmation from all the Members of the Committee that they would like to grant this application. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Mr Cavin McKay and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 6
Page 7
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE (CIVIC HEARINGS)held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 20 MAY 2026 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton Governance Manager Susan Mair, Legal Manager Janeanne Gilchrist, Applicant Neil MacKay, Applicant Daniel Gillespie, Applicant Stewart MacLenna, Applicant Iain MacKinnon, Applicant Superintendent Mark Stirling, Police Scotland 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gordon Blair, Audrey Forrest and Paul Kennedy. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Fiona Howard declared a non-financial interest in this application as her daughter would be providing catering at the festival for the backstage and entertainment staff. She left the meeting at this point and took no part in the consideration of this application. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 SECTION 41: APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT LICENCE (TIREE MUSIC FESTIVAL CIC) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of video call and Janeanne Gilchrist joined the meeting by MS Teams along with Daniel Gillespie, Stewart MacLennan, Neil MacKay and Iain MacKinnon. Police Scotland also opted to proceed by way of video call and Superintendent Mark Stirling joined the meeting by MS Teams. The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of their application. APPLICANT Ms Gilchrist advised that the Tiree Music Festival (TMF) was a long-established community event and that extensive event management experience existed within the Page 7 Agenda Item 3c
Page 8
organising team. She advised that robust planning, safety systems, and multi-agency working was in place. She pointed out that the TMF had operated successfully for many years with strong community support. She advised that the organisers considered the event could operate safely without a dedicated on-site Police presence, as it would be supported by security and safety planning in line with the Purple Guide. She acknowledged the risk assessment carried out by Police Scotland and said that many mitigations against potential risk could be delivered by the TMF team. She said that TMF were not opposed to Police Scotland carrying out their normal duties on the island of Tiree alongside the event, but they could not see why an additional 6 Police Officers were necessary and that they did not accept that these additional Officers should be privately funded from the TMF event. QUESTIONS FROM POLICE SCOTLAND Superintendent Mark Stirling confirmed he had no questions. POLICE SCOTLAND Superintendent Stirling said that he was the Senior Officer for Operations and was responsible for safe policing across events, public safety and mitigation of risks. He advised that Police Scotland required a dedicated police presence at this festival. He advised that he was confused and disappointed that this matter had not been able to be resolved before coming before the Committee today. He noted that the TMF Committee no longer believed there was a requirement for a dedicated Police presence at the event, which had been provided in the past. Key points made included: • The island normally had a very limited police presence with only one Police Officer and not 24/7. • The TMF was a good festival but brought with it an enhanced risk. • The event significantly would increase the population on Tiree (approx. 2,500 attendees). The campsite area would require the same level of policing as a town. • Past incidents, including serious assaults, domestic abuse and evacuation due to weather, demonstrated risk. • Without dedicated officers, Police Scotland could not meet their obligations under the Civil Contingencies Act • Emergency response from the mainland would be delayed and unreliable. • Counter-terrorism and public safety risks, while low in likelihood, must still be planned for. • Private security staff did not have police powers (e.g. arrest, detention, use of force). • Police required a minimum of 6 dedicated officers (including supervision) for the event to be considered safe. He advised that from his experience he was not content that this event would be safe without a dedicated Police presence and if no agreement was reached in this respect, Police Scotland requested refusal of the application. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT Various questions were asked by Ms Gilchrist, Mr MacKay and Mr Gillespie and the following key issues were raised: Page 8
Page 9
• Dispute over necessity of dedicated police presence. • Questioning increased policing costs in recent years. • Concerns about fairness compared to other island events. • Reference to the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 and potential geographic disadvantage. • Challenge to aspects of Police Scotland’s account of the 2023 evacuation. Superintendent Stirling responded by advising that dedicated Officers were required following the risk assessment carried out. He said that the charging policy for events was standard across Scotland. He advised that costs should not fall on the public purse for a commercial/community event. He said that geography, in this case, an island location, significantly affected the response capability of Police Scotland. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Green referred to the number of Police Officers within “L” Division and population figures for West Dunbartonshire and Argyll and Bute. Looking at the raw data from Police Scotland figures he sought and received agreement from Superintendent Stirling that 2,500 would require around 8 Officers for that size of settlement. Superintendent Stirling confirmed that the bare minimum required for the event would be 6 Police Officers Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Superintendent Stirling that in exceptional circumstances Police leave could be cancelled or refused. Councillor Kain sought and received agreement from Ms Gilchrist that it was the case that there was a certain degree of self-policing within an island community and that during events the community policed itself. Ms Gilchrist also agreed that there were a higher proportion of retired Police Officers living on islands and that proportionally there were fewer incidents on islands. Councillor Kain suggested that the numbers required by Police Scotland were more than excessive due to the history of the festival and the island. Superintendent Stirling advised that it came down to public safety. Councillor Kain commented that these numbers seemed excessive and suggested that they would be more applicable for an urban community or a gang fight. Councillor Amanda Hampsey referred to the 2023 evacuation and asked Superintendent Stirling if this had been led by Police Scotland. Superintendent Stirling advised that he did not have the debrief to hand. He advised that there would have been a role for the Police in terms of co-ordination with other emergency services and overseeing. He said he was not being dismissive of the work carried out by the TMF Team. He advised that they did an excellent job with Police Scotland working in the background as co-ordinators. Councillor Amanda Hampsey advised of being at that event in 2023 and gave an overview of all the work carried out by the TMF Team and the local community to carry out the safe evacuation of the festival. She said she was not aware of what the Police Officers were doing at this time. Superintendent Stirling replied that he was not surprised that the Officers were not visible as there were only 5 dispersed across the area but work was going on in the background. Page 9
Page 10
Councillor Amanda Hampsey asked Superintendent Stirling how often there was no Police Officer on the island. He explained that although there was a permanent Police Officer on the island, she would have periods of leave. Councillor Hampsey referred to during the year when Tiree was without a Police Officer and asked if this could be considered in terms of a reduction at the festival. She asked if there was a distinction between the mainland and an island in terms of the availability of public policing. Superintendent Stirling referred to the geographical distance and said that Police Scotland had only a finite number of resources. For business as usual they looked at demand and crime levels. For Tiree business as usual was one Officer on the island. He advised that for Police Scotland to have the capacity to carry out all the necessary functions at TMF they would need to put in more Officers. He said he fully understood in terms of the geographical disadvantage of that. He referred to other events and said that the only way to provide resources for these was to have a financial agreement with the organiser of such events. He said there was now standard costing across Scotland which has led to a bigger increase in costs this year. Councillor Green referred to mention of the Islands Act and asked the Council’s Legal Manager, Ms Mair, if this was something that the Committee should be considering when coming to a decision. Ms Mair said it was not a specific consideration in terms of the report that was prepared. To be fair, she advised that she’d need to look at the detail of the Act before giving advice to Members. She noted that the Police have said that the charging was consistent across Scotland but whether additional resource requirements for an island come within the Act, she would need to check before giving advice. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle referred to security at the event and Police Scotland advising of the limitation of the powers of the private security that would be provided by the TMF organisers. She said it was her understanding that in Scotland there was the provision for a member of the public to carry out a citizen’s arrest until the Police were available to deal with the situation. She sought comment from Superintendent Stirling on that. Superintendent Stirling advised that in terms of a citizen’s arrest the security guards would have limited powers. If the event went ahead without the Police being present, the security guards would not have protection vests, batons, handcuffs or other personal protective equipment to deal with someone being violent. They would not be able to detain a person for any length of time, before breaching human rights laws which could leave the guards and the event open to litigation. He acknowledged that the security guards did a fantastic job, but they did not have the power to detain or arrest someone. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle sought and received confirmation from Ms Gilchrist that in terms of the security they would have in place they would be confident of undertaking any action within their own space should it be required before the Police arrived. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle referred to condition 5 (2) detailed within the report by the Head of Legal and Regulatory Services and sought clarity from Ms Mair on the following statement - “that there is, at the option of Police Scotland, a dedicated police presence of up to 6 Police Officers deployed on the island for the duration of the event”. She said this seemed to suggest it would be up to Police Scotland whether they put Police on the island or not and it did not suggest that the festival would be responsible for payment of these Officers. Ms Mair said the position about charging was a matter for Police Scotland and as Superintendent Stirling had stated, it was the policy of Police Scotland to charge for providing Police resources and that the charging of that was set by Police Scotland and not this Committee as the Council did not have control over that. The reference in the Page 10
Page 11
report to 6 Police Officers was included as Police Scotland had stated they would require 6 Police Officers. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle asked if the Committee accepted condition 5(2), were they effectively forcing the charging regime onto the festival. Ms Mair said that the Committee could take that view. She said the issue of charging was subject to discussion outside of the Committee and it had been stated that the charging issue could be subject to further discussion between the organiser and the Police. She advised that the reason this application had come to the Committee was due to the letter of objection from Police Scotland. She confirmed that the issue of charging was out with the Committee. She advised that if the Committee agreed that a Police presence was necessary this could mean there would be a charge. Superintendent Stirling acknowledged that the financial part was not part of the consideration. He advised that following on from today’s meeting they would continue to work with the Organisers to see what could be done. With reference to the question about whether there could be a reduction in the charge due to the Police Officer usually on the island not being there for normal policing, he advised that they could look at this further. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle sought and received confirmation from Ms Mair that the Committee were required to decide whether a Police presence was required. Councillor Armour said he struggled to understand why Police Scotland had allowed leave for the local Police Officer at this time. He commented that this festival happened at this time every year and questioned why they could not have made sure this week was blanked off preventing leave at that time. Superintendent Stirling said there were reasons for granting the Officer’s leave which he would not go into at this meeting. He said it was not ideal, but they had to look after the health and wellbeing of their Officers and that it was not unusual to go down to zero and that it was unfortunate that it would clash with this festival. Councillor Armour commented that if an Officer took leave there needed to be someone else to cover while they were off. He asked if this event was on the mainland, for example, Southend or Bridge of Orchy, would there still be a requirement for 6 Officers to Police these events. Superintendent Stirling advised that the number of Officers required was based on a risk assessment and the decision made would be specific to each event. In terms of civil contingencies, the Police were more able on the mainland to respond to incidents and were more able to move Officers around the country. Councillor Armour referred to the Islands Act and said that Tiree were being discriminated against in this respect. Councillor Philand referred to the charging Policy and comment made that another island had not been charged and said it seemed strange that one festival was being penalised, and one was not when they were both happening on islands. Superintendent Stirling agreed that it was strange. He advised that a risk assessment was carried out to assess whether a Police presence was required and if it was deemed that they were required then there would be a charge. Councillor Philand asked, if the decision was taken that no Police presence was required, and then an incident happened, who would carry the can for that and would it be the Council. Ms Mair said that was a difficult question. She said it would depend on the nature of what happened or what took place. She advised if it was a criminal act, Page 11
Page 12
potentially, Police Scotland have said that if they don’t have a presence then they could not take responsibility for what might happen. She advised that they have outlined the role and drawn up a very detailed procedure that would be followed as part of the organisation of this event. A Safety Advisory Committee (SAC) was a Group led by the Council and Chaired by an Environmental Health Officer and had partners on this including representatives from TMF and the Police and this Group looked at the detailed procedure for evacuation and a whole range of things. She said it would be difficult to say who would take responsibility before the aftermath. She pointed out that the local authority had a responsibility as in potentially granting the licence they had to be satisfied that they had considered all relevant factors. She said again that it would be difficult to say who would ultimately be responsible. Councillor Philand asked the Applicant if something were to happen, did they have cover in case of any litigation against them. Ms Gilchrist advised that they had many ways of mitigating scenarios that might happen. She also advised of having insurance in place for anything untoward that could happen, for example, if they needed to cancel prior to the event due to inclement weather. She said that they had documents drawn up that were taken by the teams if a full evacuation was required. She said there were robust mechanisms and insurance in place along with highly professional members within the security team. Councillor Amanda Hampsey stated that, when considering events on the mainland compared to Tiree, mainland festivals would benefit from existing police infrastructure and resources. These would include readily available Officers, custody suites, backup units, ambulance services, and night-time policing support. She expressed concern that these levels of resources were not ordinarily available on Tiree. As a result, the proposed approach effectively created a geographical penalty for island communities, whereby additional policing requirements had to be specifically arranged and funded, whereas on the mainland these would typically be covered by core policing provision and funded from the public purse. She highlighted that this disparity raised concerns about fairness and questioned at what point such geographic disadvantages should be addressed. She suggested that the Committee should consider ways to mitigate disproportionate costs placed on island events, rather than passing these costs directly onto the Tiree Music Festival. She further commented that there was a need to clearly distinguish between core policing responsibilities and additional services. In her view, the festival’s own professional security arrangements already mitigated many potential risks. She concluded by stating that it was difficult to justify a situation where policing support may effectively be free at mainland events, but charged for on Tiree, simply due to resource limitations, and that this raised issues of equity for island communities. She sought comment from Superintendent Stirling. Superintendent Stirling acknowledged and sympathised with the concerns raised regarding geography and costs. However, he advised that the decision to hold the event on Tiree, where there was ordinarily only one Officer available, necessitated the deployment of additional Police resources to the island to ensure safety. He explained that events on the mainland did not typically receive free policing resources unless there was a specific requirement; however, the key difference was that mainland locations had a much greater capacity to respond quickly to incidents under the Civic Contingencies framework. This level of response capability was not available on island locations such as Tiree. Page 12
Page 13
While he expressed understanding of the geographical challenges and associated costs, he noted that there was limited flexibility in how Police Scotland could address these issues. He emphasised that if the event was to proceed safely, a dedicated Police presence on the island was required. He further stated that any charging must be applied fairly and consistently across all events and not differ simply because the event was being held on Tiree. Councillor Amanda Hampsey stated that the rationale for policing should be the same for both mainland and island events. She suggested that, on the mainland, policing was more often a matter of Officers being available on standby within existing resources, rather than being specifically deployed solely for an event, as was being proposed for Tiree. Superintendent Stirling responded that, where additional officers were requested, there was a financial cost, and Police Scotland did not have surplus resources held on standby; Officers were generally engaged in their day-to-day duties. Councillor Hampsey clarified that she was referring to core policing services, which were funded from the public purse and existed to respond to incidents that could occur anywhere. She noted that Tiree Music Festival had significant private security arrangements in place, arguably more than would be present at many other locations where people gathered socially, such as music events or public spaces. She questioned whether a dedicated Police presence was always necessary, suggesting that there may be a greater likelihood of issues arising in mainland locations than on Tiree. Superintendent Stirling responded that the issue ultimately came down to geography. He reiterated that the decision to hold the event on Tiree meant that, due to its remote location, Officers were not readily available nearby to respond. On the mainland, Officers were positioned within closer proximity and could respond more quickly. He added that if there were sufficient Officers already based on Tiree, there would be no issue, but as this was not the case, additional policing resources were required to ensure the event could be managed safely. Councillor Green presented two hypothetical scenarios for comparison. He referred to the Isle of Skye, which, although classified as an island, was connected to the mainland by a bridge and was within a few hours’ drive of Inverness. He contrasted this with a mainland location such as Inverie, near Mallaig on the Knoydart Peninsula that may be less well connected in terms of transport links. He queried whether Police Scotland’s assessment was influenced less by whether a location was technically an island or mainland, and more by how well connected and accessible it was. Superintendent Stirling confirmed that connectivity and ease of access were key considerations, agreeing that the level of connection to other resources was a significant factor in assessing policing requirements. Councillor Brown referred to her involvement in the Connect Festival in Inveraray several years ago. She noted that the event was subject to a full risk assessment, during which Police Scotland determined the number of officers required to be present. She explained that the police presence for the entire weekend was based on the anticipated attendance numbers and was considered necessary to ensure public safety, regardless of what incidents may arise. . Councillor Brown emphasised that, for any event requiring a licence, public safety was the primary consideration. The requirement for Police Officers was determined through a risk Page 13
Page 14
assessment, and although this may increase costs (including wages), cost recovery was not the overriding factor. She further stated that all festivals were required to undergo the same risk assessment process, with Police Scotland deciding how many Officers were needed based on safety considerations. Superintendent Stirling confirmed that this was the case. Councillor Brown added that this approach applied consistently to events regardless of whether they were held on an island or the mainland, or whether the location was easily accessible. Councillor Kain observed that Tiree Music Festival could only take place on Tiree and therefore differed from events that could potentially be relocated elsewhere. He considered that there may be scope for compromise in this situation. Drawing on his own experience of conducting risk assessments, he noted that there were instances where UK Police have assessed that they were unable to attend certain locations, yet events had still proceeded. He therefore suggested that a pragmatic solution may be possible in this case. Councillor Kain acknowledged Police Scotland’s statutory responsibilities but emphasised his understanding of island communities and how they often operated with a degree of self-reliance. He proposed a potential compromise whereby, instead of a full deployment, a single police officer could attend in a liaison role, working alongside the TMF team and their private security. He suggested that this approach could help address safety considerations while recognising the unique circumstances of the island setting and the festival’s established track record. Superintendent Stirling acknowledged the points raised and indicated a willingness to engage constructively. However, he reiterated that, based on the risk assessment, Police Scotland’s professional view remained that 6 Officers were required to ensure the event was delivered safely. He added that, if the Committee were minded to require a Police presence, discussion could continue regarding how this might be delivered in practice. He emphasised that the focus for Police Scotland was not financial considerations, but ensuring that, should a licence be granted, appropriate measures were in place to maintain public safety. Councillor Green noted that the Committee may not be able to reach a final decision at this meeting. However, he queried that, if a decision were made requiring a police presence based on the indicated requirement of 6 Officers, whether the Tiree Music Festival would consider cancelling the event. Ms Gilchrist responded that she was unable to give a definitive answer at this stage. She advised that such a decision would require further consideration and discussion. Mr Gillespie added that the matter would need to be referred to the Festival’s Advisory Board. He noted that the organisers were in a challenging position in terms of ensuring the financial sustainability of the festival. Councillor Green asked, in the context of decision-making, what proportion of the festival’s income would be required to fund the proposed Police presence. He further queried what proportion of the ticket price would be allocated towards policing costs, based on the level indicated. Page 14
Page 15
Mr Gillespie advised that he did not have an exact percentage available. However, he stated that the cost of policing was higher than any other expenditure, including payments to artists and other suppliers. Councillor Green asked whether, if the Committee were to determine that a police presence was not required, Police Scotland would nevertheless feel it necessary to deploy any resources to Tiree as a precaution in the event of a serious incident. Superintendent Stirling advised that they would not deploy Officers in such circumstances. He explained that the only way additional Officers could be sent to the island would be through a planned and resourced deployment, taking account of time constraints and logistics. Without this, the only response in an emergency would be from mainland resources, potentially involving the Coastguard or helicopter support. He further noted that deploying officers to the island in this manner would incur costs significantly higher than those currently being proposed to the organisers and would be difficult to justify to the Police Authority. Ms Gilchrist advised that approximately 5% of ticket revenue would be allocated towards supporting a Police presence at the event. SUMMING UP Police Scotland Superintendent Stirling stated that he was sympathetic to the position of the organisers and acknowledged that the Tiree Music Festival was a valued event. However, he emphasised that Police Scotland faced constraints in terms of resources and funding, and that the geographical location of Tiree had to be considered as part of the risk assessment process. He explained that each event was assessed on its own merits to determine whether a Police presence was required and, if so, at what level. He reiterated that, without a dedicated policing presence on the island and the ability to respond immediately to issues relating to public order, public safety, or any significant incident, Police Scotland’s position was that the event would be considered unsafe. Applicant Mr Gillespie thanked the Committee for their time and consideration. He advised that the festival had been running for a number of years and that the organisers were committed to doing the right thing for both the event and the island community. He emphasised that the festival was extremely important to those involved and to Tiree as a whole. He noted that the organisation was not a corporate entity but a Community Interest Company, operating on a not-for-profit basis to support the island. He expressed concern that significant funds would be directed towards core policing costs rather than being reinvested into the island’s cultural activities. He highlighted that the festival played a key role in sustaining local culture and music on Tiree, and that this should be taken into account. Page 15
Page 16
Ms Gilchrist reiterated that the TMF brought significant economic benefit to the island. She advised that, over the past summer, approximately £1.4 million was returned to the local economy, supporting a wide range of businesses and services. She noted that, without the festival, there would be a significant negative impact on the sustainability of the island community, and that the event also supported other activities taking place on Tiree. She highlighted the challenges faced by island communities and emphasised that all residents were impacted by the realities of island life. She expressed concern regarding the difference in approach and pricing between TMF and festivals held on other islands, such as Skye, which she described was difficult to understand. She stated that it was important to find a balanced and proportionate solution, noting that island events should not be considered in isolation without recognising their unique circumstances. She confirmed that the organisers remained committed to taking a pragmatic and proportionate approach to resolving the situation, although acknowledged that the current position was not where anyone would wish to be. She advised that, while Police Scotland’s position was based on safety, the organisers had worked extensively to mitigate risks and deliver a safe event, in line with the Purple Guide. She expressed disappointment that the matter had reached this stage. She emphasised that the festival operated as a Community Interest Company, with any surplus reinvested into the local community, and that governance arrangements were robust, with accounts publicly available. She confirmed that there was no objection to Police Scotland being present on the island during the festival, and that Officers would be welcomed on site. She noted that the Police had attended previously and engaged positively with the community. She concluded by stating that the festival had consistently been managed in accordance with safety guidance and best practice, and invited the Committee to consider whether, given the strong safety record and robust systems in place, it would ordinarily be expected for a licensed event to require a dedicated Police presence in such circumstances. When asked, both parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Ms Mair that the option was there for the Committee to continue consideration if they decided they required further information. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle stated that, having reviewed the recommendations, she was content with the provisions set out in paragraph 5.1 of the report and the wider section 5, particularly recommendation (1). However, she expressed reservations regarding recommendation 5.2, which she considered appeared to represent a compromise position contingent on the festival proceeding with all approved safety plans in place and implemented. She noted that recommendations (6), (7) and (8) also addressed implementation matters and included Police Scotland involvement. She advised that, if there was an option to amend recommendation 5 by removing point (2), she would be minded to support the granting of the licence. However, she remained uncomfortable with Page 16
Page 17
that specific point, as she felt that operational matters were still to be resolved and should not necessarily be included as part of the licensing condition at this stage. Councillor Green asked whether there was an option to remove that element entirely as a condition of the licence. Ms Mair advised that, if this reflected the view of Members, it would be possible to amend the recommendation accordingly. However, she noted that removing this condition would leave unresolved the issue of whether a Police presence was required on the island, which would then remain a matter for further discussion. She suggested that a continuation of the application could allow additional time for discussions between Police Scotland and the Applicant to explore whether a compromise could be reached. She further explained that removing the condition at this stage could result in the licence being granted without clarity on the requirement for a Police presence, depending on the Committee’s position. She indicated that a continuation may enable further constructive dialogue and allow a more fully agreed position to be brought back before Members for decision. Further discussion took place on whether the Committee should continue consideration of the application or make a decision today. The consensus was to continue consideration to allow further negotiations and discussions between Police Scotland and the Applicant and for any points of clarity including the Islands Act to be researched. DECISION The Committee agreed to continue consideration of the application to allow further negotiations and discussions between Police Scotland and the Applicant and for any points of clarity including the Islands Act to be researched. It was noted that only those Members present today would be able to take part in the final determination of this application. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 17
Page 18
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 19
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE (SHORT-TERM LET HEARINGS)held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on FRIDAY, 22 MAY 2026 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Dr Amina Ahmed, Co-Owner Christopher Connelly, Applicant’s Agent Roderick McLean, Licensing Standards Officer, Argyll and Bute Council David Walker, Solicitor, Argyll and Bute Council Stuart McLean, Committee Manager, Argyll and Bute Council 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence was received from Councillors Jan Brown, Amanda Hampsey, Daniel Hampsey and Paul Kennedy. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS) ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A SHORT TERM LET LICENCE TO C CONNELLY, ALTNAFEARN, SHORE ROAD, KAMES, TIGHNABRUAICH The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of video call and Mr Christopher Connelly joined the meeting by MS Teams along with one of the owners of the property, Dr Amina Ahmed. The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report. Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 8 of the report was followed and the Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support for their application. APPLICANT Mr Connelly advised he could understand the concerns of the Objectors and that he had addressed some of the concerns raised. The property was well insulated with triple glazing which would keep any noise within the property. The hot tub and barbeque had been removed from the outside area to minimise noise disruption. Although he lived in Dalavich, Mr Connelly stated he planned to do a meet and greet with all visitors to ensure Page 19 Agenda Item 3d
Page 20
that they would respect the property and other residents and that a key box would be used for departures. Parking should not be an issue as there is plenty of space within the boundary. Landscaping remains to be completed, and issues raised regarding the septic tank had been investigated, the tank holds 3400 litres which covers 8 -10 persons, if any problems arise then the capacity of persons within the property would be downgraded or the septic tank upgraded. Dr Amina Ahmed, co-owner of the property, advised that the property was purchased with the heart and not the head and would primarily be used by family and friends. Having lived within the property she could completely understand the concerns of the Objectors but mitigation had been put in place to alleviate such concerns. Having the property as a short term let would allow some income whilst the family were not using it and would allow visitors to see how beautiful the area is QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS There were no objectors in attendance. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Green raised a concern that Mr Connelly was residing in Dalavich, which is a considerable distance away from the property in Tighnabruaich and would involve around 2 hours travel time. Councillor Green asked Mr Connelly that in the event of an emergency or complaint would he be able to attend the property quickly. Mr Connelly, agreed that it would involve around a 2 hour travel time and advised that he is hoping to relocate somewhere between Dalavich and Tighnabruaich, when a suitable opportunity arises. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle had concerns about the septic tank, which was addressed as well as the hot tub being removed. She asked if the log burner within the property would be removed and if a change of use had been granted. Mr Connelly confirmed that the log burner was being decommissioned and that a fully functional underfloor heating system is in place throughout the property. Dr Ahmed confirmed that a Change of Use had been applied for. Councillor Philand asked that given the distance between the property would the travel time be exacerbated by poor weather, such as during the winter period. Mr Connelly confirmed that he hoped to move somewhere in between Dalavich and Tighnabruaich, he has a suitable vehicle for roads in bad weather and that there are two ways into Tighnabruaich by ferry and road. Mr Connelly stated that he would endeavour to be on site in the event of any emergency or a complaint. It is not anticipated that there would be back-to-back bookings during the winter period and that the summer would be busier. Dr Ahmed added that it is anticipated that extended family would use the property over the winter months. Councillor Howard asked how many other holiday lets were within the village of Tighnabruaich? Dr Ahmed advised that there is one other property in the same row which is a holiday let. Page 20
Page 21
SUMMING UP Applicant Mr Connelly stated he would try his best to make sure that the property is let to the right sort of person and that visitors would be assessed when arriving at the property. Mr Connelly confirmed that it would not be the intention to have back to back booking as the property would have to be cleaned and maintained and that given that the property is out of the way it is expected that families, rather than large parties, would be the clientele. Dr Ahmed reiterated that the original intention was for the property to be used by family and friends and was not intended for back-to-back bookings, however, as it is an expensive endeavour some short term lets opportunities would assist with the financial upkeep. When asked, the applicant and her agent confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Green advised that he had no problems with granting the licence but would like to add a further condition, specifically that a contactable person be living within a 10 mile radius of the property. Councillor Green added that Dalavich sits within in his ward, and he is well aware of the roads and that these can often to be difficult to travel on. Councillor Hardie agreed with Councillor Green and would support the additional condition of having a contactable person living within a 10 mile radius of the property. Councillor Kennedy- Boyle stated that the Change of Use not being passed should be noted and that she would like to see a management plan being implemented noting the minimum stay, the number of bookings, the cleaning schedule and parking rules. Councillor Philand supported Councillor Green’s comments and that he would also support the 10 mile radius condition being added to the licence. Councillor Blair stated that he could understand where colleagues were coming from, however, he thought the 10 mile radius condition was too much considering the layout of Argyll and Bute and that distance is a thing we are used to living with in rural areas. Councillor Armour stated that had there been no objections to this application it would have went through, adding that owners who do not stay in the area are a concern. Councillor Blair advised that he was happy to go with the officer’s recommendations with the additional condition of the 10 mile radius, he is aware that other companies do have someone nearer at hand. DECISION 1. The Committee agreed to grant a short-term let licence to Christopher Connelly subject to the inclusion of additional conditions set out in the report in respect of anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, damage to property, littering and waste disposal, and to the following further condition: Page 21
Page 22
“The Licence Holder must provide a contact name and number that could be used to report any issues or complaints, and which would be accessible on a 24/7 basis with the assurance that someone living within 10 miles of the property would be able to attend at the property or respond appropriately when required”. 2. Requested that a Management Plan for the property be submitted to the satisfaction of Officers. The Applicant would be notified in writing of the above decision within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager, submitted) Page 22
Page 23
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE (SHORT-TERM LET HEARINGS) held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on FRIDAY, 22 MAY 2026 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Kathryn Lowe, Applicant Colin Matthews, Objector Roderick McLean, Licensing Standards Officer, Argyll and Bute Council David Walker, Solicitor Argyll and Bute Council Stuart McLean, Committee Manager, Argyll and Bute Council 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Armour, Amanda Hampsey, Daniel Hampsey and Paul Kennedy 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS) ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A SHORT TERM LET LICENCE TO K LOWE, FLAT 2/32, 28 WEST CLYDE STREET, HELENSBURGH The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of video call and Kathryn Lowe joined the meeting by MS Teams. Colin Matthews, Objector opted to proceed by way of audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report. Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 8 of the report was followed and the Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support for their application. APPLICANT Ms Lowe advised that she had owned and invested in the property for the last 13 years and that if the licence was granted she intended to run it as a short term let in a responsible and respectful manner. It was not anticipated that there would be a high Page 23 Agenda Item 3e
Page 24
turnover of visitors and she would be using the property for herself and young son on occasions. Ms Lowe confirmed that the property would not be a party flat and that one of the bedrooms was furnished with children in mind. Ms Lowe added that she would monitor and vet who would be using the property. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS Mr Matthews stated he has owned two flats within the building for the past 12 years and that Ms Lowe had suggested that she cares for the building but he had seen no evidence of that and that there was only one other resident, besides him, that has taken care of the building. Ms Lowe advised that she had previously let her property out on a long term basis and had experienced problems with her tenant, which made it difficult to gain access to the property or building. Ms Lowe reported that it had taken 3 different court cases to have the tenant removed and to secure access to the property. Ms Lowe stated that on regaining access to her flat she has repaired much of the damage internally and was willing to be involved in looking after the shared areas, such as the front door lock and waste collection points. OBJECTORS Mr Matthews noted that within the application it stated that the property would be used on a minimal basis, however, if the licence is granted existing residents would have no control over how many times a year the property is let. He also stated that he had owned two flats within the building, currently one, and has never applied for a short term let as he believes that it does not suit the building. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT There were no questions from the Applicant. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Philand asked Ms Lowe how she would be able to vet visitors to her property? Ms Lowe advised that all bookings would be placed via Airbnb, as it shows the profile and ratings of people and that she would only confirm bookings with couples or families that have strong reviews. Ms Lowe added that this booking platform also allows owners to leave a review of visitors who have visited and have been respectful and left it in a clean state. Councillor Hardie asked the Objector, Mr Matthews, if he stayed in either of his properties within the building? Mr Matthews responded that he lives in one of the flats and had recently sold the other. Councillor Hardie then asked Mr Matthews if he thought there would be a privacy issue should the licence be granted? Mr Matthew responded yes and that would be due to the volume of people if the property was let on a regular basis, if only occasionally let then possibly not. Page 24
Page 25
Councillor Brown asked the Applicant if she would have a property manager in the vicinity. Ms Lowe responded that she had a manager who lived minutes away from the property and would meet and greet the visitors and that she herself would also be contactable. Ms Lowe confirmed that she was also willing to let the neighbours have the contact details for the manager and herself. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle asked, having lived in a tenement in the past, how would the Applicant manage the communal areas? Ms Lowe advised that she pays factor fees at the moment for the building upkeep and communal areas, however, she is willing to be actively involved in securing a lock for the front door and looking after the other communal areas. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle asked the Objector, what he felt was missing from the additional conditions? Mr Matthews stated that on the application it was emphasised that there would be minimal number of uses throughout the year, there are no reassurances that this will be the case. Councillor Blair asked if the fees that are collected by the Factor would cover the replacing of the lock on the front main entrance? Both Applicant and Objector agreed that it probably would be covered by the Factor. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle asked the Applicant what the minimum stay would be? The Applicant advised that one night stays would not be sustainable and it would be an absolute 3 night minimum, if the licence was granted. SUMMING UP Objectors Mr Matthews stated that his opinion was that the building was more suitable for long term lets of full occupancy. There was no assurance of how many times the flat would be let out and was concerned with the lack of security on the main door. However, that is something that the factors could investigate. Applicant Ms Lowe advised that her previous experience with a longterm tenant had proved problematic and that she would have more control and oversight of short term lets and that she was willing to be involved with the Factor and work with the full time residents. Ms Lowe stated that the property is a seafront property flat which is above a hospitality area with people coming and going, so there is potential for noise outside. When asked, both parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Page 25
Page 26
Councillor Brown thought the Applicant put forward a good case on how she plans to run the property with a manager nearby, work with the people who live there and has given reassurance that she would be a responsible Airbnb host. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle advised that she was happy with the conditions recommended and was content that the Applicant is willing to work constructively with her neighbours Councillor Green stated that the conditions were within the scope of the Short Term Let Policy, and with no control zones in place he could see no reason to refuse the application. Councillor Hardie stated that the Applicant seemed responsible and conscientious in looking after the communal close and had no problem with agreeing the licence. Councillor Howard advised that Helensburgh is a tourist destination and it is difficult to get properties serving a purpose for short term lets, especially with limited hotels in the area and that there is not an oversupply of letting properties. Councillor Philand stated that the Applicant had already had her fingers burnt with previous tenants and had spent a lot of money bringing the property back up to standard and was happy to support the application. Councillor Blair advised buildings should be utilised and welcomed the Applicants and Objectors commitment to remain in dialogue and was happy to support the application. DECISION The Committee agreed to grant a short-term let licence to Kathryn Lowe subject to the inclusion of additional conditions set out in the report in respect of anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, damage to property, littering and waste disposal, and noise control in flatted premises. The Applicant would be notified in writing of the above decision within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager, submitted) Page 26
Page 27
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE CUSTOMER SERVICES 17 June 2026 CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In terms of Section 17 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, the Local Authority requires to fix maximum fares and other charges in connection with the hire of taxis operating in their area and to review the scales for taxi fares and other charges on a regular basis. The new fare structure requires to come into force by 22 October 2026. The fares were last reviewed by members on 18 December 2024 and took effect on 22 April 2025. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee are asked to: • Review the existing scales and publish them proposing a date when the proposed scales shall come into effect. • Authorise the Head of Legal and Regulatory Support to advertise the proposed changes to tariffs and to invite any responses within one month of the advertisement • Report back to members at their meeting on 16 September 2026 on objections or representations received. • Should no objections or representations be received in relation to the proposal delegate authority to the Head of Legal and Regulatory Support in consultation with the Chair of PPSL to conclude the review without the requirement for the Committee to consider a further report on the review. Page 27 Agenda Item 4
Page 28
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE CUSTOMER SERVICES 17 June 2026 CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW 1. 1.1 1.2 2. 2.1 SUMMARY In terms of Section 17 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, the Local Authority requires to fix maximum fares and other charges in connection with the hire of taxis operating in their area and to review the scales for taxi fares and other charges on a regular basis. The new fare structure requires to come into force by 22 October 2026. The fares were last reviewed by members on 18 December 2024 and took effect on 22 April 2025. The current maximum fares are: Tariff 1 £3.80 (hiring between 7am and 10pm) Initial charge (860 yards or part thereof) Subsequent charge (each 176 yards or part thereof) @ 25p Tariff 2 £4.55 (hiring between 10pm and 7am) Initial charge (860 yards or part thereof) Subsequent charge (each 150 yards or part thereof) @ 25p Tariff 3 £5.31 (public holidays) Initial charge (860 yards or part thereof) Subsequent charge (each 120 yards or part thereof) @25p Charges in respect of soiling, waiting and telephone bookings are £100 (maximum), 45p per minute and 40p respectively. RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee are asked to: • Review the existing scales and publish them proposing a date when the proposed scales shall come into effect. • Authorise the Head of Legal and Regulatory Support to advertise the proposed changes to tariffs and to invite any responses within one month of the advertisement and report back to members at their meeting on 16 September 2026. Page 28
Page 29
3. 3.1 • Should no objections or representations be received in relation to the proposal delegate authority to the Head of Legal and Regulatory Support in consultation with the Chair of PPSL to conclude the review without the requirement for the Committee to consider a further report on the review. DETAIL On 23 April 2026, 108 letters were issued to all taxi operators requesting their views on taxi fares by 1 June 2026. As a result of the consultation exercise the following responses from the trade are detailed below:- Lorn 6 Responses were received. One response was received supporting an increase of at least 20% or a minimum of 10% with a clear commitment to review again in the near future if costs remain high, taking into account the following: - Since started operating in 2016, taxi fares have increased by only around 26– 28%, yet almost every major cost involved in running a taxi has increased far beyond that. To put that into context from my own experience: Fuel: When I started, diesel was around £1.05–£1.15 per litre. It is now around £1.80–£1.85 locally. An increase of roughly 65–70%. Insurance: My insurance, like many drivers, has effectively doubled. What was around £1,000–£1,200 is now commonly £2,000 or more. An increase of 80–100%+. Garage labour: Labour rates have gone from roughly £40–£50 per hour to £70–£85 per hour. An increase of around 70–80%. Tyres: Budget tyres that were £40–£50 are now £70–£80. Again around a 60–70% increase. These are not optional costs, they are essential just to keep a licensed vehicle on the road. At the same time, the general cost of living has increased by around 30–35%, with basic essentials such as food, energy and housing rising even more. This means that even where earnings appear similar, the real value of those earnings has dropped significantly. When you compare everything together, the gap is clear: - Taxi fares: 26%–28% increase since 2016 - Core operating costs: 60% to over 100% increases - Cost of living: 30%–35% increase Based on my experience over the last 10 years, I believe the current fare levels do not reflect the true cost of operating a taxi or maintaining a reasonable standard of living. Another response was received supporting an increase due to rapidly increased fuel costs. Garage bills have rocketed up along with car parts and Page 29
Page 30
tyres and the cost of living has increased dramatically and their income has not. Another operator responded requesting an increase as follows:- I would recommend 10p on tariff 1, 15p on tariff 2 and 19p on tariff 3. Taking into account fuel has gone up by 27 - 29 % in the last 4 months alone. Add to that a 15% rise in the cost of tyres (premium tyres not budget) and between 5 - 10 % on parts (brake pads, fluids, filters, ad blue, etc). Garage rates have risen per hour anything between £10 and £25 in some cases, plus on top of that insurance premiums have risen by around 20% since last year. However that being said, the burden should not be passed fully on to our customers with a huge increase in fares as they are like myself already feeling the pinch. I know that this is not the popular opinion but as we have recently had a 10% increase in tariffs, any increase above the rate of inflation would be detrimental to the taxi business in Argyll and Bute as a whole. Any more than stated above would put local users off and punish regular customers more than anything else. One operator replied stating:- Our view on taxi fares is a necessary altering of the rates. As main reason we see the high fuel prices and the uncertainty if and when they come down again. So far we take 100% of the hit, which we calculate at least with weekly extra costs between £60 and £100 per car. We would consider a 10% rise and keep the tariff straight (ending with 5p or 10p). Another operator supported an increase as follows:- Tarrif 1 - starting at £4 Tarrif 2 - starting at £5 Tarrif 3 - starting at £6 No change to distance money, however I would change the waiting time rate. One response was received supporting no increase: - My opinion would be to keep the fares the same, since the last increase I have noticed a decrease in business and have had feedback from regular customers that they can't use taxis as much because of the cost, some of my regular customers are elderly and vulnerable rely on taxis to pick them up from supermarkets and need help to their door with shopping bags so buses aren't an option for them also they rely on us to get them to appointments and then take them home again. I would keep the fares the same at least till the next review after the one coming up. Mid Argyll No responses were received. Cowal 6 response were received. Page 30
Page 31
One operator replied requesting an increase of 10% stating that they cannot see any relief from their increased costs. As things are we only get a change of tariff change every 18 months or so and this makes it almost impossible to refuse an increase and therefore I believe that we must increase the fares as we will not have any drivers wanting to take this up as a job if we can’t offer a wage for the often unsociable hours. This request is based on the following: - Fuel increase 40% Licences also around the same Insurance has gone up 15% Parts and labour costs for cars almost doubled in last 3 years Two operators replied also requesting an increase of 10% but not necessarily on the initial charge but certainly on the subsequent charge as this is where we are most affected by recent fuel price activity. The reasoning being:- 1.Fuel Price increases of between 30% to 40% (At the time of writing we are paying 30% more for Petrol and 37% more for Diesel than we were in January/ February) 2.Servicing and Maintenance costs have also risen significantly. We are now paying 10% more to replace tyres, brakes and other serviceable items. The cost of oil to service our vehicles has risen 100% 3.Since our increase last year, the cost of a new replacement vehicle has risen another 9.5% along with insurance costs increasing by 8% 4.Increased costs as an employer including minimum wage and NI increases. Another operator supported an increase as follows:- The static charge should go up by 15pence on each fare through tariff 3. Also the fare for each should go up by an amount over the 3 fares. 2 responses were received supporting no increase as follows:- Unfortunately, under the current climate it would be good to increase the tariff in line with everything else increasing - fuel, insurance and road tax, but unfortunately, I have seen a decrease in the number of customers since the last increase. I would believe more to do with cost-of-living crippling people in general and can't afford to go out like they used to. More people are using westgo or the bus due to the decrease in cost to encourage people to use the bus instead. It is difficult across the board as it has hit the hospitality trade hard too who are also feeling it like ourselves. I would keep it the same at present or would also like to see some help towards the rural taxi industry. Lomond 7 responses were received. One operator replied requesting that rate 3 extras for 5+ passengers should be reviewed as running a larger vehicle costs more than an additional £1, perhaps a rate 4 should be introduced that would better reflect the operating costs of a larger vehicle. Also, the charge for the taxi being booked by phone should be increased to 50p which would help with additional card costs for any upfront payments. One operator replied as follows:- Page 31
Page 32
To offset rising fuel costs, I propose a temporary fare surcharge using existing tariffs: Tariff 2 for daytime and Tariff 3 after 10 pm. This approach allows for immediate implementation and avoids the costs of meter recalibration. The surcharge would be removed once fuel prices stabilize. Another operator replied stating he does not think we should increase the rates as they are close to West Dunbartonshire Council. He does however think that we should have a tariff 4 for large vehicles 5 passengers or more over the festive period due to fuel charges and this should reflect tariff three rates plus the extra E.G £6.10 step in charge then 25 pence every 100 yards as supposed to the current extra £1.15 on top of tariff three. Another four responses were received supporting no increase with the following comments:- - I believe the fares should remain as they are. Taxi prices are already expensive for many passengers, and another increase could result in fewer people using taxis altogether. While I understand that fuel prices and running costs have risen, there is a risk that fares will become too expensive and price us out of the market. Many drivers rely on regular customers, and if prices continue to rise, people may choose alternative transport instead of taxis. - There should be no increase to keep the taxis accessible to everyone at a decent rate. Bute One operator replied stating they are in favour of a slight increase to the taxi fares due to the obvious increases in fuel, insurance, repairs & maintenance, vehicle finance, payroll, payment processing fees and telephone expenses. Our increase suggestion is: 0.20 pence on each flag fall tariff and 0.05 pence on the subsequent yard or part thereof charge and leaving the distance yard or part thereof the same. Kintyre No responses were received. Enquiries were made with Angus Council, North Ayrshire Council, Highland Council and West Dunbartonshire Council regarding their existing taxi charges for the purpose of comparison and the findings are noted below. Argyll and Bute Existing Fares Angus Council North Ayrshire Council Highland Council Dumbarton & Vale of Leven Zone Tariff 1 £3.80 860 yards then 176 @ 25p £4.70 1660 yards then 75 @ 10p £3.50 Depending on distance/time add 10p £3.70 Depending on distance/time add 10p £4.00 Depending on distance/time add 10p Tariff 2 £4.55 860 yards then 150 @ 25p £5.20 1260 yards then 67 @ 10p £4.00 Depending on distance/time add 10p £4.00 Depending on distance/time add 10p £5.20 Depending on distance/time add 10p Page 32
Page 33
Tariff 3 £5.31 860 yards then 120 @ 25p £6.70 1320 yards then 60 @ 10p £7.00 Depending on distance/time add 10p £4.70 Depending on distance/time add 10p £7.00 Depending on distance/time add 10p 3.2 3.3 3.4 The Committee are advised that data from the UK Government’s website on accredited official statistics for Weekly Road Fuel Prices is as follows from 18 May 2026:- Unleaded petrol = 157.29 Diesel = 186.56 When the decision was taken by the committee to increase fares by 10% on 18 December 2024 members may wish to consider the following prices recorded on 25 November 2024:- Unleaded petrol = 135.37 Diesel = 141.40 Private Hire and Taxi Monthly magazine publish monthly league tables of the metred fares for taxis in Licensing Authorities in the UK. The Tariff 1 fares for a two-mile journey (distance costs only) are compared and ranked. The lower the ranking (number), the more expensive the journey, compared with other authorities. When members last reviewed the fares in December 2024 Argyll and Bute were ranked 167 out of 337 authorities listed. As at May 2026 Argyll and Bute is ranked 201 out of 341. This indicates that taxis in Argyll & Bute are sitting slightly below the middle of the table at present. Circular 25/1986 states the Secretary of State expects that in fixing fares authorities will want to pay primary regard to the costs incurred by the trade, having regard to the capital costs. (including interest payments) of the vehicles, the costs of maintaining and replacing them to the standards required by the licensing authority, the costs of employing drivers, and the prevailing levels of wages and costs in related road transport industries. In the Secretary of State's view the public interest is better served by ensuring the maintenance of an adequate taxi service by giving the trade a fair return than by depressing fares for social reasons, however understandable. If fares are fixed at a level higher than the market can stand, the trade is free to reduce them. 4. 4.1 CONCLUSION Members are now required to review the matter of taxi fares. As previously advised in terms of Section 17 the procedure for reviewing taxi fares has changed. In carrying out a review, the licensing authority must- (a) consult with persons or organisations appearing to it to be, or to be representative of, the operators of taxis operating within its area, (b) following such consultation – (i) review the existing scales, and (ii) propose new scales (whether at altered rates or the same rates) (c) publish those proposed scales in a newspaper circulating in its area- (i) setting out the proposed scales (ii) explaining the effect of the proposed scales (iii) proposing a date on which the proposed scales are to come Page 33
Page 34
A) B) into effect, and (iv) stating that any person may make representations in writing until the relevant date, and (d) consider any such representations In reviewing the matter of taxi fares members are invited to consider whether; They wish to accept the general consensus from the 20 written responses received whereby 12 are requesting an increase to the fares and 8 is requesting no increase to the fares be made. When considering all of the above proposals members may wish to have regard to:- 1. The lack of representation or response to the proposed review of taxi fare scales for or against from the trade. A total of 108 operators were consulted with only 20 providing written representations. Therefore only 18.5% of the trade has responded. 2. The comparison of the general effect of Argyll and Bute’s existing fares with those in place in Angus Council, North Ayrshire Council, Highland Council and West Dunbartonshire Council’s Dumbarton & Vale Zone. 3. The fluctuation in the price of fuel. 4. The economic effect of the cost-of-living crisis is having an impact on our local communities. If members are minded to propose an increase in fares they require to detail the proposed new scales, taking into consideration the following views obtained from taxi operators:- ● Lomond – 7 responses received, 2 supporting an increase, 5 supporting no increase. ● Lorn – 6 responses received, 5 supporting an increase with 1 supporting no increase ● Cowal - 6 responses received, 4 supporting an increase with 2 supporting no increase ● Bute – 1 response received supporting a slight increase. They may wish to reaffirm the current scale of maximum fares previously reviewed by the Council on 18 December 2024 which came into force on 22 April 2025 whereby members agreed to increase fares by 10%. Members may wish to take into consideration the following:- The review undertaken in June 2023 which came into force 22 October 2023 whereby members agreed for fares to remain the same. In the 2021/2022 review members agreed to increase fares by 15%. This decision took effect from 22 April 2022. Members may also wish to take into considerations that of the 20 written responses received, 12 are requesting an increase to the taxi fares and 8 is Page 34
Page 35
4.2 4.3 5. requesting no increase. Members may also wish to have regard to:- 1. The lack of representation or response to the proposed review of taxi fare scales for or against from consultees. Only 18.5% of the trade have responded. 2. It should be noted that of the 7 responses from Lomond 5 requested no increase. Mid Argyll and Kintyre did not provide any response. Members further require to propose a date of which the proposed fares are to come into effect. It is recommended that this be 22 October 2026. Members should be aware that any person or any persons or organisations appealing to the Traffic Commissioner to be representative of taxi operators in the area who operates a Taxi in an area for which scales have been fixed or in respect of which a review has been carried out will still have the opportunity to lodge an appeal to the Scottish Traffic Commissioner within a 14 day period. IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy- None 5.2 Financial -none 5.3 Legal – The Council require to review taxi fares in terms of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 5.4 HR -none 5.5 Customer Service-none 5.6 Risk- none 5.7 Climate Change- none 5.8 Fairer Scotland Duty- none 5.9 Equalities - protected characteristics-none 5.10 Consumer Duty- none 5.11 Island Communities- none 5.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing- none Douglas Hendry, Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support Policy Lead: Cllr Gordon Blair For further information contact: David Walker, Solicitor Tel: 01436 658720 Email : david.walker@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 35
Page 36
Appendix 1 Argyll and Bute Council Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 Current Maximum Fares fixed from 22 April 2025 10% increase on all 20% increase on all Recommend 10p on tariff 1, 15p on tariff 2 and 19p on tariff 3. An increase of 10% but not necessarily on the initial charge but certainly on the subsequent charge as this is where we are most affected by recent fuel price activity Tariff rate 3 extras for 5+ passengers should be reviewed as running a larger vehicle costs more than an additional £1, perhaps a rate 4 should be introduced that would better reflect the operating costs of a larger vehicle. Also the charge for the taxi being booked by phone should be increased to 50p which would help with additional card costs for any upfront payments. A temporary fare surcharge using existing tariffs: Tariff 2 for daytime and Tariff 3 after 10 pm. An introduction of a tariff 4 for large vehicles 5 passengers or more over the festive period due to fuel charges and this should reflect tariff three rates plus the extra E.G £6.10 step in charge then 25 pence every 100 yards as supposed to the current extra £1.15 on top of tariff three. Increase suggestion: 0.20 pence on each flag fall tariff and 0.05 pence on the subsequent yard or part thereof charge and leaving the distance yard or part thereof the same. The part in red contradicts the 0.05 pence suggestion 10% increase on all rounded to nearest 5p or 10p The static charge should go up by 15pence on each fare through tariff 3. Also the fare for each should go up by an amount over the 3 fares. Tariff 1 - starting at £4 - Tariff 2 - starting at £5 - Tariff 3 - starting at £6. No change to distance money, however I would change the waiting time rate (no figure given) Tariff 1 Hirings from ranks or “flag” Hiring between 7am and 10pm Initial charge (860 yards or part thereof) £3.80 £4.18 £4.56 £3.90 £3.80 £3.80 £4.55 £3.80 £4.00 £4.20 £3.95 £4.00 Subsequent charge (each 176 yards or part thereof) £0.25 £0.28 £0.30 £0.25 £0.28 £0.25 £0.25 £0.25 £0.30 £0.30 £0.25 £0.25 Tariff 2 Hirings from ranks or “flag” Hiring between 10pm and 7am Initial charge (860 yards or part thereof) £4.55 £5.01 £5.46 £4.70 £4.55 £4.55 £5.31 £4.55 £4.75 £5.05 £4.70 £5.00 Subsequent charge (each 150 yards or part thereof) £0.25 £0.28 £0.30 £0.25 £0.28 £0.25 £0.25 £0.25 £0.30 £0.30 £0.25 £0.25 Tariff 2 also applies to hirings from ranks or “flag” between 6pm and 10pm December 24th, 6pm and 10pm December 31st and between 7am 2nd January and 7am 3rd January Tariff 3 Hiring from ranks or “flag” between 10pm 24th December and 7am 27th December and 10pm 31st December and 7am 2nd January Initial Charge (860 yards or part thereof) £5.31 £5.84 £6.37 £5.50 £5.31 £5.31 £5.31 £5.31 £5.51 £5.85 £5.46 £6.00 Subsequent Charge (each 120 yards or part thereof) £0.25 £0.28 £0.30 £0.25 £0.28 £0.25 £0.25 £0.25 £0.30 £0.30 £0.25 £0.25 Tariff 4 Large Vehicles 5 passengers or more- Hiring from ranks or “flag” between 10pm 24th December and 7am 27th December and 10pm 31st December and 7am 2nd January Initial Charge (860 yards or part thereof) £6.61 Subsequent Charge (each 100 yards or part thereof) £0.25 Waiting Time – 45 pence per minute commencement of journey, charged on a pro rata basis per second £0.45 £0.50 £0.55 £0.45 £0.45 £0.45 £0.45 £0.45 £0.45 £0.50 £0.45 £0.50 Taxi called by means of telephone - 40 pence additional charge £0.40 £0.45 £0.50 £0.40 £0.40 £0.50 £0.50 £0.40 £0.40 £0.45 £0.40 £0.40 Large Mini-bus type vehicles (carrying 5 or more passengers together at their own request) a Where Tariff 1 would apply – charge Tariff 2 b)Where Tariff 2 would apply – charge Tariff 3 c)Where Tariff 3 would apply – Surcharge £1.30 £1.30 £1.45 £1.60 £1.30 £1.30 £2.30 £1.30 £0.00 £1.30 £1.45 £1.30 £1.30 Fee by negotiation – for all journeys commencing within but finishing outwith Argyll & Bute, in a place of the above charges, such fares may be charged as prior to the acceptance of the hire, were proposed to the hirer and accepted by him/her Ferry Fares – The hirer shall be liable for the cost of a return ferry fare for any journey involving a ferry Soiling Charge - £100 maximum (with permission to display warning signs indicating that there may be an additional charge for any potential loss of earnings suffered as a consequence) £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 Page 36
Page 37
Appendix 2 Argyll and Bute Council Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 Fare 1 mile = 1760 yds 5 miles = 8800 yds Fare 1 mile = 1760 yds 5 miles = 8800 yds Fare 1 mile = 1760 yds 5 miles = 8800 yds Fare 1 mile = 1760 yds 5 miles = 8800 yds Fare 1 mile = 1760 yds 5 miles = 8800 yds Fare 1 mile = 1760 yds 5 miles = 8800 yds Fare 1 mile = 1760 yds 5 miles = 8800 yds Fare 1 mile = 1760 yds 5 miles = 8800 yds Fare 1 mile = 1760 yds 5 miles = 8800 yds Fare 1 mile = 1760 yds 5 miles = 8800 yds Fare 1 mile = 1760 yds 5 miles = 8800 yds Fare 1 mile = 1760 yds 5 miles = 8800 yds Tariff 1 Hirings from ranks or “flag” Hiring between 7am and 10pm Initial charge (860 yards or part thereof) £3.80 £5.08 £15.08 £4.18 £5.61 £16.81 £4.56 £6.09 £18.09 £3.90 £5.18 £15.18 £3.80 £5.23 £16.43 £3.80 £5.08 £15.08 £4.55 £5.83 £15.83 £3.80 £5.08 £15.08 £4.00 £5.53 £17.53 £4.20 £5.73 £17.73 £3.95 £5.23 £15.23 £4.00 £5.28 £15.28 Subsequent charge (each 176 yards or part thereof) £0.25 £0.28 £0.30 £0.25 £0.28 £0.25 £0.25 £0.25 £0.30 £0.30 £0.25 £0.25 Tariff 2 Hirings from ranks or “flag” Hiring between 10pm and 7am Initial charge (860 yards or part thereof) £4.55 £6.05 £17.78 £5.01 £6.69 £19.83 £5.46 £7.26 £21.34 £4.70 £6.20 £17.93 £4.55 £6.23 £19.37 £4.55 £6.05 £17.78 £5.31 £6.81 £18.54 £4.55 £6.05 £17.78 £4.75 £6.55 £20.63 £5.05 £6.85 £20.93 £4.70 £6.20 £17.93 £5.00 £6.50 £18.23 Subsequent charge (each 150 yards or part thereof) £0.25 £0.28 £0.30 £0.25 £0.28 £0.25 £0.25 £0.25 £0.30 £0.30 £0.25 £0.25 Tariff 2 also applies to hirings from ranks or “flag” between 6pm and 10pm December 24th, 6pm and 10pm December 31st and between 7am 2nd January and 7am 3rd January Tariff 3 Hiring from ranks or “flag” between 10pm 24th December and 7am 27th December and 10pm 31st December and 7am 2nd January Initial Charge (860 yards or part thereof) £5.31 £7.19 £21.85 £5.84 £7.94 £24.37 £6.37 £8.62 £26.22 £5.50 £7.38 £22.04 £5.31 £7.41 £23.84 £5.31 £7.19 £21.85 £5.31 £7.19 £21.85 £5.31 £7.19 £21.85 £5.51 £7.76 £25.36 £5.85 £8.10 £25.70 £5.46 £7.34 £22.00 £6.00 £7.88 £22.54 Subsequent Charge (each 120 yards or part thereof) £0.25 £0.28 £0.30 £0.25 £0.28 £0.25 £0.25 £0.25 £0.30 £0.30 £0.25 £0.25 Tariff 4 Large Vehicles 5 passengers or more- Hiring from ranks or “flag” between 10pm 24th December and 7am 27th December and 10pm 31st December and 7am 2nd January Initial Charge (860 yards or part thereof) £6.61 £8.86 £26.46 Subsequent Charge (each 100 yards or part thereof) £0.25 Waiting Time – 45 pence per minute commencement of journey, charged on a pro rata basis per second £0.45 £0.50 £0.55 £0.45 £0.45 £0.45 £0.45 £0.45 £0.45 £0.50 £0.45 £0.50 Taxi called by means of telephone - 40 pence additional charge £0.40 £0.45 £0.50 £0.40 £0.40 £0.50 £0.50 £0.40 £0.40 £0.45 £0.40 £0.40 Large Mini-bus type vehicles (carrying 5 or more passengers together at their own request) a Where Tariff 1 would apply – charge Tariff 2 b)Where Tariff 2 would apply – charge Tariff 3 c)Where Tariff 3 would apply – Surcharge £1.30 £1.30 £1.45 £1.60 £1.30 £1.30 £2.30 £1.30 £0.00 £1.30 £1.45 £1.30 £1.30 Fee by negotiation – for all journeys commencing within but finishing outwith Argyll & Bute, in a place of the above charges, such fares may be charged as prior to the acceptance of the hire, were proposed to the hirer and accepted by him/her Ferry Fares – The hirer shall be liable for the cost of a return ferry fare for any journey involving a ferry Soiling Charge - £100 maximum (with permission to display warning signs indicating that there may be an additional charge for any potential loss of earnings suffered as a consequence) £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 £100.00 - 10 Tariff 1 - starting at £4 - Tariff 2 - starting at £5 - Tariff 3 - starting at £6. No change to distance money, however I would change the waiting time rate (no figure given) 10% increase on all rounded to nearest 5p or 10p The static charge should go up by 15pence on each fare through tariff 3. Also the fare for each should go up by an amount over the 3 fares. 8 93 An increase of 10% but not necessarily on the initial charge but certainly on the subsequent charge as this is where we are most affected by recent fuel price activity Recommend 10p on tariff 1, 15p on tariff 2 and 19p on tariff 3. 2 6 An introduction of a tariff 4 for large vehicles 5 passengers or more over the festive period due to fuel charges and this should reflect tariff three rates plus the extra E.G £6.10 step in charge then 25 pence every 100 yards as supposed to the current extra £1.15 on top of tariff three. 1b Current Maximum Fares fixed from 22 April 2025 10% increase on all 20% increase on all Current Maximum 1a 7 Increase suggestion: 0.20 pence on each flag fall tariff and 0.05 pence on the subsequent yard or part thereof charge and leaving the distance yard or part thereof the same. The part in red contradicts the 0.05 pence suggestion 4 Tariff rate 3 extras for 5+ passengers should be reviewed as running a larger vehicle costs more than an additional £1, perhaps a rate 4 should be introduced that would better reflect the operating costs of a larger vehicle. Also the charge for the taxi being booked by phone should be increased to 50p which would help with additional card costs for any upfront payments. 5 A temporary fare surcharge using existing tariffs: Tariff 2 for daytime and Tariff 3 after 10 pm. Page 37
Page 38
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 39
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. 2 (A) 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 they could have sight of the Operational Management Plan, that had been subject to planning condition. The Applicant has since submitted an Operational Management Plan to be considered alongside the proposed development. The purpose of this Supplementary Report is to bring Members’ attention to the Operational Management Plan ahead of determining the application at PPSL scheduled for 17th June 2026. (B) ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING MATERIAL – OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Operational Management Plan is summarised as follows: 1. Property & Guest Details Booking Management • All bookings will be managed and recorded using online booking platforms such as Booking.com Airbnb.com • Management of all booking with be controlled/managed by the owner. • No third-party management companies will be used to operate the property. Length of Stays • All stays will be for a minimum of 2 nights Page 39 Agenda Item 5
Page 40
Guest Capacity • Guest capacity will be limited to 2 persons Target Audience • The property will be targeted towards couples Guest Facilities • Cooking facilities within the pod consisting of 2 ring hob and microwave • Drying room for wet weather clothing, boots etc. (located in adjacent garage) • Fenced external patio area and furniture. 2. Arrival & Departure Procedures Check-in/Check-out • Where possible all check-in’s will be done in person by the owner, however where this is not possible a key box will be located next to the door of the pod. • All guests will be requested to have checked-in by 9pm at the latest where possible. Parking • A dedicated parking bay will be provided for guests using the pod, this will located off street within the existing parking area to the centre front of the main property Property Rules • Couples only • No smoking in the Pod • No Parties • Guests are asked to keep noise to a minimum after 9pm • No external BBQs • Guests are remined about the residential nature of the area and asked to be respectful towards residents. • The owner of the pod will be resident in the adjacent dwelling and will be responsible for overseeing compliance with the rules. When the owner is away overnight from the property the pod will be unavailable for rental. 3. Waste, Recycling & Noise Control Bin Management • Separate waste and recycling bins will be provided • The bins will be collected using the local authority waste collection service Noise Mitigation • Should there be a breach of the rules the owner will be resident on site and will attend to any matters in a timeous manner should the need arise. • The owner has the ability to sanction any guests who continually disrespect the property rules and can ask them to vacate the property with immediate notice. • The owners contact details will be lodged with the local authority as the main point of contact for any complaints raised with them. 4. Safety & Maintenance Fire Safety Page 40
Page 41
• A detailed fire risk assessment will be lodged with the licencing authority and a copy held for inspection at the main property residence. • A fire evacuation plan will be prominently displayed in the Pod detailing escape routes and assembly points. • A fire blanket and extinguisher are supplied in the Pod • A smoke and heat detector are fitted to the Pod to provide early alarm. Compliance • A current Electrical Installation Certificate (EICR) • A current PAT testing Certificate (Portable Appliance Testing) • A Current Fire Alarm Installation Certificate • There is no mains or LPG gas used in the Pod Emergency Procedures • For any maintenance issues arising during their stay the welcome pack will provide contact information for the owner who will handle all maintenance requests and source appropriate qualified tradespersons to handle any required repairs. • The pod will undergo an annual check and any issues identified and rectified prior to being re-let. • In the event of an emergency guests will have the owners contact details or in event of a more immediate emergency the welcome pack will list all emergency service numbers. 5. Cleaning & Servicing Turnaround Schedule • The pod will be fully cleaned in between stays Linen & Laundry • All laundry will be handled on site by the owner. • The owner will directly employ a cleaner to ensure that the cleaning and laundry requirements are carried out to exacting standards. • In the event of the cleaner being unavailable or on leave the cleaning and laundry requirements shall be undertaken by the owner. _________________________________________________________________________ (C) RECOMMENDATION It is the Officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted as per the Report of Handling. ______________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Emma Spence Date: 05.06.2026 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 41
Page 42
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 43
11 Etive Park Operational Management Plan For Short Term Letting Pod Contents: 1. Property & Guest Details a. Booking Management b. Length of Stays c. Guest Capacity d. Target Audience e. Guest Facilities 2. Arrival & Departure Procedures a. Check-in/Check-out b. Parking c. Property Rules 3. Waste, Recycling & Noise Control a. Bin Management b. Noise Mitigation 4. Safety & Maintenance a. Fire Safety b. Compliance c. Emergency Procedures 5. Cleaning & Servicing a. Turnaround Schedule b. Linen & Laundry Page 43
Page 44
1. Property & Guest Details a. Booking Management All bookings will be managed and recorded using online booking platforms such as Booking.com Airbnb.com Management of all booking with be controlled/managed by the owner No third-party management companies will be used to operate the property. b. Length of Stays All stays will be for a minimum of 2 nights No upper limit on stay nights is to be imposed other than the 90 day requirement stipulated under short term legislation. Expected duration of stays is likely to be a maximum of 7 days c. Guest Capacity Guest capacity will be limited to 2 persons d. Target Audience The property will be targeted towards couples predominantly e. Guest Facilities Guests will have use of the following facilities within and around the pod En-suite shower room with WC and hand basin Cooking facilities within the pod consisting of 2 ring hob and microwave. Sink and washing up facilities Drying room for wet weather clothing, boots etc. (located in adjacent garage) Fenced external patio area and furniture. 2. Arrival & Departure Procedures a. Check-in/Check-out Where possible all check-in’s will be done in person by the owner, however where this is not possible a key box will be located next to the door of the pod. All guests will be requested to have checked-in by 9pm at the latest where possible. On check-out guests will require to vacate the property by 10am and the key is to be returned to the key box. Details of these requirements will be sent to the guests prior to arrival via the online booking platform or by direct email/WhatsApp message. b. Parking A dedicated parking bay will be provided for guests using the pod, this will located off- street within the existing parking area to the centre front of the main property. The parking bay will be appropriately signed. Page 44
Page 45
c. Property Rules The following rules will apply to any guests staying at the property and will be clearly displayed within the welcome pack for guests. • Couples only • No smoking in the Pod • No Parties • Guests are asked to keep noise to a minimum after 9pm • No external BBQs • Guests are remined about the residential nature of the area and asked to be respectful towards residents. The owner of the pod will be resident in the adjacent dwelling and will be responsible for overseeing compliance with the rules. When the owner is away overnight from the property the pod will be unavailable for rental. 3. Waste, Recycling & Noise Control a. Bin Management Separate waste and recycling bins will be provided in the pod for use by the guests. Guests will be requested to empty the bins into the main property bins prior to departure. The bins will be collected using the local authority waste collection service on the appropriately designated days. b. Noise Mitigation The property rules in 2.c. provide the basis for guest behaviour during their stay. Should there be a breach of the rules the owner will be resident on site and will attend to any matters in a timeous manner should the need arise. The owner has the ability to sanction any guests who continually disrespect the property rules and can ask them to vacate the property with immediate notice. The owners contact details will be lodged with the local authority as the main point of contact for any complaints raised with them. Page 45
Page 46
4. Safety & Maintenance a. Fire Safety A detailed fire risk assessment will be lodged with the licencing authority and a copy held for inspection at the main property residence. A fire evacuation plan will be prominently displayed in the Pod detailing escape routes and assembly points. A fire blanket and extinguisher are supplied in the Pod A smoke and heat detector are fitted to the Pod to provide early alarm. b. Compliance A copy of the following documentation will be held at the main property residence and can be viewed upon request A current Electrical Installation Certificate (EICR) A current PAT testing Certificate (Portable Appliance Testing) A Current Fire Alarm Installation Certificate There is no mains or LPG gas used in the Pod. c. Emergency Procedures For any maintenance issues arising during their stay the welcome pack will provide contact information for the owner who will handle all maintenance requests and source appropriate qualified tradespersons to handle any required repairs. The pod will undergo an annual check and any issues identified and rectified prior to being re-let. In the event of an emergency guests will have the owners contact details or in event of a more immediate emergency the welcome pack will list all emergency service numbers. 5. Cleaning & Servicing a. Turnaround Schedule Between bookings the Pod will receive a full clean as follows All wall and touch surfaces will be sprayed and wiped clean using an appropriate cleaning solution. Vinyl floor surfaces will be mopped and dried using floor cleaning solution. Carpeted surfaces will be vacuumed. All Sanitary appliances, wash hand basins and showers/shower screens will be fully cleaned. Consumables will be topped up including hand wash, shower wash and toilet rolls. External areas around the Pod will be swept and cleaned. Page 46
Page 47
b. Linen & Laundry All laundry will be handled on site by the owner. All linen will be changed between guest stays and for guests staying for an extended period fresh linen will be provided every 3rd day. The owner will directly employ a cleaner to ensure that the cleaning and laundry requirements are carried out to exacting standards. In the event of the cleaner being unavailable or on leave the cleaning and laundry requirements shall be undertaken by the owner. Page 47
Page 48
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 49
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. 1 (A) INTRODUCTION This local application is due to be determined at Planning, Protective Services and Licensing (PPSL) Committee on 20th May 2026. The purpose of this Supplementary Report is to bring Members’ attention to a late representation received regarding the proposed development. (B) ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATION A further four-part objection has been received from Mr Ali Anderson, 12 Etive Park, North Connel: Document 1: Committee Briefing Note This document sets out the perceived planning issues, and outlines the reasons as to why the application should be refused, with suggested wording for refusal (summarised below) Document 2: Objection to Officer’s Recommendation Letter to the Committee to formally object to the Officer’s recommendation to approve this application. Document 3: Visual Guide to Objection 16 site images included taken from neighbouring 12 Etive Park including within the property, from the rear garden, from the woodland to the rear of the properties. Document 4: Request for Committee Site Visit Letter to the Committee requesting Site Visit prior to determination Page 49
Page 50
This objection is summarised below. The full document(s) can be viewed on the Council’s Website. Key Issue (Why the officer recommendation should be rejected) This application is not simply about a garden pod. It is about introducing a commercial short-term-let use into a highly constrained residential relationship directly beside 12 Etive Park. The pod: • sits extremely close to the boundary with No.12; • is accessed via a path running along the boundary; • contains windows facing towards No.12; • introduces repeated turnover of transient guests (a potential of 365 different strangers per year) beside a family home. The officer’s report accepts: • overlooking exists; • the access path creates overlooking; • the pod window faces No.12; • the proposed use intensifies activity. Despite this, the recommendation concludes that a 1.8m fence and management plan solve the problem. Respectfully, they do not. Main Planning Concerns: 1. Unacceptable Loss of Privacy & Residential Amenity The proposal would introduce: ● Repeated guest movements along the boundary; ● noise from arrivals/departures; ● voices, phones, footsteps and doors; ● overlooking from the pod and path; ● activity beside the private garden and windows of no.12. ● safeguarding issues next to a daily garden and children's play area. A fence does not prevent: ● Noise; ● disturbance; ● transient guest activity; ● perceived loss of security; ● open-window overlooking; ● woodland access overlooking. 2. Commercial Visitor Use in a Residential Cul-de-sac Etive Park is: ● a quiet residential cul-de-sac; ● not a tourism site; ● not a hotel complex; ● not a holiday park. The proposal changes the use from: ● occasional family/ancillary use to: ● rolling commercial guest occupation. Page 50
Page 51
This materially changes the character and functioning of the immediate area. 3. Conditions Do NOT Solve the Problem The recommendation relies heavily on: • Higher fencing; • “host oversight”; • Operational management plan; • Behavioural controls. These are not reliable planning solutions. The proposal remains unsuitable because of: • The siting; • The boundary relationship; • The guest access route; • The proximity to no.12. 4. Policy Conflict The proposal conflicts with: NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism Short-term-let proposals should not be supported where they cause: • Unacceptable impact on local amenity; • Unacceptable impact on neighbourhood character This proposal directly affects: • Privacy, • Amenity, • Security, • Residential character. 5. Weak Economic Justification The applicant claims tourism/economic benefit. However, the officer report confirms: “no further material has been provided to demonstrate the potential economic benefit.” Unproven tourism benefits should not outweigh direct harm to neighbouring residents. Why The Fence Condition Fails The officer recommendation relies heavily on a 1.8m fence. However, the fence: • Does not stop guest movement; • Does not stop noise; • Does not stop headlights; • Does not stop open-window overlooking; • Does not stop transient activity; • Does not stop woodland access; • Does not restore residential privacy / safeguarding. This is not simply a screening issue. It is a land-use compatibility issue. The Operational Management Plan: • is not yet written; • relies on future behaviour; • cannot control guest conduct in practice; • cannot prevent disturbance before it occurs. Page 51
Page 52
A fundamentally unsuitable use cannot be made acceptable purely through management paperwork. Request To Members I respectfully request that Members: 1. Reject the officer recommendation; 2. Refuse planning permission; OR 3. Undertake a site visit to properly assess: • proximity, • overlooking, • boundary relationship, • guest route, • impact on No.12. This case is highly dependent on physical relationship and cannot be fully appreciated from plans alone. Suggested Refusal Reason: The proposed short-term-let use, by reason of its constrained siting, close relationship with 12 Etive Park, boundary access route, window orientation and repeated use by transient visitors, would result in unacceptable harm to residential privacy, amenity and perceived security, contrary to NPF4 Policies 14, 23 and 30 and relevant policies of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2. The representation also raises the following concern: ‘Insufficient weight has been given to the sensitive setting surrounding the site, including the adjoining Tree Preservation Order woodland; the Open Space Protection Area; and the Scheduled Monument approximately 27 metres from the site. While these matters may not independently justify refusal, they reinforce the unsuitability of intensifying visitor activity in this location.’ A Tree Preservation Order (TPO) is a safeguarding measure related to the lopping, topping, felling, or removal of any tree within the designation. As discussed in the Report of Handling, there are no tree works proposed as part of the application, and the proposed development has no impact on the TPO with regard to the lopping, topping, felling, or removal of trees within this designation. The Black Rocks (North Connel) Open Space Protection Area (OSPA) stretches along the shoreline of North Connel, from (17.9 ha) Connel bridge (to the rear of the site) to Black Crofts. The proposed development is confined to the existing garden grounds and has no bearing on the OSPA designation. The Scheduled Monument (Cairn) to the rear of dwellings 12 and 12a Etive Park is included in the assessment. The proposed development would have no material adverse effect upon the SM. The representation objects to the Officer’s recommendation to grant approval to this application and cites the Officer’s oversight of the harm to residential amenity Page 52
Page 53
and conflict with the Local Development Plan as reason for refusal. The representation also calls for a pre-determination site visit by Members. The matters raised, namely harm to residential amenity and proposed planning conditions, have already been raised by the Objector in previous representations and have been addressed in the Report of Handling before Members. 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. _________________________________________________________________________ (C) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Members note the content of this report. It is the Officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to the recommended planning conditions, as per the Report of Handling. ______________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Emma Spence Date: 19.05.2026 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 19.05.2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 53
Page 54
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 55
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 55
Page 56
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 56
Page 57
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 57
Page 58
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 58
Page 59
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 59
Page 60
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 60
Page 61
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 61
Page 62
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 62
Page 63
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 63
Page 64
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 64
Page 65
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 65
Page 66
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 66
Page 67
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 67
Page 68
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 68
Page 69
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 69
Page 70
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 70
Page 71
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 71
Page 72
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 72
Page 73
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 73
Page 74
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 74
Page 75
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 75
Page 76
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 76
Page 77
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 77
Page 78
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 78
Page 79
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 79
Page 80
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. Page 80
Page 81
Shingle Sand and Shingle 7 12a Sand & Shingle MHWS & MLWS ETIVE PARK Sand & Shingle 17 1 12.8m 12 Shingle Path (um) Lochnell Shingle Saligo Shingle Sand & NTL Path Lochnell Arms Cairn 19 Path Cottage LB 18 Cleadale 14 Shelter © Crown Copyright and database right 2025 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan relative to: 26/00161 /PP O 0 25 5012.5 Meters Application Site Page 81
Page 82
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 83
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: 26/00436/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: West Kintyre Community Council Proposal: Demolition of existing public toilets and erection of replacement public toilets Site Address: Public Toilets Tayinloan Argyll and Bute DECISION ROUTE Committee Decision under Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of replacement public toilets building (ii) Other specified operations • Demolition of existing public toilets building (B) RECOMMENDATION: The proposal is recommended for approval of Planning Permission subject to conditions and reasons appended below. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Isle of Gigha Community Council - 28.04.2026 Objecting to the proposed development advising as follows. A consultation with residents of the Isle of Gigha had been conducted. The majority of the respondents do not support the application on the following grounds: • Objections were raised to the removal of waiting room, which would have a negative impact on ferry passengers, in particular school students. • The existing waiting room is also used as a short-term storage area for goods transporting to and from the island. The loss of such space would impact businesses on the Isle of Gigha. • Concerns raised regarding the proposal for the facilities to operate on a charging basis. • Isle of Gigha Community Council should have been engaged in earlier stages of the development process. • Existing building should be fully renovated with the addition of accessibility facilities instead of replacing the building. Page 83 Agenda Item 6
Page 84
Comment: Officer’s comment is available in Part (F) and/or assessed further in Appendix A. Environmental Health - MAKI - 08.05.2026 No objection. Area Roads Mid Argyll Kintyre and Islay - 14.04.2026 No objection advising that the proposal is situated at the end of the C21 Tayinloan Ferry (Public) Road, adjacent to the Tayinloan Ferry Car Park (No. 42). Parking is available at the adjacent car park. The Roads Authority note that the applicant has considered pedestrian safety in respect of the ramp orientation and proposes to install a protective/pedestrian barrier at the end. The Roads Authority advise that consideration should be given in the future to improve the pedestrian link between the toilet and the footway on the north side of the vehicle accessway/crossing point. Flood Risk Assessor - 13.04.2026 No objection. (D) HISTORY: None (E) PUBLICITY: Advert Type: Regulation 20 Advert Local Application Expiry Date: 01.05.2026 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: A total of 19 representations has been received for the application, of which 5 are in support, and 14 in objection of the proposal: Support • Miss Lusanda Donnelly Atharnach Glenbarr Argyll and Bute PA29 6UT 02.04.2026 • Mrs Emma Byers Smithy House Tayinloan Tarbert Argyll and Bute 01.04.2026 • Ms Marilyn Shedden 2 Fernoch Crescent Lochgilphead Argyll and Bute PA31 8AE 01.04.2026 • Ms Maggie Young 2 Fernoch Crescent Lochgilphead Argyll and Bute PA31 8AE 01.04.2026 • Mr Aaron O'Hanlon 8 Cara View Tayinloan Argyll and Bute PA29 6XJ 03.04.2026 Objection • Mr Tony Philpin Tighcruinn Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AA 13.04.2026 • Mr Joseph Teale Post Office House Ardminish Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute 02.04.2026 • Mrs Margaret Wilkieson New Quay South Isle of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AD 02.04.2026 • Mrs Louise Braithwaite Drumallan Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AD 04.04.2026 • Mr Anthony Walker 1 Gallochoille Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AD 02.04.2026 Page 84
Page 85
• Miss Charlie-Jane Elder 1 High Row Ardminish Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute 02.04.2026 • Miss Rona Allan 1 Raon Mor Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AG 04.04.2026 • Mr Nigel Braithwaite Drumallan Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AD 03.04.2026 • Ms Marion Stevenson Cuddyport Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AD 22.04.2026 • Mr John Bannatyne 1 Grianan Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AE 04.04.2026 • Ms Margaret McSporran Acarsaid Alainn Isle Of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AD 04.04.2026 • Miss Hannah Storie Post Office House Ardminish Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute 02.04.2026 • Mr Keith Wilson Heather Lea Ardminish Isle of Gigha Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute 13.04.2026 • Mr Neil Bannatyne Ardlamy Farm Isle of Gigha Argyll and Bute PA41 7AD 04.04.2026 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. (ii) Summary of issues raised: As noted above, representations are published in full and are available to view on the Council’s website. In brief summary, respondents have raised the following points: • New toilets are much needed to cater the needs of the locals, and passengers using ferry service to and from the Isle of Gigha. The proposal is also able to cater for the needs of visitors travelling on the Kintyre Peninsula and such provision would enhance the area. Comment: The above representations are noted. • Objection was raised to the removal of the waiting room, which would have a negative impact on ferry passengers, in particular school students. Concerns were raised that other existing shelters in the vicinity are inadequate, especially during adverse weather conditions and in the event of an extended wait due to delay of the ferry service. Comment: This matter is assessed further in Appendix A. • The existing waiting room is also used as a short-term storage area for goods being transported to and from the Isle of Gigha. The loss of such space would impact businesses on the island. Comment: Storage use within the existing waiting room is not considered a community facility under LDP2 Policy 50, Retention of Community Facilities nor key services under LDP2 Policy 51, Retention of Key Services. This matter is also assessed further in Appendix A. • The existing building should be fully renovated with the addition of accessibility facilities. • The replacement building should incorporate a larger footprint compared to the existing building. • The replacement building should incorporate a fully pitched roof which is more aesthetically appropriate. Page 85
Page 86
Comment: This matter is assessed further in Appendix A. • Interior space should be rearranged to cater for demand. Suggestions were given in terms of internal facilities, for example provision of baby caring facilities and adult changing facilities. Comment: An informative is recommended below to advise the applicant to have regard to the suggestions made within the public representations, particularly in relation to internal facilities within the proposed toilets. • Concerns raised regarding the proposal for the facilities to operate on a charging basis. The accessible toilet should be free of charge and accessible via a radar key. Comment: Cost and/or payment means to use the facilities are not material planning considerations. Notwithstanding the above, an informative is recommended below to advise the applicant to have regard to the suggestions made within the public representations, particularly in relation to internal facilities within the proposed toilets. • Residents of the Isle of Gigha have been excluded from the project planning stage considering the facilities at the ferry terminal in Tayinloan are essential island infrastructure. Comments: The Planning Authority has had no input into the project planning stage of the proposed development. The Isle of Gigha Community Council were consulted, and statutory public consultation was undertaken. Consultation response and public representations received are material considerations which inform planning assessment. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: Yes (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 Yes Page 86
Page 87
(v) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: 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 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 23 – Health and Safety Productive Places NPF4 Policy 25 – Community Wealth Building NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 02 – Outwith 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 Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 23 – Tourism Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Page 87
Page 88
Connected Places Policy 42 – Safeguarding Piers and Harbours Sustainable Communities Policy 50 – Retention of Community Facilities Policy 51 – Retention of Key Services Policy 55 – Flooding High Quality Environment Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) Local Development Plan 2 Schedules (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 • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • 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: No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre- application consultation (PAC): No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: In deciding whether to hold a discretionary hearing Members should consider: • How up to date the Development Plan is, the relevance of the policies to the proposed development, and whether the representations are on development plan policy grounds which have recently been considered through the development plan process. • The degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations, together with the relative size of community affected, set against the relative number of representations and their provenance. At the time of writing, representations have been received from 19 respondents in relation to this planning application. 14 respondents raise objection and 5 submit support. It is the opinion of Planning Officers that the representations received, together with officer assessment of the relevant planning issues contained within this report, provide all the information required to enable No Page 88
Page 89
Members to make an informed decision based on all of the material planning considerations in this case. In this instance it is not considered that the objections raise any complex or technical issues that have not been addressed in the current Report of Handling and it is not considered that a discretionary local hearing would add value to the planning process. The determining factor in the assessment of this application is whether the proposed development is consistent with the provisions of the adopted National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2 and whether the issues raised by third parties raise material considerations of sufficient significance to withhold planning permission. In this instance the proposed development is considered to be consistent with the provisions of both National and Local Planning Policy whilst providing improved public toilet provision. A full report is provided within Appendix A. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • SEPA Flood Zones (Coastal (Future Flood Maps)) • HSE Consultation - Outer Zone • West Kintyre (Coast) LLA (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? No Would the development restrict access to croft or better-quality agricultural land? N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application Brownfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy Countryside Area ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A Page 89
Page 90
(P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The proposal seeks planning permission for the demolition of an existing public toilet block and the erection of a replacement public toilet block at Tayinloan. The application site is located on land adjacent to Tayinloan Slipway where ferry service is available connecting the Isle of Gigha. In terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) the application site is located within the Countryside Area wherein Policy 02 sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development where this is of appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location. NPF4 Policy 29 sets out that development proposals in remote rural areas (within which the application site is located) will be supported where the proposal supports and sustains existing communities; and is suitable in terms of location, access, siting, design and environmental impact. NPF4 Policy 30, Tourism part b) sets out a range of matters that tourism related development will take into account with LDP2 Policy 23, Tourism Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities supporting improved tourist facilities and accommodation subject to a number of criteria. LDP2 Policy 50, Retention of Community Facilities states that development involving the loss or change of use of facilities (including any ancillary land) presently used or last used for community purposes will only be permitted subject to specific criteria. The determining factors in the assessment of this application are considered to be whether this location is acceptable for the proposed development having regard to its effect on landscape, biodiversity effects, provision of tourist/ community facilities, road network/parking, and flood risk. Officers note that there is a body of opposition to the proposed development alongside a smaller proportion of support for the proposal. Overall, having assessed the proposal against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan as a whole and considering representations and consultee comments submitted, it is considered that there are no substantive grounds to withhold consent, and it is recommended that planning permission should be granted, subject to the conditions set out below. This application would normally have been determined as a local application under the Council’s agreed scheme of delegation. However, the application has received sufficient public representations to require the planning application to be put before Members for determination. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes (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 there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance, including issues raised by third parties, to indicate 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: No Page 90
Page 91
Author of Report: Long Ting Yip/Fiona Scott Date: 28.05.2026 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 02/06/26 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 91
Page 92
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 26/00436/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 6.3.2026, 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 1/3 09.03.2026 Existing Site Plan, Elevations and Floor Plan 25-3167-PP-01 09.03.2026 Proposed Site Plan, Elevations and Floor Plan 25-3167-PP-02 09.03.2026 Biodiversity Statement 09.03.2026 Design Statement – 2 Pages 09.03.2026 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. PP – Biodiversity Enhancement Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, all physical biodiversity enhancement measures identified in the submitted Biodiversity Statement shall be implemented in full before the development hereby approved is first brought into use. All biodiversity enhancement measures consisting of new or enhanced planting shall be undertaken either in accordance with the approved scheme of implementation or within the next available planting season following the development first being brought into use. Reason: To comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. Page 92
Page 93
ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT • Area Roads Consultation Advice Please note the advice and guidance contained in the consultation response from Area Roads is available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. • The applicant is advised to have regard to the suggestions made within the public representations, particularly in relation to internal facilities. These representations are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. Page 93
Page 94
COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 26/00436/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Proposed Development 1.1. Planning permission is sought for the demolition of existing public toilets and the erection of replacement public toilets, located at Tayinloan. 2. Location and Nature of Proposed Development 2.1. The application site is located at land adjacent to Tayinloan Slipway where ferry service to the Isle of Gigha is available. Tayinloan Ferry Car Park is located to the south of the application site across the vehicular access to the slipway, and Ferry Farm cluster with a tearoom is to the immediate northeast of the application site. 2.2. The proposal seeks to replace the existing public toilet building, which is ageing and without provision of accessible facilities and inclusive design. The existing public toilets provide one female W.C. with a washhand basin; and one male W.C. with two urinals and a washhand basin. A small waiting room is also provided within the existing building. The applicant stated that the existing building could not be modified to include a fully compliant accessible access ramp due to the height of the finished floor level and the space required to achieve compliant gradients and landing. The proposed replacement building comprises a single storey structure which would have a similar footprint when compared to the existing building. The building would feature wet dash rendering in white, and a mono pitched roof with profile steel composite panels. White uPVC windows with frosted glass, and black coloured rainwater goods would be installed. Having regard to its overall siting, scale, massing and design, the proposed development is deemed acceptable in that it would not have any detrimental visual impact on the established landscape/townscape, local character and appearance. Regarding public representations received providing comments on the internal facilities to be provided within the replacement building, an informative is recommended to advise the applicant to have regard to suggestions made within the public representations. In terms of any potential impact on amenity to the surrounding area, the proposal mainly represents the replacement of an existing toilet building. The Environmental Health Officer was consulted and raised no objection to the application. The replacement toilet building would provide the same sanitary facilities as the existing building, with the addition of an accessible entrance and a dedicated accessible W.C. facility. No waiting room would be provided in the replacement toilet building. The anticipated demolition and construction period of the proposed development is approximately five months during which time two temporary portable toilet units would be provided on site. Officers are satisfied that the proposal is an acceptable development which would not give rise to any significant adverse visual impact within its site or wider setting and one which would provide improved public toilet provision. Page 94
Page 95
3. Settlement Strategy 3.1. In terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2), the application site is located within the Countryside Area wherein Policy 02 set out a presumption in favour of sustainable development where this is of appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location. 4. Compliance with National and Local Development Plan 2 Policy Argyll and Bute ‘Local Development Plan 2’ (LDP2) was adopted on 28 February 2024 which, together with NPF4 which was adopted on 13 February 2023, represent the Development Plan providing the policy background against which proposed developments are assessed. The proposal is assessed against the relevant NPF4 Policies below which include details of the associated LDP2 policies. 4.1. NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises seek to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions; it requires to be applied together with other policies in NPF4. 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. 4.2. 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. 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. 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. 4.3. NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. A Biodiversity Statement is submitted along with the application. The statement proposes the installation of small planters for plants for pollinators; installation of bee hotels; and installation of sparrow colony nest boxes. A relevant condition is recommended to ensure the provision of such biodiversity enhancement installations. As such, subject to the condition, it is not considered that the proposed development would have a material detrimental effect on the established natural environment within its immediate surrounding due to the scale of the proposed development compliant with NPF4 Policy 3 and LDP2 Policy 73, Development Impact on Habitats and Species. 4.4. NPF4 Policy 4- Natural Places seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. The application site is located within the West Kintyre (Coast) Local Landscape Area (LLA). The proposal represents replacement of an existing toilet building, which already has an established Page 95
Page 96
landscape presence and forms part of the supporting/ancillary facilities at an existing ferry slipway and adjacent car park. As such it is not considered that the proposed development would have a material detrimental effect on the established natural environment within its immediate surrounding due to the scale of the proposed development compliant with NPF4 Policy 4, Natural Places and LDP2 Policy 71, Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA). 4.5. 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. The development represents brownfield development by virtue of the fact that the proposal represents the replacement of an existing building which is directly supported by NPF4 Policy 9(a) with no conflict with the provisions of LDP2 Policy 02. 4.6. 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. The application site is located at land adjacent to Tayinloan Slipway and adjacent to the Tayinloan Ferry Car Park. Public transportation including a bus service and a ferry service are available. Area Roads were consulted in this regard and have no objection to the application, commenting that consideration should be given in the future to improve the pedestrian link between the toilets building and the footway on the north side of the vehicle accessway/crossing point. As such, an informative is recommended to remind the applicant to note the consultation comments of Area Roads. In view of the above the proposal is deemed consistent with the relevant provisions of NPF4 Policy 13, Sustainable Transport and does not conflict with the provisions of LDP2. 4.7. 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’. Part (a) of Policy 14 seeks development proposals to be designed to improve the quality of an area, whether in urban or rural locations, and regardless of scale. As detailed above, having regard for its overall siting, scale, massing and design, Officers are satisfied that the proposed development is deemed acceptable in that it would not have any detrimental visual impact on the established land/townscape, local character and appearance whilst providing improved public toilet provision. The proposed development would be consistent with the relevant provisions of NPF4 Policy 14 and the sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2 namely Policy 04, Sustainable Development, Policy 05, Design and Placemaking, Policy 09, Sustainable Design and Policy 10, Design: All Development which, in summary, collectively seek to ensure that developments are compatible with surrounding land uses, make use of existing infrastructure, are of an appropriate scale, sustainable design and finishes for their site; and ensure that no adverse visual or amenity impacts arise. 4.8. NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk and to ensure that water resources are used efficiently and sustainably. The application site is located adjacent to the coast. According to SEPA Future Flood Map (i.e. the 1 in 200-year with climate change event), the site partly lies within the indicative limits of coastal flooding as per the SEPA Future Flood Map. Page 96
Page 97
The Council’s flood risk advisor was consulted in this regard, raising no objection, citing that the application is for a like-for-like replacement of toilet block, thus there is no change to flood risk. The proposal falls below the criteria for consultation with SEPA due to the development being a like-for-like replacement toilet block. In view of the above the proposal is deemed consistent with the relevant provisions of NPF4 Policy 22, Flood Risk and Water Management and LDP2 Policy 55, Flooding. 4.9. NPF4 Policy 29, Rural Development sets out that development proposals in remote rural areas (within which the application site is located) will be supported where the proposal supports and sustains existing communities; and is suitable in terms of location, access, siting, design and environmental impact. The proposal to provide a replacement toilet block, with improved facilities meets with the main aims of NPF4 Policy 29. 4.10. NPF4 Policy 30,Tourism, Part b) sets out a range of matters that tourism related development will take into account. This includes the contribution made to the local economy, compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of activity and the impact of increased visitors; impacts on communities; opportunities for sustainable travel, appropriate parking and traffic generation, and public transport; accessibility for disabled people; measures to minimise carbon emissions; and opportunities to provide access to the natural environment. LDP2 Policy 23, Tourist Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities supports improved tourist facilities and accommodation where the development is in a form scale and location which is consistent with its surroundings; and respect and integrate well with the landscape/townscape character and amenity of the surrounding area. The application site is located at land adjacent to Tayinloan Slipway which is also within a short distance of the village of Tayinloan; and situated along the wider A83 trunk road corridor. It is noted that the public toilets are used by a wide range of users, including ferry passengers, locals, and visitors visiting the local area, along on the A83 trunk road and wider Kintyre Peninsula. The proposal would support ongoing economic activity related to tourism and improve provision of rural infrastructure. As assessed in the above paragraphs, the proposed development is also considered suitable in terms of location, access, siting, design and environmental impact. No waiting room would be provided in the replacement toilet building. The applicant confirmed that the footprint of the building could not be enlarged to incorporate a waiting room within the replacement building. The reason being the applicant does not own or have control over the surrounding land; and the replacement building with similar footprint would require to comply with current Building Standards to accommodate the accessible WC and the accessible access ramp. A site visit was conducted on 21.4.2026, where it was noted that there are two other shelters around the Tayinloan Slipway. This includes a covered and three sides enclosed 5-bay bus stop shelter with seating available located towards the southwest of the application site across the vehicular access to the slipway; and a partly enclosed shelter at the head of the slipway. Considering there are provisions of similar passenger waiting facilities available within the vicinity, it is not considered that there would be a significant detrimental effect from its loss on the overall provision of waiting facilities within the local area that it currently serves. Considering the above, it is considered that the proposal complies with NPF4 Policy 30, Tourism, LDP2 Policy 23, Tourist Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities and Policy 50, Retention of Community Facilities. 4.11. LDP2 Policy 50, Retention of Community Facilities states that development involving the loss or change of use of facilities (including any ancillary land) presently used or last used for Page 97
Page 98
community purposes will only be permitted where: it is clearly demonstrated that the facility is surplus to the requirements of the community or communities it serves, either for its current purpose or an alternative community use, or; it is clearly demonstrated that is no longer financially viable to retain the facility and that all reasonable attempts have been made to retain it, or; there would be no significant detrimental effect from its loss on the overall provision of similar facilities within the local area that it currently serves, or; alternative provision of equal or greater benefit to the community is made available at a suitable location within the local area. Isle of Gigha Community Council were consulted and objected to the proposal on grounds summarised above, subsequent to a consultation with households of the Isle of Gigha. Public representations received suggest that the existing waiting room is also used for short term storage area to allow storage of goods being transported to and from the Isle of Gigha. In this regard, it is considered that the storage use is not directly related to the main purpose of the existing waiting room. In addition, the storage area is not a community facility under LDP2 Policy 50, Retention of Community Facilities nor a key service identified under LDP2 Policy 51, Retention of Key Services as such, these policies are not applicable to the short-term storage area. 4.12. LDP2 Policy 42, Safeguarding Piers, Ports and Harbours supports development within established commercial harbour port and pier areas, where the proposal is ancillary to activities taking place within that particular facility and that the proposal would not adversely affect the commercial viability or efficient operation of the facility for marine related uses. The proposed development providing a replacement toilet block raises no conflict with the provisions of this policy. 5. Conclusion 5.1. The determining factors in the assessment of this application are considered to be whether this location is acceptable for the proposed development having regard to its effect on landscape, biodiversity effects, provision of tourist/ community facilities, road network/parking, and flood risk. Officers note that there is a body of opposition to the proposed development alongside a smaller proportion of support for the proposal. 5.2. The proposed development has been assessed against all of the above potential constraints and designations and has been considered to raise no issues or concerns other than the aforementioned with associated proposed conditions where necessary. 5.3. Based on the above, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with relevant policies of NPF4 and the adopted Argyll and Bute LDP2 and there are no other material considerations that would justify withholding planning permission. Page 98
Page 99
Track Farm Ferry TCB (dis) Mean High Water Springs Cladach Bothan Caracuan Bothan PC Park Sand Tank and Sand Car Boulders © Crown Copyright and database right 2025 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan relative to; 26/00436/PP O 0 25 5012.5 Meters Application Site Page 99
Page 100
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 101
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference: 26/00856/PAN Applicant: Helensburgh Golf Club, Cala Management Ltd and Dunbritton Housing Association Proposal: Proposal of application notice for residential development (including affordable housing); demolition of the existing clubhouse and relocation of a new clubhouse with associated parking and facilities; including provision of new golf holes providing a refreshed 18 hole golf course and biodiversity enhancement and management. Site Address: Helensburgh Golf Course, 25 East Abercromby Street, Helensburgh ____________________________________________________________________________ 1.0 BACKGROUND The submitted Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) is related to intended future residential development, construction of new golf holes to compensate for those lost to housing, the construction of a new clubhouse and other necessary infrastructure and landscaping works. The submitted PAN notice took effect from 21.04.26 from which a minimum of 12 weeks must elapse prior to the submission of a formal application for planning permission. This is an allocated housing site for 300 houses (H2004 -Helensburgh East). The extent of the allocation and other LDP 2 designations in the locality can be found on Proposals Map 53 of LDP 2. It should be noted that a small triangular area of land outside the housing allocation is included in the red line boundary at the south-eastern extent of the indicated site. This site has had previous grant of planning permission for housing and is within the settlement boundary. The land is understood to be under the control of Dunbritton Housing Association and will form part of the overall contribution towards affordable housing related to the wider development site. The location and nature of the uses proposed within this PAN are in accordance with terms of the site allocation within LDP2. However further detailed evaluation of future applications against relevant NPF 4 and LDP 2 policies will be required when details are provided. Pre application advice will be provided by officers and a community event (which was well attended) has already taken place. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The red line boundary of the proposed application site forms part of both the existing Helensburgh Golf Club, a small area of settlement land, and an area of peatland known as “the Blackhill Mire” where the replacement golf holes are proposed to be constructed. Therefore it will be a critical matter that any future planning application satisfactorily addresses potential impact upon peat, habitat and biodiversity. Local Nature Conservation Site ( LNCS) - Blackhill Mire. Parts of the replacement golf holes are likely to be proposed on the designated Local Nature Conservation Site or in close proximity to this. Seeking to improve Biodiversity in accordance with the NPF 4 policy requirements will be an important requirement of any application and justification Page 101 Agenda Item 7
Page 102
for any impacts on the LNCS. A best practice design approach will be expected in respect of the golf course proposals to firstly avoid impacts before mitigation is considered. TPO Woodland/Ancient Woodland/Open Space Protection Area A large TPO of ancient woodland (TPO 30) exists on the northern edge of site with a second section of this protected woodland forming a boundary on the western edge of the site following the boundary from the existing Clubhouse to the north and west. Both this area and the tree belt to the west of the site are Ancient Woodland and therefore policy advice within NPF 4 Policy 6 will require to be considered carefully in any future application proposals and unacceptable impacts avoided. Part of this ancient woodland are also designated as an Open Spece Protection Area. Core Path: The Old Luss Road which forms the eastern boundary of the site is a core path which provides accessibility both for residents and as part of an important wider recreational link between Helensburgh and the Countryside beyond, including links to the John Muir Way a nationally important walking route. Accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists to Helensburgh and the wider Countryside and core path network will be a substantive matter in the determination of any future planning application to encourage both sustainable transport links and passive recreation opportunities. Flooding Localised flooding is known to occur on the south of the site where Old Luss Road leaves the existing golf course. Soft engineering drainage and SuDS solutions will require to be designed to ensure the whole of the site combining both the golf course and housing site are developed to acceptable design and operational standards in respect of flooding and drainage solutions. Other policy or site-specific issues may arise as part of the consideration of a future application and an Environmental Impact Assessment will be required. 3.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY – LDP 2 These submissions are not planning applications and therefore do not require to be evaluated and determined in accordance with Section 25 of the Planning Act against the Development Plan and its policies at this stage. However, in considering the merits of these PAN’s a number of Development Plan Policies will inform the assessment of any future detailed applications. The main policies are set out below: (a) ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2. Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 06 – Green Infrastructure Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Page 102
Page 103
Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 26 – Informal Public Outdoor Recreation and Leisure Related Development Connected Places Policy 32 – Active Travel Policy 33 – Public Transport Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging Points Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Policy 41 – Off Site Highway Improvements Sustainable Communities Policy 45 – Supporting our Town Centres and Retailing Policy 46 – Retail Development – The Sequential Approach Policy 49 – Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities Policy 52 – Community Plans, Local Place Plans and Locality Plans Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 62 – Drainage Impact Assessments Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Homes for People Policy 64 – Housing Development on Allocated Sites Policy 67 – Provision of Housing to Meet Local Needs Including Affordable Housing Policy 68 – Housing Greenspace High Quality Environment Policy 70 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSA’s) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 74 – Development Impact of Sites International and National Importance Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Policy 80 – Geodiversity National Planning Framework 4 (This is a statutory Plan for the purposes of determining Planning Applications under Section 25 of the Planning Act and therefore NPF 4 Policies will also have to be considered in the determination of any future planning applications) National Planning Framework 4 Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity Page 103
Page 104
NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes NPF4 Policy 19 – Heating and Cooling NPF4 Policy 20 – Blue and Green Infrastructure NPF4 Policy 21 – Play, Recreation and Support NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 24 – Digital Infrastructure Productive Places NPF4 Policy 25 – Community Wealth Building 4.0 POTENTIAL MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Material considerations include: • Pan 77 Designing Safer Places • Creating Places- A Policy Statement on Architecture and Place for Scotland • Designing Streets – A Policy Statement for Scotland • Green Infrastructure: Design and Placemaking • Design Guidance (Topic 2) Larger Housing Development • Design Guidance (Topic 4) Sustainable Materials and Technologies • Argyll and Bute Woodland and Forestry Strategy • ABC Housing Needs and Demand Assessment • ABC Housing Emergency Statement • SEPA Standing Guidance for Development Management (Dec. 2022) • Statutory/Non-Statutory Consultee Comments/ • Third Party Comments • Strategic Housing Investment Plan objectives and commitments • Helensburgh Local Place Plan 5.0 CONCLUSION This report sets out the information submitted to date as part of the PAN. Summarised are the policy considerations, against which any future planning application will be considered as well as potential material considerations. The list is not exhaustive, and further matters may arise as and when any planning application is received, and in the light of public representations and consultation responses. Officers are content that the steps set out within the PAN are acceptable and in accordance with the necessary community engagement requirements. 6.0 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Members have regard to the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of the submitted PAN to allow these matters to be considered by the applicant in finalising any future planning application submissions. Page 104
Page 105
Author of Report: David Moore Date: 26.05.26 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date:29.05.26 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 105
Page 106
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 107
ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 17th June 2026 PROPOSED PROGRAMME OF PLANNING TRAINING FOR MEMBERS 1. INTRODUCTION Over many years officers have endeavoured to arrange a series of short training sessions with an aim to improve knowledge of the planning system on a wide range of issues. The training has usually taken place in the hour before the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee (PPSLC), although in the past workshops and site visits have also been organised. This report seeks endorsement of a provisional training programme from August to December 2026. These topics have been chosen to appeal to a more experience planning committee. Further suggestions on any additional topics from Members would also be most welcome. Eight potential subject areas have been identified from which five will be selected depending on the availability of presenters. It is intended to continue to deliver the majority of the training by way of virtual sessions associated with the PPSL calendar of meetings unless workshops are proposed which would need to be on a separate date. As before, it would not be intended to restrict the availability of training to the PPSL Committee membership and there would be an open invitation to all Council Members to attend any of the sessions. 2. INDICATIVE PROGRAMME FOR 2026/27 Training Proposed 1 HM Naval Base Clyde Expansion Committee Day Training - MOD 2 Contaminated Land and interactions with Development Management – Committee Day Training - officer led Env Health 3 Environmental Impact Assessment - Committee Day Training - officer led 4 Enforcement –Committee Day Training - officer led 5 Hydrogen Developments - Committee Day Training – external 6 SEPA Flooding Issues Committee Day Training - SEPA Page 107 Agenda Item 8
Page 108
7 To be advised by Members 3. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Members: i) Agree to continuing an ongoing programme of planning related training for Members of the PPSL Committee, which should also be open to any other Members not currently involved in planning decision-making; ii) Endorse the initial subject areas for training and the provisional dates for delivery, on the understanding that the programme may be varied to take account of any additional training requirements Members may wish to identify, along with any other particular training needs identified by officers as a consequence of matters emerging during the course of the year. 3. IMPLICATIONS 3.1 Policy: none 3.2 Financial: It is considered that the level of training required can be delivered internally from existing resources without recourse to having to buy in training from external providers. 3.3 Legal: none 3.4 HR: none 3.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: none 3.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics: none 3.5.2 Socio-economic Duty: none 3.5.3 Islands: none 3.6 Climate Change: none 3.7 Risk: none 3.8 Customer Service: none 3.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC): none Author of Report: Sandra Davies Date: 21/5/26 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 108
Page 109
Document is Restricted Page 109 Agenda Item 9NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 110
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 111
Document is Restricted Page 121 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 112
This page is intentionally left blank