Printed minutes
Argyll and Bute Council · 26 May 2025
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 26 May 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 MONDAY, 26 MAY 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Alison MacLeod, Licensing Standards Officer David Walker, Solicitor Gillian and Crawford MacKay, Applicants Sue Henderson, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Mark Irvine, 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 (G AND C MACKAY, 4 INVEREOCH COURT, CHURCH ROAD, ARROCHAR) 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 Gillian and Crawford MacKay joined the meeting by MS Teams. Sue Henderson, Objector, opted to proceed by way of audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. Maureen Southey, Objector, opted to proceed by way of written submission and a copy of this was contained within the Agenda pack for today’s hearing. Gillian Dunbar, Objector, confirmed that she would not be attending the hearing. The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report. Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 7 of the report was followed and the Chair invited the Applicants to speak in support for their application.
Page 2
APPLICANT Mrs MacKay advised that she was speaking on behalf of herself and her husband and that he would also contribute if required. She said that they had purchased the property at No.4 Invereoch Court in June 2024 and that it had lain empty for some time after the previous owner died. She advised that it had required an extensive upgrade, and she outlined the renovations that were undertaken. She said the costs involved in these renovations had exceeded their budget and so they were applying for a short-term let licence so that they could recover some of these costs. She advised that they planned to use the property themselves for about 50% of the time at weekends and during school holidays. It was also their intention to allow family and close friends to use it and to now extend that to acquaintances, acquired through word of mouth. She advised that the property would not be advertised as an Airbnb or on any other similar rental platforms. She said that they would like their guests to treat their property in the same way they would. She advised that bookings would only be taken for a maximum of 4 people and that they would not accept bookings for hen and stag parties or if the main booker was under 21 years of age. She referred to the issues the neighbours had experienced with a short-term let at No.1 Invereoch and advised that property had been larger and could accommodate 6 to 8 people. She said that they could not be held accountable for what had happened previously at that property and that they could not comment as this was before they had purchased their property. She advised that they have prepared guidance for guests to read before arrival and that there was also a set of terms and conditions they would be required to confirm they had read and would adhere to. She referred to the shared courtyard and confirmed that No.4 did not have its own garden, like the other properties, and it was accepted that the courtyard was shared between all the properties. She said she thought it would be appropriate to allow guests to enjoy this shared space, like they did, and that they would be happy to impose restrictions on the use of the courtyard, for example, no music to be played outside, no BBQs, no unsupervised children, and the area to be vacated by a certain time in the evening. She advised that there was a large play area a 2 minute walk away from the property and that guests would be encouraged to go there. She advised that they have put up signs identifying No.4 and that they have installed a key safe at the front door. She said the front door was the main entrance, but guests could also access the property from the back door which led on to McFarlane Drive. She referred to parking issues and said that they were entitled to one unspecified parking space for the property and that guests with additional cars would be advised of additional on-street parking available on McFarlane Drive. She said that they lived in Renfrew and she advised that they planned to be at the property on a weekly basis themselves to deal with cleaning and maintenance. Guests would be provided with their contact details, and they would have an additional key holder that could also be contacted who lived in Balloch. She said they were also thinking about employing a local cleaner.
Page 3
She said that they understood the concerns of the neighbours and advised that they wanted to make this work. She said that they were respectful and courteous people and that this was demonstrated during their renovations. She advised that although this was not their main residence, they did want to spend time there with family and friends and that they could see themselves living there permanently in the future. She advised that ideally, they would have liked to have kept the property solely for themselves but at the current time this was not financially viable. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTOR Ms Henderson confirmed that she had no questions. OBJECTOR Ms Henderson referred to Mrs MacKay’s statement about unspecified parking and advised that when she moved to her home 30 years ago, she was told exactly where she could park. She said that the other neighbours were also told exactly where they could park. She advised that since the neighbours became aware of the proposal to use this property as a short-term let, they have allocated a parking spot for this property. She advised that there has already been guests staying at the property this month and that one guest had arrived and parked in a spot allocated for another neighbour while that neighbour was at work. She said the neighbour had to find alternative parking as the guest’s car had remained in the parking space all week. Ms Henderson referred to the Inspection report and the statement made that there was ample parking. She advised that the picture taken to support this statement had been taken during the working week when most of the people at Invereoch Court were not at home, and she said that this was not a fair reflection of the parking that was available. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT Mrs MacKay asked Ms Henderson how she thought they could make it work for everyone. She advised that they wanted to visit there as a family and be able to see their neighbours and sit out in a nice environment. She asked Ms Henderson if there was anything they could do to make the situation better for everyone. Ms Henderson said she was concerned about the turnover of guests. She noted that guests would be told where they should park but suggested that after some time the property owners would forget to pass this information on. She acknowledged that Mrs MacKay and her family planned to use the property themselves but advised that different people coming every 2 or 3 weeks would not be nice for the residents. Mrs MacKay confirmed that they would include information about the specified parking space for the property in their guest book and provide pictures of its location. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Philand referred to the Applicant advising that they had someone in Balloch that could deal with any issues. He asked Mrs MacKay if she thought it would be acceptable to have someone 25 minutes away to deal with any issues, assuming they were able to respond at that time. Mrs MacKay advised that they were hoping to also employ a cleaner who was ideally based in Arrochar. She advised that in the first instance they would come through themselves but in future they hoped to have a cleaner and that they had not
Page 4
employed one at this time as they wanted to wait until they had got their short-term let licence. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that in respect of previous short-term let hearings, the Committee has placed a condition on a licence that there had to be someone within ten miles of the property to be available to attend to any issues if required. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mrs MacKay that they would have no objection to such a condition being added to their short-term let licence if granted. Councillor Brown commented that it might be difficult for a cleaner if they were expected to attend the property in the event of issues arising such as loud parties. She asked if the first point of contact to the property could be by phone to the Applicant. Mrs MacKay advised that as the property could only sleep 4, she did not think this type of situation would arise. She said that they were looking to possibly install a ring doorbell at the property but had not done that yet and they wanted to check if the neighbours would be okay with this. She said this would be a way for them to communicate with anyone staying at the property and that they would also have their contact details taken at the time the booking was made. She said a security deposit would also be taken which would not be returned in the event of any issues arising. She said that as they had carried out so much work to the property, they did not want people to come and have parties and potentially cause damage to it. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Ms Henderson that she would have no issue with the installation of a ring doorbell if it was positioned to look directly at the person in front of the door and was not angled in such a way as to encroach on the privacy of neighbours. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Ms Henderson that there should no longer be an issue in respect of car parking as the parking space for each property at Invereoch Court was clearly identified. Ms Henderson advised that none of the neighbours had more than one vehicle. Councillor Philand sought and received confirmation from Ms Henderson that the additional conditions proposed to be attached to the short-term let licence if granted would give her some reassurance. She commented that she did not think it would be appropriate for someone to have to travel from Balloch to deal with any issues. She advised that from her own experience, this route up the A82 from Arrochar to Balloch could take 25 minutes one day and on another day, it could take 2½ hours if there was an accident on the road. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mrs MacKay that she would be happy to provide to the residents the contact details of a person that lived close as a point of contact. Councillor Blair commented that if there were any issues in respect of anti-social behaviour, he would expect people to contact the Police. He asked Ms Henderson if she would agree this would be an option open to the neighbours. Ms Henderson agreed that this would be a safeguard if the Police were able to come as she knew how long it could take for them to attend issues of that type.
Page 5
Councillor Blair asked Ms Henderson if she was happy with the guarantees the Applicant has given at the hearing today and all the checks and balances that would be in place. Ms Henderson advised that she was not completely satisfied. SUMMING UP Objector Ms Henderson advised that despite being given the opportunity to object initially and to reaffirm her objection to the granting of this licence, she felt that the granting of this licence was a fait accompli. She said the Committee had not turned down any holiday let applications as far as she was aware. She also advised that she believed that generally short-term lets were killing communities and guests did not contribute to the community. She said they did not attend charity functions and that they just came for a holiday, did what they wanted to do, and then left. Applicant Mrs MacKay said she would like to reiterate that they wanted this business to work. She said they were respectful people and that as they had put so much into renovating and upgrading the property they wanted the people that stayed there to look after it. She said that they would address any problems as quickly as possible and that they just wanted to make it work for everyone. When asked, both parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Hardie advised that having listened to the Applicant saying that they were respectful people and that they wanted to look out for the needs of their neighbours, and taking account of the many things they have put in place to ensure conditions would be complied with, he would have no hesitation in accepting this application. Councillor Green said that he was largely in agreement with Councillor Hardie. He said that he thought an additional condition should be placed on the licence that a point of contact should reside within 10 miles of the property so that they would attend to any unforeseen events. Councillor Philand advised that for him, Mr and Mrs MacKay had demonstrated that they did care for people, and he noted that they had accepted the need to have someone closer to dealt with any issues. He said he was disappointed that the Objector felt the decision of the Committee was a fait accompli. He referred to the number of conditions that have been placed on previous licences to ensure that if these were not enacted there would be serious consequences. He said he would be happy to support the granting of this licence. Councillor Armour said he had sympathy with Ms Henderson regarding the amount of Airbnbs, short-term lets and non-permanent homes. He said this was not a consideration for the Committee today and that they had to decide on what was in front of them. He advised that he thought the Applicant had done everything they could, and he had noted that they agreed with all the suggested conditions. He advised that he thought identifying the car parking space for each property was helpful and he hoped that this would not
Page 6
cause any further issues. He said he could see no reason for not allowing this licence to be granted. DECISION The Committee agreed to grant a short-term let licence to Mr and Mrs MacKay subject to the inclusion of additional conditions set out in the report in 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 Applicant 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)