Printed minutes
Argyll and Bute Council · 30 September 2025
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 30 September 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 30 SEPTEMBER 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager David Walker, Solicitor Alida Achermann, Licensing Standards Officer Emma Douglas Applicant David Freeborn, Applicant Alex Freeborn, Applicant Audrey Junner, Applicant’s Agent Janice Oliver, Objector Marilyn Laverty, Objector Gordon Chalmers, Objector Karina Alexander, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Armour, Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, Andrew Kain, Paul Kennedy and Liz McCabe. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS) ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A SHORT-TERM LET LICENCE (E DOUGLAS, D FREEBORN AND A FREEBORN, 11 CREAGAN PARK, ERRAY ROAD, TOBERMORY, ISLE OF MULL) 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 Applicants opted to proceed by way of video call and Emma Douglas, Alex Freeborn and David Freeman and their Agent, Audrey Junner, joined the meeting by MS Teams. Four of the Objectors also opted to proceed by way of video call Janice Oliver, Karina Alexander, Marilyn Laverty and Gordon Chalmers and joined the meeting by MS Teams. Fiona McAdam, Objector, opted to proceed by way of written submission and a copy of this was contained within the Agenda pack for today’s hearing.
Page 2
The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report. Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 9 of the report was followed and the Chair invited the Applicants to speak in support for their application. APPLICANT Ms Junner advised that she was in attendance on behalf of the Applicants’ Agent and that she would speak on behalf of the Applicants. She referred to a number of matters raised by the Objectors which she said were not relevant to this application and advised that she had noted that within the Officer’s report the Committee had been asked to disregard these matters. She confirmed that she would not go into the details of these. She advised that she would address the outstanding and valid points and the responses to these provided by the Applicant’s Agent, and she said that she hoped this would give some comfort to the Committee that the premises would be well run. In terms of privacy and security and the use of the shared footpath, she advised that it could be seen from the photographs provided that the path led from the front door of the property and was wide enough to access without the need to go across the grassed areas. She referred to the pack of information that would be prepared and shared in advance to anyone using the property, to ensure that they were aware of access to the property and rules in respect of common and private areas. She referred to concerns raised about anti-social behaviour and advised that there was no reason to believe this would be an issue. She explained that the property would be well run with guests fully briefed. She said that other neighbours in the block would be able to contact the owner directly if they had any issues. She said that it was not anticipated that there would be any issues given the nature of the operation. In respect of concerns raised about pets, she advised that the owners all had family pets and that they would like to continue bringing their pets to the property. She had advised that they would be happy to accept that guests under the short-term let licence would not be permitted to bring pets. She acknowledged that there has been apprehension about the change of use of the property. She explained that the property has belonged to the family for generations, since it was built, and acknowledged that introducing something different might be daunting. She said that she wanted to reassure the neighbours that the Applicants and guests would be considerate and mindful of the location and that the information pack would set out all the rules and policies. She said that the Applicants had a deep connection to the island and opening up their property occasionally to guests through the short-term let process would allow them to retain the property for their family and friends to use going forward. She asked the Committee to grant the application and confirmed that the Applicants accepted the proposed conditions to be attached to the licence. Mr Alex Freeborn said that the family had a deep connection to the area. He said that he had been brought up on Mull and had attended the local primary school. He said that they would like to keep and maintain the property to the highest possible standard and to the requirements of the short-term let licence conditions.
Page 3
QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS Mrs Alexander referred to the Applicants’ intention to provide an information pack to guests and asked if this had been prepared as none of the Objectors had seen sight of this. She commented that they would like to have been consulted on its contents and to have been able to check that it was okay. Mr Alex Freeborn advised that the information for guests had not been written up yet as they had been waiting for the outcome of the hearing. He advised that they would be happy to draw up the paperwork in a collective manner with neighbours to ensure they were happy and had input. OBJECTORS Janice Oliver Ms Oliver referred to the title deeds and said that she had noted that these should not be considered by the Committee. She advised that the whole point of these properties was that businesses should not run from them. She said that everyone in the block accessed their gardens via her garden. She said she would not have wanted to move into a property that had an Airbnb. She said the title deeds were written to provide a level of intimacy. She said that everything hinged on what the title deeds said because that was what mattered. She referred to the photographs provided and said they did not show the width of the footpath at the front door of number 11. She referred to the family advising that they had been visiting since childhood and said that she had lived here for 24 years and that their visits were very brief and that she did not see any closeness to the property from any of them. She referred to comments within the paperwork about a shared courtyard and advised that this was not a shared courtyard and that it was her back garden. She said that people tended to spill out of number 11 into her garden and there was not enough space outside number 11. She said that people would come out to make phone calls, have a smoke and have a chat. She said this was immediately outside her front door and that it left her feeling intimidated. She said the idea of people sticking to the footpath was a nonsense as her garden was so convenient to use. She said that the idea of having 6 people living in the flat was overcrowding, with one bathroom. She suggested that guests may use the garden instead if there was a party. She said there was very little soundproofing between the flats and that she did not feel she would get any peace living in the lower flat. She said her quality of life would be terrible and that she would need to look to move somewhere else if the application was granted. She advised that if she sold her flat it may be bought and used as an Airbnb and that if this happened she would feel bad for her neighbours. She said the whole thing was opening up a nightmare scenario which, she advised, was why the title deeds were so important and could not be disregarded. She referred to a property in Glasgow that was part of a block of 4 flats and that enforcement action had been taken by the Council as it was operating as a short-term let without planning permission. She said this set a precedent and that she could not understand why this hearing had to be held. She said that over the last 6 or 7 years the flat had only been occupied 3 or 4 weeks per year. She said the garden was neglected with overgrown vegetation and the footpath was
Page 4
getting very slimy. She imagined that even with winter lets, the property would remain empty during the winter. She suggested the fabric inside the property would be getting damaged. She advised that she was worried about the security of equipment she stored in her shed, the coal in her bunker, and the fruit in her trees. She said that strangers coming every week would not all be perfect citizens. She advised that even when going to put her washing out she would need to keep her door locked as the garden would be a public way. She said she would need to lock her door every time she stepped out into her garden. She commented that once when the family had brought their dog one had barked, growled and gone for her. She said another member of the family that came with their dog would always leave it in the property and it would howl while they were out until they returned. She said there was up to 4 hours of non-stop howling which was hard to endure. She said there was also a problem with the bins as they tended to be kept outside the front door which made the narrow footpath even more narrow. She said there would also be a fire risk with strangers coming and going every week. She also advised that the gardens were not fenced off and that there was a burn that was not fenced off which, she suggested, could be a danger to families. She said that there was a need to fence off the garden with a gate between her front door and their front door, at their expense, to make it clear to visitors that they were stepping into her garden. Marilyn Laverty Ms Laverty advised that she was the only person to have bought their house from the Council and that she had lived here for 40 years. She said that when she purchased her property, she received a letter from the Council which advised that it could only be used as a self-contained dwelling house, occupied by one family and for no other purpose. No business or trade occupations could be carried out and no name plates or advertisements of any kind could be fixed to the property without the consent of the Council. She said that she took that to mean she could not run a business, and she never did. She said she could not understand how someone could now come and run a business from their home. She said that was her main objection. She said she would like to know who she could call on locally if there was an emergency as none of the owners of the property lived there. She also said security would be a problem, especially for Ms Oliver and that there would also be extra noise with people on holiday coming and going late at night. She said that she had spoken to Mrs Douglas about her dog howling and that she had stopped that from happening again by taking the dog out with her. She said she did not have a problem with that issue at the moment. She referred to parking issues and advised that she was disabled and could not walk a long distance. She said that she would need to be able to park outside her property and advised that she had a blue badge. She also referred to the overgrown garden and said she was worried about trees falling. She said that one or two were near enough to hit the roof if they were to fall over. She said she did not know who the trees belonged to and that this needed to be looked at. She also advised that a lot of trees in the front garden had self-seeded and that there was a very large shrub outside the window that had not been maintained.
Page 5
She said that the bins were also a problem. She advised that in the past the bins were put out on the road and sat there for a long time and in the end a neighbour moved them and cleaned them out. With regard to security, she said the thought of different people you did not know coming every week was not very nice. She said it was okay when the family was there as she knew who there were. She said the main issue for her was that this was a residential property and not a business property. She said that this was stated on her title deeds, and she had no idea why it could suddenly be changed. Gordon Chalmers Mr Chalmers read out the following submission: Introduction Unlike the other objectors, I am not a resident of Creagan Park, but I live close by and have been asked to assist the objectors articulate their concerns and address issues raised by this application. I am a STL Licence holder but have no financial motive in objecting. Invalid points of Objection (3.7). I note that matters relating to title deeds are said not of themselves grounds to grant or refuse the application. In fact, it is a mandatory condition of grant that Planning Permission under the 1997 Act is in force. That is on my licence, and I was required by A&B to verify that we do indeed have permission under that Act. It is also clear throughout the process that a proof of permission to run a business is required. The applicants assert that their proposed use does not constitute a change of use; how then can they have secured the necessary Insurance to run a self-catering let? The matter of Insurance is very much a condition of the grant of a licence, and this requires further scrutiny. 3.8-3.10. Noted these are not directly related to consideration of the grant but might reasonably be expected to bear on any conditions to be applied. 3.11 This matter was raised in my first letter of objection, and the matter was rectified as stated by moving the notification from the house window to the roadside where it could readily be examined. However, after moving the notice the section regarding day-to-day management was altered. Initially it was stated that the premises would be managed by Mull Holiday Cottages, Tobermory. This is a well-respected local letting business with qualified and vetted staff and contractors. This was scored out and replaced with the names of the three applicants. I note the heading of the paper given to committee shows them as resident at 11 Creagan Park, when in fact their home addresses as shown on the notice are in Dunfermline, Fort Augustus and Thirsk. This latter detail forms the principal point of my objection; I do not know any of the named applicants, but I have serious doubts as to their ability to manage the flat day-to-day. There are many many situations that arise daily that cannot simply be dealt with remotely, and for the applicants to suggest local contingencies can be put in place is patently stretching credulity. If they have people locally who will undertake the management, they
Page 6
must be named and the objectors given the opportunity to object afresh. On this ground alone I contend the application is not competent and must be resubmitted with fuller information for the neighbours and the licensing committee to consider. The broader picture. The application is recommended for approval. This recommendation is followed by what can only be described as an eye-watering list of additional conditions, which even a cursory visit to the premises would strongly suggest makes the prospect unmanageable other than by someone living close by. The neighbours have described the impact that this licence will have on their amenity. It is clearly a subjective assessment for the officers to make, but I and the neighbours would wholeheartedly argue that the impact of the grant of a licence here would adversely affect their quality of life. A recent decision in Glasgow confirms there that city planning policy states 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”. “The use of a flat as short-stay accommodation… has the potential to result in conflict with mainstream residential flats in a block through regular influx of temporary residents as well as increased pressure on infrastructure and shared space.” Even if A&B Policy does not coincide with this common-sense approach, the committee should give consideration to these issues in determining this application. Conclusion In light of the weight of objection on amenity and competency grounds I respectfully call on the committee to reject the application at this stage Karina Alexander Mrs Alexander spoke on behalf of herself and her husband, who could not attend the meeting. She referred to the recommendation in the Officer’s report to grant this licence. She noted that it was stated that the Committee had no power over the title deeds and she said that this hearing should be adjourned so that the appropriate people that did have power could check this out. She advised that in the Argyll and Bute checklist reference was made to the title deeds. She suggested the owners of number 11 had either not read the title deeds or misrepresented them. She advised that this housing had previously been Council housing for working people on Mull. She said there was a clause in the title deeds preventing what was happening at number 11. She said that letting it out would mean it was no longer a single-family dwelling, with up to 6 people staying every week. She said that was a material change of use and required planning permission and that this process should be halted until that had been dealt with. She referred to parking on the road and said that this process should be halted until the appropriate agency had ruled on the matter of the road. She said that no parking existed at Creagan Park and that there was no legal parking on the street. She said that two residents of Creagan Park were disabled. She said parking was a huge issue. She said the residents of Creagan Park understood its special qualities and that short-term lets
Page 7
would have no consideration of this. She said that the Council should have stated that no short-term lets were authorised. She referred to maintenance of the place, which she said has been a problem for a long time with regard to the upkeep by the current owners. She then referred to a number of photographs showing areas of the garden which had not been maintained, the narrow walkway between number 10 and number 11, and the location of the burn at the back of the property, showing that it was not secured. She said that this was a very tight knit community. She pointed out from the photographs provided in the Agenda pack, that the picture of the front door of the property and the courtyard had been mislabelled. She said the front door and courtyard belonged to number 12 and not number 11. She said it appeared that things had not been done as thoroughly as possible. She noted that the owners wanted to use the holiday home for themselves and stated that the title deeds said it should be for a single family. She referred to current maintenance of the property and said that if it became a holiday let the maintenance would be even worse. She referred to the pictures provided as part of the inspection which showed a mown lawn. She said she did not think the Officer went into the back garden. She referred to the Applicants not living on the island and having not identified a local person to deal with emergencies. She said that she was concerned the turnover of guests would cause more disrepair. She said that granting the application would cause an undue nuisance for residents in the surrounding properties. She said that planning permission had to be obtained to start a holiday let in the area. She said that no application had been made that they were aware of. She said that giving the residents a phone number would not adequately meet the needs of the residents and that there was a need to have someone on the island to deal with emergencies. She said this needed to be in place before a decision was made by the Committee. She said that the other agencies should be involved in respect of planning, parking and checks on whether it was legally allowed to run a holiday let, before this application came before the Committee. At this point it was noted that Councillor Hardie had left the meeting during the Objectors’ presentations due to connectivity issues and that he was unable to return. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANTS Mr David Freeborn asked if Ms Oliver had proof that the coal bunker area was hers. Ms Oliver advised that the coal bunker for number 11 was in her garden and that the down pipe between the front doors of number and 11 and number 12 marked the boundary. She said that there appeared to have been an assumption that number 11 had free access to number 12. She said that Mr Freeborn’s Uncle had never respected the boundaries and was very difficult. She said that Mr Freeborn was making the same argument that they had the same use of her back garden. She said there was no courtyard. She said the down pipe between the 2 front doors was where the back garden began.
Page 8
Mr David Freeborn asked Ms Oliver how people in number 11 accessed their coal if the bunker was in her garden. Ms Oliver replied that the title deeds stated that the properties were not suitable for a business because a lot of mutual respect and understanding of shared areas was required. She said she agreed that it was not ideal but she had bought into that provision in the title deeds and that she had accepted that it was okay for neighbours to access their coal from her garden. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor, David Walker, that an additional condition to the licence could be added that required a contact person to be available 24/7 to deal with any issues and that they must live within 10 miles of the property. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from the Applicants that they would be happy for this condition to be added. Councillor Green asked the Objectors if they would be happy with this condition to be added. Ms Oliver said the contact person should live within 1 mile of the property. Mr Chalmers advised that part of his objection was that no person had been named and that they should have been named and subject to scrutiny before the application came to the Committee. He said this was new information that the Objectors had not had the ability to address. He advised that this application should be refused and resubmitted once the owners found someone to manage their property. Ms Junner pointed out that the application stated who was managing the property and that those named would not change. She explained that they were proposing to have a local person available to deal with any maintenance issues, but they would not be managing the property. Mr Walker confirmed that the condition would be competent on the basis that it was a local contact person and the day-to-day management had not changed. Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Mr Walker and Councillor Green that this condition had been applied at other hearings and that it was competent. Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Mr Walker that it was his understanding that there were no parking restrictions on the access road in front of the properties. Councillor Brown said she still found it concerning regarding the issue of the title deeds and asked for clarification on this. Mr Walker explained that the issue of title deeds was out with the scope of the short-term let licensing regime and were not a material consideration in respect of this application. He said the Committee could be legally challenged if they took them into account in determining this application. Private action could be taken regarding issues with title deeds, and the Objectors would need to seek their own legal advice regarding the enforcement of title deed conditions. With regard to a mandatory planning condition, he advised that as this was not a planning control area this was not relevant in this case. He said that planning matters were separate and out with the scope of the short-term let licensing regime. Councillor Brown referred to the contract the neighbours had that had been drawn up by Argyll and Bute Council Solicitors and that she found this unacceptable. She said she was also not happy that the onus was placed on Objectors to make sure the Applicant was acting legally. She said she believed it should be the Applicants’ duty to make sure
Page 9
they were acting legally. She acknowledged that this was not a matter that could be considered by this Committee but said she just wanted to say that she was uncomfortable with the position the Committee continually had to take on these matters. Councillor Philand asked Officers if there was a requirement for the property to be disability compliant and, if so, if they were compliant. He referred to the photographs showing stairs on the pathway and steps into the house. He asked if there were appropriate widths for wheelchairs within the property. Mr Walker advised that there was no requirement under the short-term let legislation about having to alter a property for disabled access. He said there was no requirement within any legislation for alterations to that affect to be made. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr Walker that if a person had any neighbour issues regarding title deeds, they could take civil action. Councillor Blair asked how neighbours had reached a consensus over the years in respect of communal repairs. Ms Oliver said that for the 24 years she had lived there there had not been a lot of repairs required. She referred to roof repairs required 17 years ago and said that her neighbour was not keen to do anything. She advised that she arranged for the work to be done, and the neighbour paid his share with no argument. She said she got tired with the responsibility of it all. She referred to another issue with the roof recently and advised that she had difficulty contacting Mrs Douglas due to her shift work as a nurse and that she had been asked to contact the brothers. She said that it was difficult having to deal with 3 people. Ms Oliver confirmed that Mrs Douglas paid for her share of the roof bill but did question it. Ms Oliver said there was no mechanism in place. Councillor Blair said that he had noted that there had been discussion and dialogue in the past and that bills had been paid. Councillor Blair referred to the guidance for guests that had still to be prepared, and he asked if this would include a condition regarding pets. Ms Junner said that information regarding the local contact person would be included along with all rules and regulations. She said this would be provided to guests in advance and would also be available within the property. She said the pack had not been developed yet, but the owners were more than happy to develop this alongside their neighbours. Councillor Blair asked if the local contact would have responsibility for maintaining the garden. Mrs Douglas said that they had a gardener that cut the grass and that discussions had been held regarding the overgrown bushes. She said that they were coming up in October to remedy this. She advised that they had also been in touch with a local tree surgeon to cut the trees down to a more appropriate height and that they were waiting to hear back from him. She said that they were in the process of getting this work done, including removal of the garden shed. Councillor Blair asked if a family consisting of a mum, dad, 3 children and a dog were to move into the house, would this cause the Objectors equal anxiety. Ms Oliver said the whole point was that they would be there for the long term and they could come to an understanding with neighbours and learn to accommodate each other. Councillor Howard expressed her concern about the letter from the Council. She said that as this was not a title deed, but an actual legal letter from the Council regarding a contract, she could not see how the Committee could break that. She said she did not think the Committee could give permission for this short-term let without this problem being researched.
Page 10
Mr Walker advised that a separate civil action would need to be taken by parties due to the limitations of the short-term let legislation. Ms Junner advised that this letter would form part of the title deeds and that it was a matter for the Land Tribunal to deal with such disputes. She said there had been no attempts by the Applicants to circumvent the law and that it was not appropriate for this to be discussed at this hearing which was about whether the property should be licensed or not. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr Walker that new legislation sometimes superimposed previous legislation and could also sit alongside other pieces of legislation. The short-term let legislation was relatively new, and it sat alongside, but could not go into, planning and civil matters. Councillor Wallace sought and received confirmation from Ms Oliver that the pathway went beyond the boundary of the 2 properties. Councillor Wallace asked the Applicants if they had any plans to fence off the burn and make it more secure. Mrs Douglas said this was something they could potentially do but it had not been discussed as yet. Mr Alex Freeborn suggested that one option could be to put the back garden out of bounds and make sure people did not access it. He said he could not see a need for guests to use the back garden as when they came out of the house and turned right, they were within the property’s front garden and that there was no need to pass by other properties. He said that the path was jointly owned and jointly maintained. Councillor Irvine sought and received confirmation from the Applicants that they would be able to meet all the recommended conditions proposed to be attached to the licence. Mr Alex Freeborn confirmed that they would maintain things as best they could and that there would be a local person to assist them with that. Councillor Irvine sought and received confirmation from Mrs Douglas that they had a local cleaning company “Mops of Mull” set up to deal with the changeovers and that they would be happy to deal with minor management work if required. Councillor Brown referred to disabled parking and asked if the Council had a responsibility to make a disabled parking space available outside a person’s house, if requested. She asked if the Council would have a responsibility to ensure disabled paring was available for someone with a blue badge. Mr Walker said that he believed they could apply for an assessment for a disabled parking space. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr Walker that if a disabled parking space was made available outside someone’s house, there would be nothing to prevent anyone with a blue badge from parking there. SUMMING UP Objectors Janice Oliver Ms Oliver referred to new information obtained today that Mops of Mull would be looking after the property. She said it would have been good to have known this in advance so that they could have found out the kind of service they would provide. She questioned
Page 11
who would put the bins out and take them back in. She said this property could not possibly work as an Airbnb style property. She said it had been already established that this type of property was not allowed planning permission in Glasgow. She questioned why things could be done differently here. She referred to the dangers of the burn. She referred to shared maintenance of the footpath and asked when the Applicants would do their share. Karina Alexander Mrs Alexander referred to access to the coal bunkers and advised that the deeds required that both neighbours should maintain access. This gave them access to the coal bunker but not the courtyard. She said she appreciated that some Council Members had expressed the same concerns they had about breaking contracts, and she advised that gave her some hope that there was some humanity out there. Whatever the decision was today, she said they would have to live with it and she hoped that they had conveyed that this was not an appropriate use of this property. Marilyn Laverty Ms Laverty referred to the Council letter saying that the property should not be run as a business. She advised that the letter also said that any minerals found in the garden would remain the property of the Council. She questioned if this was now something that could be disregarded too. Gordon Chalmers Mr Chalmers thanked Councillors Brown and Howard for their interventions on this. He said he felt the Committee were being asked to come to a decision in the dark. He questioned how public liability insurance could have been obtained for running a business, if it had been said that the property was not changing from residential to business status. He said he believed that Mr Walker had misled the Committee by saying the mandatory planning condition did not apply in this area as he had been required to obtain planning permission for his licence. Regarding disabled access, he said that disability legislation may apply and that the Committee needed assurance about this before making a direction. He noted that Councillor Irvine had asked the Applicants if they were confident of fulfilling all the conditions and questioned why the Objectors were not asked about their confidence. He said that he hoped the Committee would consider the representations fully and hold this application in abeyance or reject outright. Applicant Ms Junner advised that having heard the submissions by the Objectors, a lot of reference had been made to the title deeds. She advised of the short-term let licensing regime and the scope of this being different from planning and from what the Land Tribunal did. She said there had been multiple case law on this and that had to be respected. She asked the Committee to follow the test of previous decisions regarding matters about title deeds. She pointed out that the Committee were not being asked to grant the licence in perpetuity and that it would be required to be renewed and reviewed. This would provide the
Page 12
opportunity to see how it has worked in practice. She said she hoped that it gave some comfort that issues flagged could be addressed through the conditions. She referred to issues raised about maintenance and the current use of the property. She advised that consideration should be given to how the property will be managed in the future and not how it has been in the past and she hoped that general assurance had been given that matters would be put in place to run it well. She said it was good to hear about these things and hopefully the Applicants could, with the neighbours, develop a welcome pack and develop a good working relationship in terms of the use of their property. She confirmed that public liability insurance was in place. She said there was no desire to mislead the Committee or do anything that was illegal. She confirmed that the Applicants had taken advice on the other points and that they were confident of their position. She said that in terms of the legislation, the Applicants have shown that they were fit and proper to operate a short-term let licence and she hoped that the Committee would afford them the ability to do so by granting the licence today. Mr Alex Freeborn thanked Ms Junner for summing up. He implored the Committee to grant the short-term let licence and confirmed that they would comply with all the conditions and be good neighbours. He said they were doing this to keep the property in the family. He said it was not about making a profit and that any money made would be used to support the maintenance and improve the property for them and others to use. He said he thought that they would be good neighbours and that they would make sure to comply with any conditions suggested today. When asked, all parties, with the exception of Ms Oliver, confirmed that they had received a fair hearing and this was noted. DEBATE Councillor Brown said that unfortunately she had no option but to go with this as she could not see any grounds to refuse and that reluctantly she would support this application. Councillor Green advised that looking at the information before the Committee and the presentations made, he could not see anything that would prevent the Committee ruling on this today. He noted the request to continue for further information, and he advised that there had been no information specifically identified that would be relevant to consider that would give grounds for a continuation. He confirmed that he was minded to support the application. Councillor Blair thanked the Objectors for providing such a large batch of information which, he said, was very beneficial. He said that he took on board all the information and the confirmation from the owners that they wanted to be good neighbours and continue to work with the local neighbours to ensure this project worked. He said he was quite content and comforted by what the solicitor had said about this being an ongoing process that would be reviewed. He said that he was happy to support the recommendations. Councillor Philand said he took a slightly different view and felt that there were a number of areas that he would like more information on. He said it was interesting that Ms Junner had said the owners would work with the neighbours and he commented that it was a pity that had not happened up until now. He referred to not knowing who would do the turnover, who would be the contact person, and whether the Disability Discrimination Act
Page 13
applied in this case. He said that he would like to seek more information about that and that he would be minded to continue this case to get that further information. Councillor Irvine echoed the sentiments of some of his other colleagues. He advised that on the basis of what was in front of the Committee and what the remit was, he was content to approve the application. He commented that during the course of all short-term let hearings the issue of title deeds had been raised on a number of occasions. He acknowledged that this was not for this Committee to resolve but it remained a continuing issue which he was sure the Committee would face again and again. He said he was comfortable with the application and, like Councillor Blair, was encouraged that communication with the neighbours would continue and that the Applicants would not just stick to the conditions but look to work on other aspects of concerns raised. He said that he hoped that would add fuel to the goodwill fire and that he was content to approve this. Councillor Amanda Hampsey left the meeting during the foregoing discussions. Motion To agree the recommendations in the report subject to the inclusion of the following additional condition: “The Licence Holder must provide a contact name and number that could be used to report any issues or complaints, and which would be accessible on a 24/7 basis with the assurance that someone living within 10 miles of the property would be able to attend at the property or respond appropriately when required”. Moved by Councillor Kieron Green, seconded by Councillor Mark Irvine. Amendment To agree to continue consideration of this application in order to receive details of those that would be involved in the changeovers, who the emergency contact would be, and whether there was anything that needed to be complied with in terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 2010. Moved by Councillor Dougie Philand, seconded by Councillor Jan Brown. A vote was taken by calling the role. Motion Amendment Councillor Blair Councillor Brown Councillor Green Councillor Howard Councillor Irvine Councillor Philand Councillor Wallace The Motion was carried by 4 votes to 3 and the Committee resolved accordingly. DECISION The Committee agreed to grant a short-term let licence to Emma Douglas, David Freeborn and Alex Freeborn subject to the inclusion of additional conditions set out in the report in
Page 14
respect of anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, littering and waste disposal, damage to property, and wood burning stoves/open fires, and to the following further condition: “The Licence Holder must provide a contact name and number that could be used to report any issues or complaints, and which would be accessible on a 24/7 basis with the assurance that someone living within 10 miles of the property would be able to attend at the property or respond appropriately when required”. The Applicants would be notified in writing of the above decision within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager and Written Submission by Objector, submitted)