Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Councillors Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, Andrew Kain and Paul Kennedy.

There were no declarations of interest intimated.

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, his Agent and the Objector opted to proceed by way of video call and Mark Watson, John Mackie and Alistair Wilson joined the meeting by MS Teams. 

 

Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager

The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report.

 

The Chair then invited the Applicant to speak in support of the application. 

 

APPLICANT

 

The Applicant, Mark Watson spoke of the history of Glen Striven Estate, which had been a shooting estate since 1981.  He advised that since then, every property on the Estate had at one time or another been used as a Short-term Let.  Mr Watson advised that he had bought Burnfoot Cottage on the Estate in 2016 and had been privileged to witness the business of the Estate including the farming and shooting of both deer and birds.  He advised that unfortunately the Estate had fallen into hard times in 2018 and was put up for sale.  Having not been able to sell the Estate despite it being advertised for a long period of time, the owners approached Mr Watson who initially bought Invervaigan and then other properties within the Estate. 

Mr Watson spoke of refurbishing the property to a high standard and advised that it had been classed as a commercial property by Argyll and Bute Council for the last 20 years.  He advised that the success of the property as a Short-term Let over the last few years had given his family the ability to spend money on maintaining the road and installing security gates.  In addressing some of the issues raised by the Objector, Mr Watson advised that Mr Wilson’s opinion that the Estate was a quiet housing estate was incorrect and that this was demonstrated through its history as a shooting estate.  He addressed the issues Mr Wilson had with the security gates and advised that although Mr Wilson had not contributed financially to the installation of the gates, he benefitted from the privacy and security that they afforded.  He advised that Mr Wilson appeared to have a vendetta against his family and his business and that as recent as last week Mr Wilson had received a public notice for being a nuisance. 

QUESTION FROM OBJECTOR

Referring to the last point in Mr Watson’s submission, Mr Wilson asked the Applicant if he had ever been arrested by the Police for his actions on the Estate. 

The Applicant refrained from answering this question

OBJECTOR

The Objector, Mr Wilson spoke of the Council’s Short-term Lets Licensing Policy Statement.  He referenced paragraph 1.4 which outlines the aims of the licensing scheme such as addressing the issues faced by neighbours and that the economic and tourism benefits from short-term lets are balanced with the needs and concerns of local communities.  He also referenced paragraph 5.5(c) which outlines grounds for refusing an application as a consequence of an objection where the premises were regarded as not suitable for the conduct of the activity. 

Mr Wilson advised that Glen Striven Estate was a good example of a cluster of properties that had been purchased as Short-term Lets, which in turn prohibited those properties becoming private homes.  He requested that the Committee consider the Estate as a whole and not piece meal and went on to highlight the applications before the Committee today as well as the expected number of guests within each one at any given time.  He spoke of the volume of properties on the Estate being used as Short-term Lets and advised that these amounted to an unacceptable and unreasonable balance in terms of the Short-term Let Policy Statement and was also contrary to the Argyll and Bute Outcome Improvement Plan, the Local Development Plan and National Planning Framework 4.  He requested that the Committee refuse the applications and redress the balance. 

Mr Wilson noted that his objection had a number of areas and advised that these were routed in paragraph 5.5 of the Argyll and Bute Short-term Lets Licensing Policy Statement.  He advised that he had no issue with planning permission as he recognised that applications for Planning Permission were judged on a case-by-case basis.  In relation to his comments on the noise and nuisance he advised that had he been living in an urban area he would expect noise, however living in a remote and rural area he found that any noise had a disproportionate affect.  He advised that most properties on the Estate were strung along a single gravel road which passed through the bottom of his garden.  He advised that he found the Applicant’s reference to it being a shooting estate with lots of noise and commotion unacceptable as by the time he had purchased his property in 2017, the Estate had been sold and that all the properties were either private homes, homes of Estate employees or family holiday homes, not Short-term Lets as defined by the current legislation. 

Mr Wilson spoke of the renovations at Invervaigan and expressed his displeasure that the rooms had been extended, with the installation of three kitchens, three bathrooms and three front doors that could easily accommodate up to 12 people.  He expressed concern over the potential increase that this would bring in traffic, and the possibility that these additions could lend themselves to allow the development to become three self-contained flats. 

Mr Wilson outlined his concerns around the private water supply and the difficulties faced in the summer months during spells of dry weather when the burn runs dry, without the addition of what could potentially be up to 40 people.  He advised that wasn’t good enough for the Applicant to refer back to the days of a shooting estate, as the shooting season runs during the wetter months of October to February.  He further advised that Environmental Health did not study this matter in enough depth and advised that it was his opinion that a further study should be carried out before a determination on the matter was agreed. 

Referring to the legislation which stated that “existing businesses offering new accommodation must legally have a licence before operating,” Mr Wilson expressed his surprise that Invervaigan could be considered as an existing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3a

The Chair moved, and the Committee agreed to adjourn for a short comfort break.  On resuming at 11:30am, all those present were as per the sederunt with the exception of Councillor Armour.

.

Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager

The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report.

 

The Chair then invited the Applicant to speak in support of the application.

 

APPLICANT

 

The Applicant, Mr Watson advised that Pier Cottage was a beautiful cottage which had been rented out since the days of the old shooting estate.  He advised that this was deemed as a commercial property which paid commercial rates. 

 

QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTOR

 

The Objector, Mr Wilson confirmed that he had no questions.

 

OBJECTOR

 

Mr Wilson referred the Committee back to the submission that he made in respect of the previous application at Invervaigan, Glen Striven Estate Roads, Toward, Dunoon, PA23 7UN. 

 

QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT

 

The Applicant confirmed that he had no questions.

 

MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS

 

Referring to discussions in respect of the previous application, specifically in relation to the provision of water sports, Councillor Peter Wallace asked the Applicant what his intended approach would be in this regard.

 

The Applicant, Mr Watson advised that it was Point Cottage that had the water craft, and advised that the legal implications in terms of the specifics around the fit of buoyancy aids was the reason that they had stipulated that guests had to provide their own.  He further advised that emphasis would be placed upon guests supplying their own buoyancy aids for those intending to use the facilities.

 

Referring to information contained in the Agenda pack, Councillor Irvine asked the Applicant to clarify any restrictions on the title deeds in respect of the property. 

 

The Applicant’s Agent, Mr Mackie outlined the historical condition which was applied in 1948 and stipulated that both Pier Cottage and The Point should only be used as private residential dwellings and not as a hotel or for any other purpose.  He advised that since this time, the law had progressed somewhat and that the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 stated that if a previously issued condition had been breached for a period of five years or more, the original title condition was deemed to be extinct.  He advised that Mr Watson had evidenced that both properties had been used as a Short-term Lets since 2016, being a period of 8 years, and as such the condition should now considered extinguished and no longer valid.

 

Councillor Brown enquired how the Applicant policies the use of kayaks and water sports, ensuring that guests have brought their own lifejackets and buoyancy aids. 

 

Mr Watson advised that kayaks were locked in sheds and only made available when it was clear that appropriate provisions had been met.  He advised that safety was paramount and that this was a strict requirement when agreeing what provisions were required.

 

SUMMING UP

 

Objector

 

The Objector, Mr Wilson advised that the objections he raised in the previous application were pertinent to this application and stressed that the issue of the title deed conditions should not be overlooked.

 

Applicant

 

The Applicant, Mr Watson advised that he had nothing more to add at this time.

 

When asked, both partied confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. 

 

DEBATE

 

Having noted that no Member wished to speak at this time, the Chair, Councillor Green moved that the application be approved with the conditions, as outlined within the report relating to antisocial behaviour and privacy and security.  With no one being otherwise minded this became the decision of the Committee.

 

DECISION

 

The Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Short-Term Let Licence to the Applicant, subject to the inclusion of the antisocial behaviour and privacy and security conditions set out at paragraph 6.1 of the report. 

(Reference:  Report by Regulatory Support and Building Standards Manager, submitted)

 

Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager

The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report.

 

The Chair then invited the Applicant to speak in support of the application. 

 

APPLICANT

The Applicant, Mr Watson advised that The Point was located at the very end of the Estate, a mile and a half from the entrance, which was accessible by a dirt track road which he maintained.  Mr Watson advised that the property had operated as an Air B&B since before 2016 and sought approval to carry on. 

QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTOR

The Objector, Mr Wilson advised that he had no questions.

OBJECTOR

The Objector, Mr Wilson advised that the objections he raised in the previous two applications were pertinent to this application.  He advised that he felt that there had been no real discussion on the issues he raised in relation to the gate code and security or to the provision of notices outlining the Applicants intention to use the property as a Short-term Let.  He further advised that the issue of the title conditions, are classed as a real burden, which is at odds with the Applicant’s lawyer but that he would look to resolve this issue by another means. 

QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT

The Applicant, Mr Watson advised that he had no questions.

MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS

Councillor Brown sought advice from the Council’s Solicitor as to whether it was pertinent for the Committee to approve this application if they were so minded.

Ms Clanahan advised that she was in agreement with the Applicant’s lawyer and that the issue could be pursued in another forum if required.  She advised that it would be competent for the Committee to determine the application. 

Addressing the issues raised by the Objector, Councillor Irvine enquired as to the exact nature of the objection in relation to the gate codes and general security. 

The Objector, Mr Wilson advised that the idea behind such a security measure was that the code would only be circulated around a small group of people.  He advised that the code would be given to a number of people, who in turn could give it out to others if they so wished, and that would result in the loss of the control of the gates. 

Councillor Brown advised that having heard earlier submissions in relation to the reliance of the Objector on deliveries as the area is so remote, advised that the same could be said of delivery drivers.  She further advised that her understanding of the necessity for the gates was to prevent unauthorised access to the track.  She asked the Objector, whether in his opinion, the gates would therefore help in maintaining the track.

Mr Wilson advised that the original reason for putting in the gates was due to a number of thefts from the area.  He argued that the more people who have the code, the less effective the gates become.

Councillor Irvine asked the Objector, whether, as he had known about the notices which had been posted, he had canvassed others for opinions and objections.

Mr Wilson advised that he had been party to general discussions but that he did not canvass anyone.

The Chair, Councillor Green enquired as to how many permanent residents there were on the Estate. 

Mr Wilson advised that there were only two, himself and his wife. 

Councillor Hampsey asked the Applicant how often he proposed to change the code on the gates, and how this would be done, given the obvious breakdown in the relationship between the Applicant and the Objector. 

Mr Watson advised that the code had only been changed once in the last year.  He stressed that in his opinion, giving the code to regular delivery drivers was more of an issue than giving it to people who have travelled miles to come to the area.  Mr Watson advised that the code change was done by a third party so there was no need for contact between himself and Mr Wilson.  He also took the opportunity to clarify that pedestrian access to the Estate was still in place despite the gates. 

Councillor Hampsey enquired as to whether Mr Wilson was happy with the arrangements as outlined by the Applicant. 

Mr Wilson confirmed that he could live with a code change on an annual basis, and was happy to liaise with the third party on that.

SUMMING UP

Objector

The Objector, Mr Wilson advised that he had nothing further to add.  He advised that in his opinion the issue of the display of notices had not been dealt with, and it was setting a precedence that could lead to trouble in the future.

Applicant

The Applicant, Mr Watson confirmed that he had nothing further to add.

When asked, both parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing.

DEBATE

The Chair, Councillor Green advised that in relation to the display of notices, he took the presentation by the Licensing Officer at face value.  He advised that the issue would not appear to affect any other person, as there was only one other household on the Estate and one member of that household was in attendance.  He advised that he did not agree that a precedence was being set, and that as familiarity with the new Licensing regime grows so too would compliance with the process.

Having noted that no Member wished to speak at this time, the Chair, Councillor Green moved that the application be approved with the conditions, as outlined within the report relating to antisocial behaviour and privacy and security.  With no one being otherwise minded this became the decision of the Committee.

 

DECISION

 

The Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Short-Term Let Licence to the Applicant, subject to the inclusion of the antisocial behaviour and privacy and security conditions set out at paragraph 6.1 of the report. 

(Reference:  Report by Regulatory Support and Building Standards Manager, submitted)