Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager
Minutes:
The
Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for
Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the
options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by
video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the
Applicant opted to proceed by way of video call and Mr Crichton joined the
meeting by MS Teams.
Mr
Graham, Objector, also opted to proceed by way of video call and joined the
meeting by MS Teams.
Mr
and Mrs Forrester, Objectors, opted to proceed by way of written submission and
a copy of this was included in the Agenda pack for this meeting.
It
was noted that Mr Liddell, Objector, had also been invited to attend the
meeting but was unable to do so.
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 Crichton, provided an overview of the work of Bute Island
Developments (BID), and the work of ‘On Tranquil Shores’, who specialise in
providing quality accommodation in tranquil settings,promoting
relaxing, peaceful breaks.
Mr
Crichton advised that the company aimed to provide high-end properties for
families and groups to enjoy luxurious breaks in nature. He noted that the
company aimed to promote Argyll and Bute, and to encourage people to travel to
the area to enjoy the setting.
Mr
Crichton advised that he had reviewed the objections in detail, and had also
attended an onsite visit with one of the Council’s Licensing Standards Officers
to alleviate concerns raised. He advised that the company did not wish to cause
any inconvenience or disruption.
Mr
Crichton highlighted that concerns around parking had been addressed by
widening the driveway to allow an additional parking space, as well as clearing
the garage to allow for an additional parking space. He advised that it had
been possible for staff to turn a long wheelbase van in the turning circle, and
so it was unlikely that there would be any need for guests to reverse down the
driveway.
Mr
Crichton confirmed that the listing for the property would advise that no
events or parties of any description could be held there, and that the property
would be aimed at families. He also advised there would be a quiet period in
place for guests between 10pm-7am, to ensure that there was no excessive noise
or outside activities. He noted that a guest information pack would be
available at the property to remind guests of these rules, and a contact number
would be provided to the occupants of neighbouring properties in case of any
issues.
Mr
Crichton advised that he found that guests in the area were very respectful,
and he had received no complaints in relation to the other properties that the
company managed in the area. He highlighted that there was a vetting process in
place through AirBnB to ensure that only quality guests were accepted to stay
at the property.
QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS
Mr
Graham, Objector, advised that increasing the parking spaces to accommodate 4
cars, only increased concerns from neighbours that there would be a large
number of people at the property. He advised that a neighbour had highlighted
to him that he did not feel that the new parking space which had been created
would be large enough to accommodate a vehicle. He asked if a turning circle
would still be available if 4 cars were parked at the property.
Mr
Crichton advised that a photo of a Jeep parked in the newly created space had been
provided for the Committee’s attention. He confirmed that it would be possible
for a car to turn in the turning circle if there were 4 cars parked at the
property.
Mr
Graham noted that the company would be relying on AirBnB to vet potential
guests, despite AirBnB not having a very good reputation. He advised that
ratings referring to how a guest treats a property did not guarantee that the
person would behave well. He noted that if guests were to go out in the area,
there was likely to be noise in the evenings when they returned to the
property.
Mr
Graham advised that the property is in a quiet conservation area, and access to
the property is via a narrow lane between two neighbouring properties. He noted
that anyone walking up to the property could see into his own garden, and a
large number of people doing this would violate his privacy. He noted that as a
short term let, there was likely to be a lot of different people at the
property, and there was no guarantee that these people would be well behaved.
Mr
Graham noted that, although the listing may state no parties or events, people
do not always tell the truth, and they may host celebrations there. He noted
that, as the property is able to accommodate up to 12 people, it is unlikely
that these people would be from one family. He noted that all of these issues
provided him with concern, and he would like to be able to enjoy his garden in
peace and quiet outwith designated quiet hours.
Mr
Graham asked, as there would be no one onsite to monitor the AirBnB, how
neighbours could contact the Applicant to resolve any issues which may arise.
Mr Crichton advised that a contact number would be provided to neighbours in
case of any issues, and although this support may not be available 24/7, any
issues would be resolved as soon as possible. He advised that AirBnB allows
hosts to rate guests, and if any guests were poorly behaved, there would be a
mechanism in place for hosts to give them a bad rating. He advised that this
would also ensure that any guests staying in the property had been respectful
of properties that they had stayed at in the past, as the company could reject
guests with any bad reviews.
Mr
Graham advised that he was not only concerned with the guests behaviour in the
property, but also outwith the property. He advised
that in addition to cars accessing the property, it was likely that people
would also be walking up and down the access road. He noted that he had
grandchildren who regularly used the garden, and was not comfortable with
strangers walking past them in the garden frequently. He also advised that any
guests would be able to see valuable items in his garden. He asked Mr Crichton
how he could guarantee that these concerns would be alleviated. Mr Crichton
advised that he could not guarantee the actions of anyone else, and could only
talk about the track record of guests and provide assurance that the company
would assist in dealing with any issues. He noted that it was not possible to
guarantee what someone else would do, but the property would be marketed for
high-end luxury breaks and would be unlikely to attract people who were likely
to cause any issues.
Mr
Graham asked if pictures had been provided of all of the renovations which had
been carried out. Mr Crichton advised that some of the renovations were still
ongoing.
Mr
Graham advised that he did not believe that the situation was great, and that
it was detrimental to the area.
OBJECTORS
Mr
Graham advised that he would reiterate the point which he had previously made
during the meeting in relation to the application jeopardising the area’s
tranquil and quiet setting. He advised that noise carries in the area, and the
Applicant would be unable to guarantee that guests would be quiet and not hold
parties or events. Mr Graham advised that excessive noise caused by guests was
likely to impact negatively on his way of life.
Mr
Graham also advised that he did not feel that issues could be appropriately
monitored without on-site supervision.
Mr
Graham reiterated issues around the access to the property, and noted that the
road in front of the access was narrow and often very busy with traffic.
Mr
Graham advised that he was fearful of theft and damage to his own property. He
was also fearful for the wellbeing of his grandchildren, due to the volume of
strangers who would be walking past the property and would be able to see them
in the garden. He advised that granting the application could have a serious
impact on the quality of life that people in the area had enjoyed in the past,
and could also impact on local house valuations.
QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT
Mr
Crichton confirmed that he had no questions for the Objector.
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
Councillor
Howard asked if Mr Crichton was willing to trim a hedge to the property to aid
access, as this had been raised by one of the Objectors. Mr Crichton confirmed
that he would be happy to ensure that the hedges on the driveway were kept
trimmed to allow easy access to the property for vehicles.
Councillor
Brown enquired about the extension to the driveway, and Mr Crichton confirmed
that an additional space had been added to allow a car to park beside the
porch.
Councillor
Brown sought and received confirmation from Mr Crichton that the driveway could
now accommodate 4 cars.
Councillor
Brown asked if the other properties managed by Mr Crichton’s company were based
in Argyll and Bute. Mr Crichton confirmed that approximately 95% of the
properties managed by the company were in Argyll and Bute. Councillor Brown
sought and received confirmation that two other properties in the area which
were managed by the company had been maintained to a high standard, and had not
been subject to any complaints.
Councillor
Armour advised that he had a better understanding of the changes to the
driveway from an image on Google Maps, and was happy with the improvements
which had been made to alleviate issues around parking. Councillor Armour
sought and received confirmation from Mr Crichton that this was the first
application for the property to be used as a short term let.
Councillor
Armour sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Licencing Standards
Officer that conditions relating to shared doors were provided in the form of
standard wording, and that there were no specific concerns about shared doors
relevant to the property.
Councillor
Philand asked Mr Crichton about the hours during which support would be
available from the management company in the event of any issues. Mr Crichton
advised that a contact number would be provided to neighbours and assigned to a
member of staff, and the member of staff responsible would aim to get in touch
with the guest or attend the property as soon as possible to resolve any
issues. Councillor Philand sought and received confirmation from Mr Crichton
that a member of staff would be able to attend the property if required.
Councillor
Brown sought and received confirmation from Mr Crichton that the property would
be available to book for only one group at a time.
Councillor
Green advised that he had walked past the access to the property previously on
a walk to Ardencraig Gardens, and asked Mr Graham if
he considered that it would be reasonable to expect that a lot of people would
be walking in the area to the Gardens. Mr Graham advised that not a lot of
people chose to walk to the Gardens as they were uphill, but people do walk on
the pavement past his house, and he had experienced disrespectful behaviour
from people walking past the house previously.
Councillor
McCabe commented that it was a nice walk up to Ardencraig
Gardens on that route, and it was very busy.
SUMMING UP
Objectors
Mr
Graham asked Mr Crichton if the other properties being managed in the area were
as big as the one that was subject to the application. Mr Crichton confirmed
that the other two properties were large, although they had smaller garden
areas.
Mr
Graham advised that his main concerns were around safety and security, noise
levels, and the effects on his quality of life. He advised that he had no
objection to other people enjoying themselves, but this application had the
potential to negatively impact upon the lifestyle of the occupants of the
neighbouring properties.
Mr
Graham reiterated that the increased availability of parking spaces increased
concerns about large gatherings at the property.
Mr
Graham also highlighted that the property was in a conservation area, and that
people living in the area did not want properties to be used as short term
lets.
The
Committee Manager, Mr McLean, read the written submission from Mr & Mrs
Forrester to the Committee, and the Committee noted its contents.
Mr
Graham advised that he was in agreement with Mr & Mrs Forrester in terms of
their objections.
Applicant
Mr
Crichton advised that he noted concerns from Mr Forrester in relation to the
hedge on the driveway, and would ensure that it was kept trimmed to allow safe
access to the property for vehicles. He also noted concerns in relation to
guests at the property parking on the road, and advised that he would expect
that most guests would wish to utilise the parking areas provided at the
property.
Mr
Crichton advised that he noted suggestions that guests at the property could be
restricted to 4-5 people, however he did not think that this would be
practical.
Mr
Crichton reiterated that a contact number would be provided to the occupants of
neighbouring properties if the application was granted, and the company would
do everything possible to ensure that clients and guests were respectful of the
property and neighbouring properties.
During
the Applicant’s summing up, the Chair briefly lost connection to the meeting
and the meeting was adjourned to resolve this issue. The meeting resumed at
13:02, with all present as per the Sederunt. Subsequently, the Applicant
reiterated his summing up.
Mr
Graham advised that the suggestion about restricting the number of guests at
the property to 4-5 had been in relation to adults, and not total number of
people. He advised that he felt that this had been misrepresented by Mr
Crichton in his summing up.
When
asked, Mr Crichton confirmed that he had received a fair hearing.
When
asked, Mr Graham advised that he had not received a fair hearing.
DEBATE
Councillor
Hardie advised that the marketing and price of the property was likely to deter
party-goers, and was more likely to appeal to families. He advised that he was
minded to grant the application with the recommended conditions.
Councillor
Armour advised that he was minded to approve the application.
Councillors
Armour and Green enquired with the Council officers about the competency of
including a condition relating to guests being required to park at the
property. The Council’s Solicitor, Ms Clanahan, advised that a condition could
not be applied to stop guests from parking in other legally available parking
spaces, but that this could be included as a request for guests in the
guidebook for the property.
Councillor
Brown advised that she was minded to approve the application, and noted that
there was a market for large houses which could accommodate families. She
highlighted concerns that there would not be support available from the
management company at all times, but noted that neighbours would still be able
to call the Police to address disturbances where appropriate, if the management
company could not be contacted. She advised that she would be happy to grant
the licence with the recommended conditions attached.
Councillor
McCabe advised that she would have no concerns with approving the application.
She noted that there were opportunities for guests to park at the property but
there was nothing that could be done to stop people from parking legally outwith the property.
Councillor
Philand agreed with Councillor Brown’s concerns regarding the management
company not being available at all times to resolve any issues. He noted that,
despite this, the suggested conditions to be attached to the Licence were
sufficient that he was happy that this could be revisited in case of any
issues, and on this basis he would be minded to approve the application.
Councillor
Blair advised that he shared the concerns of Councillors Brown and Philand
regarding the accessibility of the
management company. He suggested that it may be beneficial for neighbours to be
provided with contact details for owners and agents going forward to ensure
that there is always the ability to contact someone, in case of any issues
arising. Councillor Blair advised that he would be minded to support the
application, with the recommended conditions attached.
Councillor
Green sought confirmation from Council officers as to what could be included as
a condition of the Licence around the maintenance of the driveway and hedges to
allow easy access for vehicles. Ms Clanahan advised that there were already
mandatory conditions in place around ensuring safety, but the Committee could
agree to include an additional condition requiring that
the Licence
Holder ensures that the property’s private access is maintained to a
reasonable standard to enable the safe passage of vehicles to and from the
property and parking areas thereon.
Councillor
Green advised that he was minded to approve the application, and had been
satisfied by the actions taken by the Applicant and their willingness to
continue this.
Councillor
Green moved that the application be approved with the conditions, as outlined
within the report relating to antisocial behaviour, privacy and security, and
littering and waste disposal, and with the inclusion of an additional condition
requiring that the Licence Holder ensures that the property’s private access is
maintained to a reasonable standard to enable the safe passage of vehicles to
and from the property and parking areas thereon. 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, privacy and security, and littering and waste
disposal conditions set out at paragraph 6 of the report, and subject to the
inclusion of the condition that the Licence Holder
ensures that the property’s private access is maintained to a reasonable
standard to enable the safe passage of vehicles to and from the property and
parking areas thereon.
(Reference:
Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager dated 28 May 2024,
submitted)