Public reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 20 May 2026
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 20 May 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 13 May 2026 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 20 MAY 2026 at 11:30 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. MINUTES (a) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 April 2026 at 10.30 am (Pages 3 - 8) (b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 April 2026 at 2.30 pm (Pages 9 - 12) (c) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 April 2026 at 3.30 pm (Pages 13 - 20) 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) (Pages 21 - 48) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 5. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE - FQ4 2025/26 (Pages 49 - 62) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle 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 Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
Page 3
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 APRIL 2026 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager David Walker, Solicitor Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader Arlene Knox, Senior Planning Officer Francis Newton, Senior Planning Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, Fiona Howard, Andrew Kain, Dougie Philand and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Paul Kennedy declared a financial interest in respect of the report dealt with at item 4 of this Minute – Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982: Taxi Fare Scale Review. He advised that although he was a Taxi Driver, as no decisions were being taken on the fares at this meeting, he would remain in the meeting for this item. 3. MINUTES a) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 March 2026 at 11.00 am was approved as a correct record. b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 March 2026 at 2.30 pm was approved as a correct record. c) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 30 March 2026 was approved as a correct record subject to the following amendments: Rewording of paragraph 5 at page 27 of the Agenda Pack to now read as “Mr Anderson offered further perspective, explaining that when towing gear northwards up the Kilbrannan Sound, sailing yachts had right-of-way over fishing vessels under navigational rules. He stated that fishing vessels could not move eastward due to the presence of hard rock and therefore could not avoid the fish farm site easily when meeting other marine traffic. He also noted that while creelers used static gear in some circumstances, towing gear near the fish farm created substantially more risk than working with static gear.” Change “she” to “he” at the beginning of the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph at page 28 of the Agenda Pack. Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
4. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW 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. The fares were last reviewed by Members on 18 December 2024 and took effect on 22 April 2025. The next fare scale will need to come into force in October 2026. Consideration was given to a report seeking approval of the commencement of the next review of taxi fares and other charges. Decision The Committee agreed: 1. to commence the review of fares in order that this could be completed within the 18 months required in terms of the Act; and 2. that the consultation required in terms of the Act would be in writing. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support dated 22 April 2026, submitted) 5. ESB ASSET DEVELOPMENT (UK) LTD: SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT SECTION 36 CONSULTATION FOR WEST TORRISDALE WIND FARM COMPRISING OF UP TO 9 WIND TURBINES WITH A TIP HEIGHT OF UP TO 149.9 METRES WITH A PREDICTED OUTPUT OF UP TO 6 MW PER WIND TURBINE, INSTALLATION OF BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM (BESS) OF UP TO 20 MW OF ENERGY STORAGE AND ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE: TORRISDALE (REF: 25/00043/S36) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report which provided a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) Section 36 Consultation for West Torrisdale Wind Farm. This report reviews the policy considerations which are applicable to this proposal and the planning merits of the development, the views of bodies consulted by the Scottish Government along with other consultations undertaken by the Council, and third party opinion expressed to the Scottish Government. The Committee was asked to agree the recommended response to the ECU set out in the report. Decision The Committee agreed that the ECU be notified accordingly that: 1. Argyll and Bute Council objected on the grounds that the proposal would have an unacceptable significant landscape and visual impact upon residents and the integrity of the East Kintyre Local Landscape Area contrary to the provisions of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) Policy 4d and 11e and Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas and Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study. Page 4
Page 5
2. Argyll and Bute Council objected on the grounds that the Applicant had failed to resolve SEPA’s holding objection and that the proposal would therefore have an adverse impact on peat contrary to the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy, 3 Biodiversity, 5 – Soils and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources of LDP2. In the event that consent was granted it was expected that any conditions recommended by NatureScot, SEPA, RSPB Scotland, the Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board and the Local Biodiversity Officer were attached to the consent. 3. Argyll and Bute Council objected on the grounds that the Applicant had failed to resolve Highlands & Islands Airports holding objection and that the proposal would therefore have an adverse aviation impact contrary to the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes, of the LDP2. 4. Argyll and Bute Council objected on the grounds that the Applicant’s Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment had failed to satisfy Ironside Farrar and that the proposal would have an adverse Peat Landslide Hazard contrary to the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy, 3 Biodiversity, 5 – Soils and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of and 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources of LDP2. 5. Argyll and Bute Council objected on the grounds that the Applicant had failed to satisfy the requirements of Scottish Forestry and that the proposal would have an adverse impact on Forestry contrary to the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 6 – Forestry, woodland and Trees of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees and 78 – Woodland Removal of the LDP2. 6. Argyll and Bute Council had no objection in respect to archaeological impact, subject to a condition to secure a written scheme of investigation being attached to any grant of consent. 7. Argyll and Bute Council had no objection in respect to Biodiversity Impact, subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer on the Revised Outline Habitat Management Plan and the Species Protection Plan being attached to any grant of consent. 8. Argyll and Bute Council had no objection in respect to noise impact, subject to suitably worded conditions to secure a BS4142 assessment for the BESS, limit the noise levels, tonality, and amplitude modulation (operational turbine noise and amplitude modulation conditions) to control noise levels from the proposal and provide appropriate noise mitigation as recommended and agreed by the Council’s Noise Consultant. 9. Argyll and Bute had no objection in respect to flood risk subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessor being attached to any grant of consent: • Watercourse crossings should be designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change (56% allowance) flood event. • Surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development Page 5
Page 6
surface water run-off, the surface water drainage should be in operation prior to construction 10. Argyll and Bute Council had no objection in respect to Access subject to a condition to secure the recommendation of the Access Manager being attached to any grant of consent: • Outdoor Access Plan to be submitted and agreed in writing by the Council prior to the commencement of development. 11. Argyll and Bute Council requested that all conditions recommended by other consultees were included in any Consent. NOTE – Should any of the above matters be resolved to the satisfaction of the relevant consultees Argyll and Bute Council’s objection may be treated as withdrawn. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 9 April 2026, submitted) 6. SCOTTISH HYDRO ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION PLC (SSEN TRANSMISSION): PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICITY SUBSTATION ON A NEW SITE TO REPLACE THE EXISTING ARDNADAM STATION: DUNOON ELECTRICITY SUB STATION, HIGH ROAD, SANDBANK (REF: 26/00366/PAN) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. The site comprises two distinct parts linked by the A885, High Road, which is also included as part of the red line boundary. The western part of the site forms the existing Ardnadam Substation which is served by a vehicular access from the A885. The Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) designates this land as Countryside Zone. The southern part of the site lies to the north of the existing junction with the A885 High Road and Ferry Road. This location is identified for the proposed new substation. The LDP2 designates this land as a Strategic Economic Investment Location for industry, business and storage (Allocated Business Site BI-AL-2/2). These are key locations to promote HIE Priority Sectors to be safeguarded from inappropriate uses. The report sets out the information submitted to date as part of the Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) and summarises the policy considerations, against which any future planning application will be considered as well as potential material considerations and key issues based upon the information received to date. It was recommended that Members note the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of the PAN to allow these matters to be considered by the Applicant in finalising any future planning application submission. Decision The Committee noted the content of the report and requested that the following matters be given consideration in finalising any future planning application submission – Page 6
Page 7
1. Investigate whether Policy 21 of Local Development Plan 2 – Sites of Archaeological Importance would be of relevance in respect of any future planning application. 2. In respect of future use of the site where the existing substation is, investigate if there has been any contamination of the land. 3. Investigate if any significant peat deposits could impact the Holy Loch. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 7 April 2026, submitted) Page 7
Page 8
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 9
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 APRIL 2026 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Dougie Philand Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager David Walker, Solicitor Alan Linden, Applicant Sergeant Ben Rusden, Police Scotland 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jan Brown, Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, Fiona Howard, Andrew Kain, Paul Kennedy and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A TAXI DRIVERS LICENCE (A LINDEN, GLASGOW) 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 Linden joined the meeting by telephone. Sergeant Ben Rusden from Police Scotland also opted to proceed by way of audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application. APPLICANT Mr Linden referred to the 2 convictions he had and said that these were from 13 and 14 years ago. He advised that he’d had no other convictions since then. He commented that these were past offences and that he had been punished at Court. He said he was disqualified from driving, had to re-sit his driving test, and had incurred additional costs in respect of future car insurances. He reiterated that the offences were in the past and that he was not the same person as he was back then. He added that he was not proud of the offences and confirmed that they had occurred. QUESTIONS FROM POLICE Sergeant Rusden confirmed that he had no questions. Page 9 Agenda Item 3b
Page 10
POLICE SCOTLAND Sergeant Rusden referred to a letter of representation dated 2 March 2026 which advised of the details of convictions the Applicant received at Court on 20 January 2015 and 10 September 2015 in relation to Road Traffic Offences which occurred on 26 July 2013 and 15 June 2012, and he explained the circumstances of these. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT Mr Linden confirmed that he had no questions. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Kennedy-Boyle sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that in terms of Section 2 of the application form, the offences were considered “spent” but were not “protected”. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that the Applicant should have included those offences on his application form. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mr Linden that he did not know what to include on the application form at Section 2. He explained that he had completed a Freedom of Scotland search to find out about his previous convictions, but nothing had been highlighted. He said that he knew he had convictions but could not recall the dates as they were so long ago. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle referred to Section 5 of the application form and advised that she had noted that Mr Linden had indicated that he had held a driver’s licence for 25 years and 6 months. She commented that this suggested Mr Linden had missed out the years he had been disqualified, and she sought clarification from Mr Linden in this respect. Mr Linden explained that following his convictions he still held a driving licence but was disqualified from using it until he had sat and passed an extended driving test. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle sought and received confirmation from Mr Linden that he had experience of driving for extended periods of time as part of previous employment. She also asked why he was applying for a licence in Argyll and Bute and not anywhere else, having noted that he lived in Stepps. Mr Linden advised that he was originally from Dumbarton and that he would rather drive in a quieter area than in the city. He said he knew the Helensburgh area better than the areas of Glasgow. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle received confirmation from Sergeant Rusden that Police Scotland had an obligation to highlight previous convictions and any risks or concerns and that was why they had submitted a letter to the licensing authority in respect of this application. Councillor Blair referred to the incident in June 2012 which led to Mr Linden’s conviction, specifically for driving a vehicle on the M8 at 100 miles per hour and undertaking vehicles. Councillor Blair asked Mr Lindon if driving in this manner was due to any particular circumstances. Mr Lindon said it happened in the middle of the night. He advised that there were no reasons for it and that it had been stupidity on his part. He said that he had Page 10
Page 11
done nothing wrong since then and that this was one of those things he should not have done. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr Linden that he had never been involved in any accidents. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Sergeant Rusden that the letter from Police Scotland was considered a representation and not an objection, which, Sergeant Rusden said would have been more specific in nature. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that there had been no review of the current layout of the application form. Police Scotland Sergeant Rusden advised that the 2 convictions noted from 2012 and 2013 showed a pattern of behaviour of dangerous driving with the circumstances around these being presented. Applicant Mr Linden advised that both charges had been a long time ago and that he did not see them as a pattern of his behaviour now. He said that he’d had no offences since then and that he was not proud of them. When asked, both parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Green said he was confident that these offences had happened quite a number of years ago. Considering the age of the Applicant at that time and noting that he had not been in any trouble since then, he said he did not think the Committee should reject this application. Councillor Blair said he agreed with Councillor Green. He pointed out to Mr Linden that it was important to have good quality drivers in Argyll and Bute and that the Committee took the safety of its citizens seriously. He said the obligation would be on Mr Linden to continue his record of the last few years. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle said she was also minded to support the application. She advised that she appreciated the seriousness of the convictions when they occurred but believed that sufficient time had passed, with Mr Linden’s record being clean since then. She noted that Mr Linden had experience of driving professionally as part of previous occupations and she advised that she echoed Councillor Blair’s comments. She referred to the introduction of Project 20 in the area for reasons of safety and said she expected Mr Linden to take his part in the safety of the roads. DECISION The Committee agreed to grant a Taxi Drivers Licence to Mr Linden and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 11
Page 12
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 13
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 APRIL 2026 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Dougie Philand Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager David Walker, Solicitor Malachi Leiper, Applicant Sergeant Ben Rusden, Police Scotland 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jan Brown, Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, Fiona Howard, Andrew Kain, Paul Kennedy and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A METAL DEALERS LICENCE (M LEIPER, LOCHGILPHEAD) 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 Leiper joined the meeting by telephone. Sergeant Ben Rusden from Police Scotland also opted to proceed by way of audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. The Council’s Solicitor referred to a preliminary matter and advised that Police Scotland had requested the Committee take account of a number of matters which were considered “spent” in terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. It was noted that the Committee may take into consideration evidence relating to “spent” matters where they were satisfied that justice could not be done except by admitting such evidence. The procedure that would be followed in this respect was outlined by the Council’s Solicitor and the Chair invited Sergeant Rusden to address the relevancy of the “spent” matters. Police Scotland Sergeant Rusden referred to the dates and the number of these spent convictions and said that he felt it was important that the Committee were fully appraised of these. The Chair then invited the Applicant to ask Police Scotland questions and to address the relevancy of the “spent” matters to his application. Page 13 Agenda Item 3c
Page 14
Applicant Mr Leiper said he had no questions and confirmed that he was content for the convictions to be disclosed. The Chair invited Police Scotland to comment on the Applicant’s submission. Police Scotland Sergeant Rusden advised that he had nothing further to add at this time. The Chair then invited Members to ask questions and determine the relevancy of the “spent” convictions. Members’ Question and Debate Councillor Kennedy-Boyle sought and received confirmation from Mr Leiper that he was comfortable with the Committee having oversight of his spent convictions. The Committee agreed that justice could not be done without admitting the “spent” convictions into the process due to the number of them spanning a number of years. A letter dated 24 March 2026 from Police Scotland outlining the detail of the “spent” convictions was circulated. After a brief adjournment the Committee reconvened at 4.00 pm. The Chair outlined the hearing procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application. APPLICANT Mr Leiper said this was his first time applying for a Metal Dealer’s Licence. He advised that he was currently employed delivering fruit and vegetables. He said that his dad and granddad had worked for many years in the scrap metal business and that was something he wanted to do for himself. He said that he had bought premises to run his business from and that he had applied for relevant licences and permissions from SEPA and the Council’s Planning Service. He said that he had experience of working with scrap cars for around 20 years and that he was going through the correct channels to make everything legal. He referred to a couple of previous convictions from his earlier years and explained the circumstances of each of these. He advised that his most recent conviction was in relation to being stopped while driving his work van and the vehicle was found to have bald tyres. He said he attended Court on 20 April 2026 and received 3 penalty points and a fine. He also advised of other previous convictions and explained the circumstances of each of these. QUESTIONS FROM POLICE Sergeant Rusden advised that he had no questions. Page 14
Page 15
POLICE SCOTLAND Sergeant referred to a letter dated 24 March 2026 which advised that the Chief Constable objected to this application on the grounds that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to be the holder of the licence by virtue of an incident which took place on 22 April 2025. He noted that this issue had now been resolved at Court as intimated by Mr Leiper. Sergeant Rusden also referred to a separate letter dated 24 March 2026 which advised of a number of convictions the Applicant had which were considered “spent” in terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. These related to incidents which took place on 1 March 2008, 9 February 2008, 10 February 2008, 20 April 2010, 15 August 2013, various dates between January 2010 and December 2016, and on various dates in July 2023 and he explained the details of each of these. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT Mr Leiper advised that he had no questions. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Blair referred to the number of convictions Mr Leiper had and asked if he had ever undertaken an anger management course in view of his conduct. Mr Leiper advised that along with a prosecution in respect of one his offences he also had to attend an anger management course. Councillor Blair asked Mr Leiper if he felt attending this course had worked. Mr Leiper referred to being hot headed at the time of the incident. He said that having undertaken the anger management course he realised it was better to walk away and that it was not worth the results of his actions that followed. He said that since then he always walked away from any potential altercations. Councillor Green referred to an incident from April 2010 which involved the theft of alcohol and cash. He asked Mr Leiper if that was all that had been taken. Mr Leiper explained that he had been with 2 people and that he had not entered the premises but the stolen goods had been brought back to his flat where there was a party going on. He said it was a stupid and reckless thing to do and confirmed that it was just cash and alcohol that had been taken. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mr Leiper that this was the only time he had been involved in an acquisitive crime. Mr Leiper advised that since then he had tried to keep on the right side of the law. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Sergeant Rusden that he was only aware of one record of acquisitive crime linked to Mr Leiper. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle referred to Mr Leiper currently working full time delivering fruit and vegetables. She asked Mr Leiper what his motivation was for changing careers and moving to this area of business. Mr Leiper said that he has been in his current employment, working for the same company for 8 years. He said that he has been involved with scrap cars for 20 years since he was young with his dad and granddad. He advised that he has always enjoyed working with engines and that when he was younger he wanted to own his own garage and scrap yard as this was the way he was brought up. Page 15
Page 16
He said it would not be a career change as it has always been something he has been involved with. He advised that he would continue to work in his current employment as this job was always finished by lunch time. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle referred to the important industry Mr Leiper wished to be part of on a part time basis and commented that there were a lot of serious obligations in respect of health and safety, the environment etc in this line of work. She noted that Mr Leiper had mentioned that he had engaged with SEPA and Planning regarding the premises he had secured. She asked Mr Leiper if he could outline what his understanding was of the obligations he would have as a metal dealer. Mr Leiper advised that he had done research on the internet to find out what was required. He said that he had approached SEPA about what the rules and regulations were in terms of keeping good records in respect of waste management, goods coming in and going out, and protecting the environment. He said he wanted to keep on the right side of the law and had approached all the relevant agencies to assist him with opening up a metal dealer’s business. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle sought confirmation from Mr Leiper that although he had been involved and been around dealing with scrap metal for some time on an informal basis, he had no experience of meeting the legal obligations, the health and safety obligations, and environmental obligations connected to this industry, but he was engaging with various agencies in the hope that he would be able to achieve that on a more formal basis. Mr Leiper replied yes and no. He said that he had a SEPA licence to carry waste metals but needed a different licence to meet the regulations for opening a yard. Councillor Philand referred to Mr Leiper’s multiple convictions and asked Mr Leiper what he had learnt as a person about his behaviour over the last few years. Mr Leiper said his previous convictions went back to 2008 when he was 17 years old. He said he had a car and at that time he thought he was invincible. He also did not have any children then and he got in with the wrong crowd. He advised that he did not get on well at school and left at 16 years and was always a worker. He advised that he was 36 years old now and that he was ashamed of his past offences which, he said, were mainly assaults and breaches of the peace. He said that looking back he had been hindered by these moving forward and that they had not been worth it. He said he wanted to look to the future now and set a good example to his children and to work hard to get to where he wanted to be in life. Mr Leiper acknowledged that the convictions did not look good. He said they were all from earlier in his life and that he was trying to get past these and move on. He said he could not change the past but wanted to do everything for his children and be a better role model for them. He said that he had always wanted to own a scrap yard and work with his children like he did with his dad when he was young. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr Leiper that he believed he was in a better place now. Mr Leiper said that his mum and dad worked hard when he was young and he could remember them working in all weathers. He said that roles had reversed now and the lorries were newer and that he had progressed from having one lorry to 4 lorries. He advised that going forward he was in a better place now than where he was 5 years ago. Councillor Armour referred to the conviction in 2023 in relation to incidents which took place between January 2010 and December 2016. He asked Sergeant Rusden why it had taken so long to bring these offences to Court. Sergeant Rusden explained that these were domestic abuse offences. He advised it could take years for these types of offences Page 16
Page 17
to surface as a victim may not have been able to reach out until they had reached a crisis point or separated from their partner. He advised that he was not saying that was the case here but this was in general terms. He advised that once an offence of this nature was made known to them it could take years to carry out investigations and make enquiries. Councillor Armour sought and received confirmation from Sergeant Rusden that the offences Mr Leiper committed between 2010 and 2016 related to an ex-partner that he had two children with and were initially reported in 2019. SUMMING UP Police Scotland Sergeant Rusden provided a brief summary of each of the offences which ranged from, non-compliance, dangerous driving, loss of self-control, dishonesty, and domestic abuse. He advised it was for the Committee to decide what had changed in terms of Mr Leiper’s behaviour since these offences. Applicant Mr Leiper advised that some of these convictions had happened 13 years ago. He advised that the most recent one was in relation to swearing at children and he said he was not aggressive. He explained that his current partner had two children that were always bickering and fighting and that he had shouted out at them. He referred to his driving conviction which, he said was many years ago and that he had got in with the wrong crowd. He advised that he was trying to move on with his life. He said he felt he had matured. He advised that he had a fiancée, a house, his children were getting older, and that he was trying to achieve his goals in life. He said he personally felt he had matured as he had gotten older and compared to when he was 18 years old, he was in a better place. When asked, both parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that if there was a breach of any of the conditions for this type of licence it could be reported to the licensing team and this would be investigated and brought to the Committee’s attention as soon as possible for review. The Council’s Solicitor also confirmed that if the application was refused today, Mr Leiper would not be able to reapply for 12 months. Councillor Green said he had not reached a final view at the moment. He commented that this was an application for a Metal Dealer’s licence and he was not sure if any of the offences fully related to this type of work. He noted that many had taken place some time ago and on only one occasion was this linked to acquisitive crime. He said that gave him some confidence in the suitability of the Applicant. He advised that the record did speak clearly for itself and that the Applicant did have a history but he was not sure how relevant this would be to running a metal business. He said he would be interested to hear what other Members thought. Councillor Blair advised that looking at Mr Leiper’s criminal record, he had taken some comfort from the comments and frankness from Mr Leiper who had made clear his Page 17
Page 18
position, stating that he was wiser now with a better outlook on life. He said he was concerned about whether the planning and environmental health side of things would be complied with. He noted the number of times Mr Leiper had broken the rules before and he said he would be concerned about providing a licence to someone who may break the rules again. He commented that it was quite an important role in the community in respect of recycling materials. On balance he said he would be happy to give his support to this new business with the warning that Council Officers and other professionals would be able to check if all the rules and regulations where being complied with and that it would be up to Mr Leiper to comply with the rules and regulations stipulated. He advised that he was tempted to support the application knowing full well that if the licence was approved it could be taken away very quickly. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle said she would wait to hear from all Members. She advised that she did have concerns regarding non-compliant behaviour and understanding and following the serious obligations which would be required under the Metal Dealer’s licence. She said that the impact in terms of not following those obligations, particularly around health and safety, would be very dangerous and the impact would not be great for people in and around the area if things were not followed correctly. She advised that in the event obligations were not followed then there could be very serious consequences for people and the environment. She noted that Mr Leiper had been very candid in setting out ways he was trying to change his behaviour but, she advised, she still had concerns about granting the licence. Councillor Philand said this was classic case of the past catching up with a person. He questioned whether Mr Leiper should be penalised for at least attempting to do something to better himself. He said he understood the worries about the regulations, but noted that there were Officers employed to keep an eye on that. He said he was reassured by the Council’s Solicitor advising that if there were any issues then it could be brought back to the Committee very quickly. He said he was a great believer in giving someone a chance, particularly a young person with a young family that hoped to take on a business he had experience of. He said he could not condone the past behaviour but he advised that Mr Leiper had given enough reassurance that these were silly and stupid things he had done as a young boy. Councillor Philand said he would be willing to support the application with the safeguards outlined by the Council’s Solicitor. Councillor Blair said he would propose accepting this application. He said he was content there were safeguards in place that if there were any issues it could come back to the Committee to be dealt with promptly. He said he had no reason to doubt Mr Leiper. Councillor Philand said he would second this proposal. Councillor Armour said he would also be happy to support the application. He noted that a lot of points had been made and commented that Councillor Green had summed up what went on in the past in respect of whether any of these offences would preclude someone from this type of business. Councillor Hardie also confirmed he would be happy to support the application. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle said she would not be looking to put up an amendment but was assured that her comments would have been noted. Councillor Green advised that on balance he thought the Committee should be supporting this and that he was happy to go with Councillor Blair’s suggestion. Page 18
Page 19
DECISION The Committee agreed to grant a Metal Dealer’s Licence to Mr Leiper and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted and Letter from Police Scotland dated 24 March 2026, tabled) Page 19
Page 20
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 21
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 21 Agenda Item 4
Page 22
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 22
Page 23
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 23
Page 24
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 24
Page 25
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 25
Page 26
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 26
Page 27
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 27
Page 28
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 28
Page 29
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 29
Page 30
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 30
Page 31
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 31
Page 32
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 32
Page 33
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 33
Page 34
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 34
Page 35
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 35
Page 36
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 36
Page 37
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 37
Page 38
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 38
Page 39
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 39
Page 40
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 40
Page 41
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 41
Page 42
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 42
Page 43
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 43
Page 44
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 44
Page 45
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 45
Page 46
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 46
Page 47
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 47
Page 48
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 49
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL COMMITTEE Development & Economic Growth 20th May 2026 Development Management Performance Update – FQ4 2025/26 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report provides an update on the performance of the Development Management Service for the reporting period FQ4 2025/26. 1.2 The attached document Appendix 1 provides an overview of the current demands upon the Development Management Service, its output during this period, the handling of the current backlog of casework, and the average time taken to determine planning applications. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that PPSL: (a) Review and agree the content of the report. 3.0 DETAIL & BACKGROUND 3.1 The performance of the Council’s Development Management Service has been significantly impacted by the legacy effect of the Covid Pandemic upon interruption to workflow and a subsequent increase in demand for regulatory activity relating to new development. This situation has been exacerbated by the Service having previously been down-sized in response to the longer-term wider financial pressures facing the Council combined with a number of long-term vacancies that proved extremely difficult to fill as a result of a national shortage of planning professionals. The determination of planning applications has also been impacted by the uncertainty created by a changing planning policy backdrop with the Scottish Government’s adoption of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) in February 2023 with minimal transition arrangements having had a noticeable adverse impact on FQ4 2022/23 output as a result of a significant volume of casework requiring to be reassessed prior to its determination. The cumulative effect of these extraordinary pressures has given rise to a significant backlog of planning casework that continues to impact upon the ability of the Council to deliver the Development Management Service in an efficient and effective manner at this time, and impacts upon customer service. At FQ4 2022/23 the backlog of applications amounted to approximately 375 formal applications and 175 pre-application enquiries. Page 49 Agenda Item 5
Page 50
3.2 An Improvement Action Plan (IAP) was prepared in early 2023 in response to the significant decrease in performance and wider issues impacting upon the resourcing of the service and its interactions with customers. The implementation of the IAP has ensured the delivery of additional capacity within the Development Management Service and along with this improvement initially in terms of output and more latterly improving trends are also now able to be identified in relation to the making of timely determinations. Building upon the foundation of the IAP, the Development Management Service Plan and Development Management Charter approved by PPSL on 18th September 2024 set out updated performance targets for the Service. These include a wider range of measures that seek to demonstrate the delivery of individual elements of the IAP and in addition to timeliness include measures which can be utilised to measure customer satisfaction, and staff welfare. 3.3 DEMAND: The Development Management Service receive approximately 2000 planning and related application case work items on an annual basis. The Development Management Service is resourced with the expectation that demand will be relatively constant and steady throughout the year. Whilst the volume of new submissions decreased by approximately 10% during 2020/21 they had returned to and exceeded pre-pandemic levels during 2021/22. Submission rates have subsequently been maintained at a high level and during 2022/23 were 5% up on pre-pandemic levels. Appendix 1, Sheet 1 shows that whilst submission rates continued to show an increase in demand during FQ4 2025/26 this has increased slightly from the previous reporting period. 3.4 CAPACITY: FQ4 2025/26 has seen vacant planning and enforcement officer posts in both the MAKI and BCHL teams taken up during January 2026 with new staff undertaking induction and training. The MAKI team leader post remains vacant and continues to be covered on an acting-up basis. Staff changes have proven to be particularly disruptive to workflow and additional capacity is continues to be provided within MAKI and the Major Application Team by agency staff. 3.5 Productivity during FQ4 has continued to be impacted as a result of technical issues with backoffice systems maintained by the Council’s Corporate IT Service although this is an improving position. Significant disruption to workflow during FQ3 as a result of IT issues has continued to impact upon timeliness of performance within FQ4 arising from a four-week period in FQ3 that has had a cascade effect on determination times. 3.6 OUTPUT: FQ4 has seen similar output to the previous reporting period. Whilst performance is slightly down from FQ2 it remains broadly comparable to previous reporting periods. (Appendix 1, Sheet 2). It is anticipated that productivity should continue to improve as new recruits complete their initial training and settling in periods. It is however highlighted that recruitment issues will continue to cause some disruption to performance across the DM Service in the coming months. These include recruitment of the Team Leader role on a permanent basis which is required to bring the MAKI team back up to full capacity, and to support service improvement work across the Development Management Service as a whole. Page 50
Page 51
3.7 Output during FQ4 has fallen marginally behind the rate of new applications for the first time since FQ4 2022/23 however the DM Service has overall managed to keep pace with the number of applications validated (Appendix 1, Sheet 3). The monitoring of ‘live’ casework has however continued to identify a slight increase in the number of ‘legacy’ cases which are older than 1 year from validation remain ‘live’ and it is noted that these have increased from 93 to 95 items during FQ4 (Appendix 1, Sheet 5). 17 legacy items were determined during FQ4 however in the same period 19 additional items became legacy cases. Resolution of ‘legacy’ cases remains a priority and it is the aim of the Service to reduce the number of ‘legacy’ applications to single figures. 3.8 PRE-APPLICATION ENQUIRIES: Demand for pre-application advice remains high however FQ4 has seen a focus on addressing a backlog of pre-application casework which has seen output exceed new enquiries (Appendix 1, Sheet 4). A commitment has been provided to review and improve the pre-application process, this will include the provision of enhanced information on the Council website to allow a greater proportion of customers to ‘self-serve’; development and roll out of a new pre-application service has been identified as a priority project. Interim measures will see an additional admin process introduced during FQ1 2026/27 with a focus on reducing the number of enquiries that progress to planning officers without fees and basic information being provided. 3.9 ‘HOUSEHOLDER’ DEVELOPMENT: The performance of the Development Management Service is also measured in terms of the time taken to determine applications as it is recognised that failure to provide timely decisions can create uncertainty and be detrimental to the delivery of development across the Council area. Overall ‘time-taken’ measures have been skewed for sometime by the determination of a high volume of older ‘legacy’ applications that have accrued as part of the planning backlog. The increasing proportion of older applications being determined from FQ3 2022/23 onwards is identified in the bar graphs that provide a breakdown of application age within the average time measures (Appendix 1, Sheet 5 and Sheet 6) and demonstrate that ‘legacy’ applications are successfully being targeted for determination. During FQ4, no ‘legacy’ householder items were determined however a higher proportion of older items (between 6 and 12 months) were determined and have had the effect of increasing overall average time measure by 3 weeks. The increasing proportion of older applications is in part attributed to the disruption of casework by the previously reported IT issues in FQ3 which prevented the issue of decisions for almost 4 weeks. 3.10 The previously reported issues arising from disruption to staff availability and technical issues during FQ3 has also seen a continuing reduction in performance during FQ4 to the underlying ‘householder’ average time measure (Appendix 1, Sheet 5) where the headline KPI has increased from 7.9 weeks in FQ2 2025/26 to 11.9 weeks in FQ4 2025/26. Removing the impact of ‘legacy’ and older cases, there is an improvement in underlying performance from 9.3 weeks in FQ3 to 8.9 weeks in FQ4. It is also highlighted that this position relates to ‘raw’ data and does not factor in delays which have arisen as a result of matters outwith the control of the Council, or applications that have been subject to processing agreements. Page 51
Page 52
Whilst the data sets are not directly comparable it is still helpful to reference the SG Returns as a benchmark. In this respect the latest available national average for householder applications at FQ4 2024/25 was 8.4 weeks. 3.11 ‘LOCAL’ DEVELOPMENT: The determination of ‘legacy’ applications continued to have an adverse impact upon the average time taken measure applied to all other ‘local’ planning applications (Appendix 1, Sheet 6) where the determination of 17 ‘legacy’ applications during FQ4 cumulatively added 10.7 weeks to an average time measure that reports on the determination of 132 applications in total. During FQ4 87% of all other ‘local’ applications determined were less than 1 year old at the time of their determination and were determined in an average of 18.5 weeks (previously 87% in 15.2 weeks at FQ3 2025/26). 62% of the total were less than 6 months old and determined in 10.9 weeks on average (previously 72% in 11.2 weeks in FQ2 2025/26). The average time taken to determine ‘all other local applications’ has increased slightly during FQ4 from 26.7 weeks to 29.2 weeks. It is again highlighted that this position relates to ‘raw’ data and does not factor in delays which have arisen as a result of matters outwith the control of the Council, or applications that have been subject to processing agreements. During FQ4 the Council determined a number of legacy applications which have impacted on the raw data relating to the average time period, including items that were delayed largely due to matters outwith the control of the Council. Whilst the data sets are not directly comparable it is still helpful to reference the SG Returns as a benchmark. In this respect the latest national average for local applications (excluding householder) at FQ4 2024/25 was 15.2 weeks. 3.12 CONCLUSIONS: FQ4 has disappointingly seen further degradation to the timeliness of performance although it has been identified that this is a knock on effect from FQ3 where the DM Service operated with significant IT constraints that have included periods of time where casework could not be progressed. In terms of output, the DM Service have managed to keep pace with demand during FQ4. 3.13 The determination of extant ‘legacy’ items also continues to impact on ‘local’ application performance and will do so until such time as the remaining 95 items have been determined, and subject to appropriate resource availability and intervention to prevent new ‘legacy’ items from accruing. 4.0 IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Policy None 4.2 Financial None 4.3 Legal None 4.4 HR None 4.5 Customer Service Requirement to manage customer expectations in the determination planning and related applications 4.6 Risk Failure to determine planning and related applications in efficient and effective manner would have potential to adversely impact upon the local economy, delivery of housing, and health and wellbeing of individuals. Page 52
Page 53
4.7 Climate Change None 4.8 Fairer Scotland Duty 4.9 Equalities – Protected Characteristics None 4.10 Consumer Duty None 4.11 Island Communities None 4.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing None Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Policy Lead: Cllr Gordon Blair 28th April 2026 For further information contact: Peter Bain – 01546 604204 APPENDICES Appendix 1 – FQ4 2025/26 DM performance report Page 53
Page 54
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 55
# Volumes FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 Statutory 511 451 508 512 457 468 404 422 469 423 412 386 415 411 397 423 2012 75.9% 1982 76.1% 1751 74.3% 1690 76.1% 1646 75.4% Non-Statutory 10 10 14 17 15 26 25 21 14 22 23 26 23 25 20 12 56 2.1% 51 2.0% 87 3.7% 85 3.8% 80 3.7% PREAPP 153 146 121 150 122 137 120 141 119 104 107 117 116 107 118 117 582 22.0% 570 21.9% 520 22.1% 447 20.1% 458 21.0% Totals 674 607 643 679 594 631 549 584 602 549 542 529 554 543 535 552 2650 2603 2358 2222 2184 This data is unfiltered - it shows all casework received. data source = UNIform (Access queries) This tab provides information on the volume of DM case work received by financial quarter and includes a breakdown between statutory items (planning and related applications), non- statutory items (consultations from other regulatory bodies), and pre-application enquiries. FY25/26 Split of Casework Received The data set covers the last 16 financial quarters and confirms that demand for the determination of planning applications and other statutory activity of the Council as the Planning Authority remains high and relatively constant in its volume. End of FQ4 25/26: Submission rates for FQ4 are within expected parameters. Commentary: FY24/25 New Casework Received FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 511 451 508 512 457 468 404 422 469 423 412 386 415 411 397 423 10 10 14 17 15 26 25 21 14 22 23 26 23 25 20 12 153 146 121 150 122 137 120 141 119 104 107 117 116 107 118 117 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 Volume of New Casework Received PREAPP Non-Statutory Statutory 75.4% 3.7% 21.0% Split of Casework Received: FY25/26 YTD Statutory Non-Statutory PREAPP Appendix 1 Page 55
Page 56
# Volumes FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 Statutory 410 369 402 368 476 421 458 423 464 464 427 425 370 407 382 383 1610 72.4% 1549 74.5% 1778 75.1% 1780 76.5% 1542 74.0% Non-Statutory 9 8 5 11 19 18 21 17 17 31 15 25 21 22 26 20 46 2.1% 33 1.6% 75 3.2% 88 3.8% 89 4.3% PREAPP 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 116 133 100 97 124 568 25.5% 496 23.9% 513 21.7% 459 19.7% 454 21.8% 2224 2078 2366 2327 2085 This data is unfiltered - it shows all casework closed. data source = UNIform (Access queries) FY24/25 FY25/26 Split of Casework Closed The data set covers the last 16 financial quarters and demonstrates that regardless of performance issues in respect of timeliness output remains high. There has been a notable improvement in productivity from FQ1 2023/24 which corresponds with the increasing availability of officer resource and a more settled position following the significant disruption to workflow arising from NPF4 (FQ4 2022/23); this improving position has continued through subsequent reporting periods. End FQ4 25/26: Productivity during 2025/26 has reduced although this is not wholly unexpected as the Service has operated with vacancies and significant staff turnover during this period. Output during FQ 4 is comparable with the remainder of 25/26. Commentary: This tab provides detail on the volume of DM casework that has been closed and includes a breakdown between statutory items (planning and related applications), non-statutory items (consultations from other regulatory bodies), and pre-application enquiries. FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 Casework Closed 410 369 402 368 476 421 458 423 464 464 427 425 370 407 382 383 9 8 5 11 19 18 21 17 17 31 15 25 21 22 26 20 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 116 133 100 97 124 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 Volume of Casework Closed PREAPP Non-Statutory Statutory 74.0% 4.3% 21.8% Split of Casework Closed: FY25/26 YTD Statutory Non-Statutory PREAPP Page 56
Page 57
# Volumes FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 Closed 419 377 407 379 495 439 479 440 481 495 442 450 391 429 408 403 Validated 462 455 436 509 462 428 366 428 425 425 370 400 387 427 387 418 Difference (no) -43 -78 -29 -130 33 11 113 12 56 70 72 50 4 2 21 -15 This data is unfiltered - it shows the number of cases closed vs number of cases validated. data source = UNIform (Access queries) Casework Turnover - Volume This tab shows a comparison between the volume of new statutory and non-statutory casework and output per financial quarter. The Y axis has been formatted to track the cumulative backlog of applications over the last rolling 16 financial quarters. Commentary: The graph shows that after 7 financial quarters (FQ2 2021/22 - FQ4 2022/23) where output was lower than input, a backlog of 375 casework items were accumulated. During this period the DM Service were impacted by Covid restrictions/recovery and required to operate with a number of key vacancies due to a national shortage of planning professionals. Improving performance during 2023/24 has however reduced the backlog at the end of that period to 206 items. As significant improvement in performance is evident from FQ1 2023/24 which corresponds with the resolution of key staffing issues within the Service, this improving position has been maintained moving forward from that point. End FQ4 25/26: Productivity for FQ4 has been impacted by the Xmas/New Year break, ongoing issues with staff turnover in MAKI and also with the reliance and availability of backoffice IT systems also continues to have an effect on output. Whilst output has continued to remains largely in line with the volume of new applications it is nonetheless disappointing to record the first period of negative turnover since FQ4 22/23. -43 -78 -29 -130 33 11 113 12 56 70 72 50 4 2 21 -15 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Casework Turnover Rate Page 57
Page 58
# Volumes FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 Closed 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 116 133 100 97 124 Validated 159 137 117 140 117 132 120 130 115 92 103 116 117 100 118 105 Difference (no) -10 -18 7 -36 33 -23 1 3 -9 30 12 0 16 0 -21 19 Number of PREAPP's closed vs number of PREAPP's validated. data source = UNIform (Access queries) PREAPP Turnover - Volume This tab shows a comparison between the volume of new pre-application casework and output per financial quarter. The Y axis has been formatted to track the cumulative backlog of pre- application enquiries over the last rolling 16 financial quarters. Commentary: The Graph shows the accumulation of a backlog of pre- application enquiries over the period FQ3 2021/22 - FQ4 2022/23 during a period where the DM Service operated with a number of key vacancies and has experienced significant workflow disruption with the introduction of NPF4. It had previously been identified that the backlog amounted to around 180 applications; however following a review of the data input and accuracy of the data available (see detail of correction below) it has become evident that earlier reports included cases that were invalid and cases that had not been closed off proprerly in the back office system. The updated report confirms that the backlog of pre-application enquiries reached a maximum of just over 50 items; this position has seen significant improvement. End FQ4 25/26: Additional efforts to keep pre-app enquiries up to date during FQ4 has seen output exceed new demand with the backlog of enquiries from teh previous period resolved. -10 -18 7 -36 33 -23 1 3 -9 30 12 0 16 0 -21 19 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 PREAPP Turnover Rate Page 58
Page 59
Jan '24 Apr Jul Oct Jan '25 Apr Jul Oct Jan '26 Apr Jul Oct 1 - 2 Years 204 166 130 89 66 48 48 54 59 62 2+ Years 85 73 62 40 36 38 42 37 34 33 289 239 192 129 102 86 90 91 93 95 0 0 Estimated on 1st August 2024. Data sourced from Uniform on - or as near as possible to first working day of each financial quarter (from August 2024) Live Legacy Applications - quarterly progress: Argyll & Bute Council Commentary: This graph provides detail of the volume of 'legacy' cases remaining at the start of each Quarter since Jan 2024 (start FQ4 24/25). 'Legacy' cases are statutory items that remain undetermined more than 1 year after validation. These cases are generally items that have a high degree of complexity, can be contentious, or are not readily aligned with the requirements of the Development Plan. A significant number of 'legacy' items are items that have required substantial reworking or the provision of additional information from the applicant with the intention of addressing identified short-comings in the original submission, often requiring extensive input from planning officers. In some cases 'legacy' items are no longer being actively pursued by applicants but have not as yet been formally withdrawn. The determination of 'legacy' items has a significant adverse effect on average time performance measures and can also impact on allocation of staff resource and morale. End FQ4 2025/26: During FQ4, 17 legacy items were determined. However, during this period 19 new legacy items have accrued. The determination of legacy cases has plateaued and gives rise to concern and an indication that this backlog of longstanding complex cases is unable to be resolved without additional targetted resource. 204 166 130 89 66 48 48 54 59 62 0 0 85 73 62 40 36 38 42 37 34 33 0 00 50 100 150 200 250 300 Jan '24 Apr Jul Oct Jan '25 Apr Jul Oct Jan '26 Apr Jul Oct Live Legacy Applications: Argyll & Bute 1 - 2 Years 2+ Years Page 59
Page 60
# FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 < 6 months 10.9 10.2 11.0 13.3 11.8 11.6 11.8 12.0 9.6 9.6 10.1 8.5 8.1 7.9 9.3 8.9 < 6 months 71 69 82 51 43 67 63 54 50 56 52 60 59 66 48 40 < 1 year 12.4 12.4 12.0 17.3 17.8 15.4 14.6 18.3 12.4 12.6 12.6 9.8 8.7 7.9 9.7 11.9 6 months - 1 year 5 6 4 11 13 12 9 19 6 8 5 4 1 0 1 5 < 2 years 12.4 13.1 12.0 17.3 18.5 18.1 16.8 20.0 16.1 19.0 13.5 12.2 10.4 7.9 10.6 11.9 1 - 2 years 0 1 0 0 1 4 3 2 4 7 1 3 2 0 1 0 All Determined 12.4 13.1 12.0 17.3 21.6 18.1 16.8 20.0 16.1 26.1 15.9 14.2 10.4 7.9 10.6 11.9 Over 2 years 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 Total 76 76 86 62 59 83 75 75 60 75 59 68 62 66 50 45 This data is filtered - as per Scottish Government statistical returns - to allow benchmarking. "Householder" = Development Type N01. data source = UNIform (Access queries) Commentary: The line graph shows performance over time; the bar graph shows the proportionate split between 'legacy' casework and newer items. A comparison of the two demonstrates that the 'All Determined' average can be readily impacted by the determination of a small number of 'legacy' applications. The improving resource availability has allowed the focus of the DM Service from FQ1 2023/24 to move from addressing the most urgent applications to also addressing the wider backlog of application casework. Increasing output does however mean that a high volume of 'legacy' applications continue to be determined with significant deteriment to average time measures as is seen with the deterioration of performance across FQ4 2022/23 to FQ4 2023/24. In order to provide some context additional information is provided that demonstrates the effect of removing older applications from reporting to provide a truer picture of the time taken to deliver the larger proportion of casework. The bar graph provides this breakdown in a format which shows the increasing volume of older applications currently being determined but also confirms that a significant proportion of output is still undertaken in a timely manner. Peformance from FQ1 2024/25 has shown a marked improvement which demonstrates that the majority of householder applications are now being determined in much shorter time periods. End FQ4 25/26: During FQ4 Householder Applications have been determined in an average of 11.9 weeks (decrease from 10.6 weeks during FQ3 25/26); no householder legacy items have been determined during FQ4, however five older non-legacy items have been determined and are responsible for adding 3 weeks to the headline performance measure within what is currently a realtively small data set. The lengthening time periods during FQ4 can be attributed to significant issues with backoffice systems in Oct/Nov with delays rippling forward in terms of casework progression, and significant staff turnover within FQ3 which has disrupted service delivery and case work management. The remaining 40 householder items determined were all less than 6 months old and determined in an average time of 8.9 weeks (improvement from 9.3 weeks in FQ3 25/26). Performance in the determination of householder applications is slightly behind track (DM Service Plan Target <10 weeks), National Average (latest data FQ4 24/25) was 8.4 weeks. Average Time to Determine Applications: Householder ( <6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) Volume of Applications Determined: Householder - Time Taken The Average Time Taken to Determine Householder Planning Applications This tab provides detail on the average time taken to determine 'householder' planning applications, this is based on raw data which does not take into account any delays that might arise from matters outwith the control of the planning authority. 10.9 10.2 11.0 13.3 11.8 11.6 11.8 12.0 9.6 9.6 10.1 8.5 8.1 7.9 9.3 8.9 11.9 11.9 12.4 13.1 12.0 17.3 21.6 18.1 16.8 20.0 16.1 26.1 15.9 14.2 10.4 7.9 10.6 11.9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 Average no. of weeks to determine: Householder (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months < 1 year < 2 years All Determined 71 69 82 51 43 67 63 54 50 56 52 60 59 66 48 40 5 6 4 11 13 12 9 19 6 8 5 4 1 1 5 1 1 4 3 2 4 7 1 3 2 1 2 4 1 1 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 % Split: Householder (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months 6 months - 1 year 1 - 2 years Over 2 years Page 60
Page 61
# FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 < 6 months 12.4 10.1 10.2 12.9 13.5 14.0 12.7 12.1 11.6 11.5 12.7 12.2 10.2 10.9 11.2 10.9 < 6 months 114 110 104 69 87 106 95 79 97 106 104 110 80 92 85 81 < 1 year 14.5 14.0 18.0 19.2 19.3 18.7 18.8 21.0 19.0 16.3 17.0 15.6 17.9 14.3 15.2 18.5 6 months - 1 year 14 19 43 25 31 27 32 40 39 26 22 17 33 15 18 34 < 2 years 15.7 16.1 19.9 23.6 21.9 25.0 25.8 29.3 26.1 24.5 25.6 20.7 21.4 19.7 19.5 24.7 1 - 2 years 3 6 6 10 7 20 22 19 23 25 22 13 9 11 9 13 All Determined 16.8 17.0 19.9 24.5 27.6 27.4 30.2 33.4 30.0 37.8 31.2 26.4 26.7 24.5 26.7 29.2 Over 2 years 1 1 0 1 4 3 6 6 4 19 7 7 6 5 6 4 Total 132 136 153 105 129 156 155 144 163 176 155 147 128 123 118 132 This data is filtered - as per Scottish Government statistical returns - to allow benchmarking. "Local (excluding Householder)" = Development Types N02B/C, N03B/C, N04B/C, N05B/C, N06B/C, N07B/C, N08B/C, N09B/C, N10B/C. data source = UNIform (Access queries) Commentary: The line graph shows performance over time; the bar graph shows the proportionate split between 'legacy' and newer items. A comparison of the two demonstrates that the 'All Determined' average can be readily impacted by the determination of a small number of 'legacy' applications. The improving resource availability has allowed the focus of the DM Service is to move during 2023/24 from addressing the most urgent applications to also addressing the wider backlog of application casework. Increasing output does however mean that a higher volume of 'legacy' applications will be determined with significant deteriment to average time measures as is seen with the deterioration of overall average time performance measures from FQ2 2022/23 to FQ4 2023/24. In order to provide some context additional information is provided that demonstrates the effect of removing older applications from considerations to provide a truer picture of the time taken to deliver the larger proportion of casework that has been determined. The bar graph provides this breakdown in a format which shows the increasing volume of older applications currently being determined but also confirms that a significant proportion of output is still undertaken in a timely manner. End FQ4 25/26: FQ4 has seen 17 legacy applications cleared, with the effect of adding 10.7 weeks to the overall average time measure which now sits at 29.2 weeks (deterioration from 26.7 weeks in FQ3 2025/26). It is also noted that some of the negative impact is attributed to delays to determination which were outwith the control of the planning authority and which will be adjusted in statutory reporting by the Scottish Government. During FQ4 the determination of non- legacy local applications were undertaken in an average of 18.5weeks (deterioration from 17.3 weeks in FQ3 25/26). It is however highlighted that a consistently high proportion of applications are continuing to being determined at an early stage with 61% of all local applications in FQ4 being newer items determined in an average time of 10.9 weeks (previously 72% in 11.2 weeks in FQ3 2025/26). Due to the impact of legacy items, the headline measure remains off-track (DM Service Plan Target <16 weeks). For the purpose of comparison, the National Average (latest data FQ4 24/25) was 15.2 weeks. The lengthening time periods during FQ4 can be attributed to and increased proportion of legacy determinations, significant issues with backoffice systems in Oct/Nov with delays rippling forward in terms of casework progression, and significant staff turnover within FQ3 which has disrupted service delivery and case work management; it is also noted that delays arising from the Xmas/New Year break and carried over leave being used will have impacted output at the beginning of the year. Average Time to Determine Applications: Local (Excluding Householder) ( <6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) Volume of Applications Determined: Local (Excluding Householder) - Time Taken The Average Time Taken to Determine Local (excluding Householder) Planning Applications This tab provides detail on the average time taken to determine 'local' planning applications, this is based on raw data which does not take into account any delays that might arise from matters outwith the control of the planning authority. 12.4 10.1 10.2 12.9 13.5 14.0 12.7 12.1 11.6 11.5 12.7 12.2 10.2 10.9 11.2 10.9 14.5 18.515.7 24.7 16.8 17.0 19.9 24.5 27.6 27.4 30.2 33.4 30.0 37.8 31.2 26.4 26.7 24.5 26.7 29.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 Ave no. of weeks to determine: Local (Excluding Householder) (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) 114 110 104 69 87 106 95 79 97 106 104 110 80 92 85 81 14 19 43 25 31 27 32 40 39 26 22 17 33 15 18 34 3 6 6 10 7 20 22 19 23 25 22 13 9 11 9 13 1 1 1 4 3 6 6 4 19 7 7 6 5 6 4 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 % Split: Local (excluding Householder) (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months 6 months - 1 year 1 - 2 years Over 2 years Page 61
Page 62
This page is intentionally left blank