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 Lynn Holland joined the
meeting by MS Teams along with her husband, Richard Holland, and son-in-law
Chris Needham, who was joint owner of the premises.
Marion MacNeil and John MacKinnon, Objectors, also opted to proceed by
video call and joined the meeting by MS Teams.
Abbie MacIver, Objector, opted to proceed by way of written
submission. A copy of this was contained
within the agenda pack issued on 22 August 2024 and was considered by Members
as part of their deliberations.
Alan and Rita MacDonald, Objectors, opted to proceed by way of written
submission. A copy of this was contained
within supplementary agenda pack 1 issued on 23 August 2024 and was considered
by Members as part of their deliberations.
The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms
of the report.
Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 11 of the report was
followed and the Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support of their
application.
APPLICANT
Mr Holland spoke on behalf of his wife.
He said that the property was a family investment and not purely
commercial. He said the family came to
Tarbert in 2015 and collectively fell in love with the area. They made a decision to invest in the area
and bought Devana Croft in 2015, which had previously been a holiday home for
20 years.
He advised that they advertised with cottages.com and primarily the let
was for 7 days. He said it was not an
Airbnb. It was used by
multi-generational families, mature guests, and family and friends. Many of the guests were walkers and enjoyed
outdoor activities. He advised that many
had family with historical links to the area and many were returning
guests. He said that when the property
was not occupied by guests it was used by family and friends.
He advised that they had set clear ground rules and conditions with
cottages.com in terms of who they would accept bookings from. They have resisted adding additional features
that would extend the season and potentially impact neighbours. He said that they had received great feedback
from guests and advised that they have won the Customer Choice Award for 5
consecutive years. He said that they
focussed on good customer service, guest safety and the local community. He said that they consistently received 5
star reviews with many being very positive about the quality of the
accommodation, the location, and nearby tourist activities. He pointed out that his wife had always
worked in customer care and hospitality sectors. He referred to the recent sale of the Frigate
Hotel in Tarbert and advised that his wife was asked to run this and train the
management team which was now complete with the hotel now open again.
He advised that Devana Croft was a unique property as it was the only
one in the area able to accommodate 8 or 9 guests.
He said that he acknowledged the points made by his neighbours in their
objections. He expressed surprise that
these objections had gone back years. He
said he was aware of the objections despite not being provided with detailed
information. He said he did not
recognise nor have any evidence of the issues raised.
With reference to bin collections, he advised that when they were made
aware of the issue with commercial collections they arranged for their bins to
be emptied by the same vehicle that emptied the bins of the neighbouring
properties.
He acknowledged that the ownership and upkeep of the private road was
shared by all the residents and he confirmed he had recently paid his
contribution to repair the road.
He referred to dog fouling and advised that they allowed guests to
bring a maximum of 2 well behaved dogs.
He advised that there had been no issues he was aware of other than the
one raised by Mrs MacNeill which the Licensing Standards Officer had referred
to in her presentation as happening last weekend. He said that there had been no other reports
of incidents over the last 6 years. He advised
that as a result of the recent incident, they have reviewed access and were
currently investigating a solution. He
said that dogs were a common occurrence on the road. He referred to neighbours’ dogs and also dog
walkers using the road to gain access to walks and footpaths. He advised that of the 29 bookings taken this
year, 20 of these have brought dogs.
He also referred to an issue raised by his neighbour, Mr MacDonald,
about contractors parking on his grass.
He said that he had visited that same day and agreed to put up no
parking signs. He advised that he also
spoke to the contractor in question to ensure this did not happen again. He also advised that he contacted
cottages.com to update a list of contractors they would not accept bookings
from.
He advised that they always received positive comments in their
visitors’ book. He said this was not an
Airbnb and that the minimum stay was 7 nights between April – October. He pointed out that they did not have a
constant turnover of guests.
He advised that tourism was the mainstay of Tarbert’s economy, with
many businesses relying on tourism. He
said they would not survive without visitors coming to stay. He advised that the Scottish Tourist Board
have calculated that the average spend per day, per visitor, was £42. He said that he estimated that their guests
helped to generate £300,000 towards the local economy and if Devana Croft was
not available to book this income would be lost to the local community.
He advised that he thought they had a good relationship with their
neighbours and said they were committed to working with their neighbours and if
the licence was approved, they would continue to put reasonable lines of
communication in place and work with their neighbours.
He advised that when he retired they wanted to concentrate on Davena
Croft. He said that the holiday let was
their livelihood and family home. He
advised that he and his wife had been part of village life since 2015 and have
had a home there since 2019. He said
they played an active part in the community through volunteering. He advised that he had recently taken on the
role of Treasurer with the local bowling club and that they were actively
seeking to bring a tennis centre to the village.
He said that they were not faceless owners and communicated frequently
with guests before, during and after their visits.
He advised that they offered high quality, safe accommodation that, he
said, benefited the local community.
He said that he thought they had an open relationship with neighbours
and that they were surprised by the objections.
He said that he hoped that any future concerns would be raised with them
so that solutions could be found.
He said this holiday let was an investment for his children.
QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTOR
Marion MacNeill
Mrs MacNeill asked if the short-term let application was for rental of
the property between April and October.
Mr Holland advised that the licence applied for was for 52 weeks. He said that the property was usually
occupied for 20 – 30 weeks per year. He
said that they had 29 bookings this year, which would be well within the
parameters.
OBJECTORS
Marion MacNeill
Mrs MacNeill said that she lived directly opposite the property and
that her privacy had gone. She referred
to the steep road leading down to the drive and explained that people reversed
down it. She said their daytime running
lights would shine right into her living room.
She advised that sometimes people would sit for up to 10 minutes in
their cars and look into her home. She
said she did not experience this problem before the property was a holiday let.
She referred to a recent incident involving visiting divers. She said that she could hear horns blasting
from her house. She said she had
photographic evidence of parking that week which involved 2 cars and 4
vans. She said that she had a private
driveway and people had to use it to get past.
She referred to Police Scotland being consulted and advising that they
had no record of any incidents relating to the premises over the last 3 years.
She advised that she had photographic evidence of Mr and Mrs Holland breaking
Covid rules. She said the family came
from down south and used Devana Croft in April 2021. She said that this was more than 3 years
ago. She said that the family had broken
the Covid rules on a few occasions and that they had been using the Croft when
people were not meant to.
She referred to Mr Holland advising a recent Residents Association
meeting that the property would be rented out for 28 weeks. She said that it has already been rented out
for 16 weeks and that Mrs Holland had posted on Facebook that if anyone wanted
to make use of the place to come now as they were fully booked until
November. She said this would take
bookings to more than 28 weeks.
She referred to waste collection and advised that the property’s bins
were not emptied last week.
She referred to Mr Holland advising that he had taken up the post of
Treasurer of the bowling club and was looking to bring a tennis centre to the
village. She advised that this project
has been in the pipeline for many years and not something set up by Mr Holland.
She referred to Mr and Mrs Holland advising that this was a retirement
investment. She commented on Mrs Holland
working at The Frigate and said she believed she had a part time job in the
village. She said this was not
retirement if she was still working part time in the village.
She said her own privacy was being impacted by the people using that
house. She referred to visitors coming
to the house with a van and boat trailer and reversing down the drive with
their lights shining into her property.
She said you could not turn daylight running lights off on a car.
John MacKinnon
Mr MacKinnon advised that, contrary to the solicitor’s letter regarding
the title deeds, a building should not be used for any purpose that might
contribute to nuisance to the neighbourhood.
He said that it was obvious that the owners of this property were
contributing to nuisance to the neighbourhood and so were going against the
terms of the property’s deeds.
He referred to it being recommended in the Committee report that the
application be granted and said this was a commercial business taking
precedence over the objections from 7 objectors. He said the objections were being set aside
in the interests of this commercial project.
He referred to it being stated that some of the complaints were not
valid and not relevant to the application as they had not been reported to the
relevant authorities, for example, Police Scotland and Environmental Health. He said that if they were to phone up Police
Scotland to complain about dog fouling or headlights shining into their homes
their complaints would be dismissed out of hand. He said that whether these events were
notified or not, they were still doing damage to the quality of life the neighbours
had.
He referred to responses given by the Applicant in respect of some of
his objections. He said that his
objections had not been resolved. He
said that if this licence was granted, the resale value of their homes would go
down.
He advised that he had submitted a Freedom of Information request to
find out how many letting applications which had objections, had been
granted. He said that to date none of
the objections had been upheld and the applications had always been
granted. He said this led him to believe
the licensing process was a farce. He
asked the Committee to prove him wrong.
He referred to Mr Holland claiming he had good relationships with the
neighbours. He said that they did not
have a good relationship with him. He
referred to a dispute involving a fence he had put up for privacy. He said that Mr Holland had complained about
it and had threatened him with legal action.
The Chair thanked Mr MacKinnon for his representation and confirmed
that there would be no opportunity within the procedure for him to ask
questions of the Committee directly.
QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT
Mr Holland referred to there being a lot of general comments. He asked Mr MacKinnon to confirm that the
reason they had sent a letter regarding legal action about the fence was
because Mr MacKinnon had placed the fence partly on their land and beyond his
boundary. Mr MacKinnon confirmed that
the fence was over the boundary by 25 mm.
He explained this was because they had placed the front facing side
towards Mr Holland’s house.
Mr Holland commented that he could provide Mrs MacNeill with
information from Ƶapp Council about the waste collection. He said that every bin collection had
happened since they changed the collection to be the same vehicle as the rest
of the residents.
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
Councillor Irvine asked the Applicant to clarify their management
process in terms of who lived nearby to do the changeovers and laundry
etc. Mrs Holland advised that she mostly
did it. She said that her husband was
fully retired. She advised that the
changeover happened on each Saturday and that she did the laundry. She said that they maintained contact with
all their guests during their stay. She
said they were not present at the property when they arrived but they did phone
them once they arrived to check everything was okay. She said that they communicated with the
guests from the moment of booking through to them arriving, during their stay,
and then leaving. She said they did not
randomly turn up to the property while the guests were there as she thought
that would be an invasion of their privacy.
She said that they lived in the village and had moved there permanently
2 years ago. She said they were on hand
and readily available to their guests at any time.
Councillor Irvine sought and received confirmation from Mrs Holland
that if there were any incidents or issues, they were only a few minutes away.
Councillor Brown asked the Applicant if it would be possible for them
to put up no dog fouling notices so residents were more aware and focussed on
the dog issue. Mrs Holland said that
they would be open to any ideas or suggestions.
She said that this was referred to in the visitors’ handbook and that
there was also a notice up on the inside of the door leading out of the
property. She said she would be open to
putting up more notices.
Councillor Brown referred to the handbook asking visitors to be mindful
of people at night and not to have loud music.
She asked Mrs Holland if they had a cut off time limit put on that. Mrs Holland said there was not a specific
time. She said that the majority of
guests were multi-generational from grandmas down to grandchildren. She said she would be happy to put a time
limit on playing loud music.
Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mrs Holland that
she would accept a time limit of 9 or 10 pm.
Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from the Council’s
Solicitor that it would be appropriate to put a condition on the use of the
areas outside.
Councillor Green referred to Mrs MacNeill’s complaint about vehicles
coming and going and asked if she would accept that this could occur regardless
of whether the property was occupied permanently or as a short-term let. He referred to people going down into the
village to socialise at night. Mrs
MacNeill said it was not just a problem at nighttime and that people were
coming and going all the time. She
referred to LED lights being brighter and people regularly coming down the
road. She referred to foreign visitors
putting stones behind their wheels while parked on the slope.
Councillor Green asked Mrs MacNeill if she would accept that this issue
was caused by the design of the estate and the conditions of the road rather
than who was occupying the property. He
said that a permanent resident may also come and go for whatever reason. Mrs MacNeill said that permanent residents
like herself did not use their car all the time. She said that her car was not used for 2 or 3
days at a time. She said guests would
come and go out and about all the time.
She said it never seemed to be a problem with local residents.
Councillor Blair asked the Objectors what type of engagement they’d had
with guests. Mrs MacNeill said she
stayed opposite the property and had the most dealings with those coming and
going. She said she could be sitting
outside in the summer and most would be friendly and come over and speak and
others were not. She said that on one
occasion she was asked by a guest how long she was staying for. When she advised that she lived there they
were surprised.
Councillor Blair asked the Applicant if they had received any
complaints from guests in respect of any engagement with neighbours. Mrs Holland said there had been no
complaints. She advised of one neighbour
lending guests a hosepipe for their children.
Any comments received from guests were always that the neighbours were
nice to them.
Councillor Kain sought and received confirmation from Mr Holland that
the property was at the end of a cul-de-sac, with 2 complainants at the far end
of it, Mrs MacNeill facing the property and Mr MacKinnon and Mr MacDonald
either side of it. He said that some
neighbours were 20 to 30 metres away and others were 120 to 130 metres away
from the property.
Councillor Green sought and received clarification from Mrs MacNeill
that she had never contacted the Applicant about any issues. Mr MacKinnon advised that the only issue he
had was in relation to the fence and he said that they had been very legalised
and evasive in their dealings with him.
SUMMING UP
Objectors
Mrs MacNeill
Mrs MacNeill referred to Covid rules being broken. She referred to Mrs Holland advising there
were only 7 day lets and she pointed out that people came just for the weekend
or from Monday to Friday. She said it
was not always for 7 days and that she had witnessed that.
She questioned how many people in the meeting today had difficulty with
neighbours changing every week of their life.
She referred to not knowing who her neighbours would be each week.
Councillor Green acknowledged Mrs MacNeill’s question which, he
advised, may be responded to during the Members’ debate but could not be
responded to at this point.
Mr MacKinnon
Mr MacKinnon advised that he thought he had covered everything. He said that he could put further points in
writing and send them to the Committee if he was not too late.
Councillor Green advised that there was no opportunity for Mr MacKinnon
to put any further points in writing as the decision would be taken today.
Mr MacKinnon advised that Mr Holland had painted a picture of
neighbours being welcoming, with cosy relationships and he said this was not
the case. He said that all the Objectors
found the family difficult to deal with.
He said he could not see why they had to be subjected to this nuisance
and why the Applicant’s interests were being put before the Objectors.
Applicant
Mr Holland
Mr Holland said there had been quite a number of sweeping
statements. He referred to the Covid issue
and confirmed that this happened on one occasion when the Scottish hospitality,
including second home owners, were given permission by the Scottish Government
to visit their properties to ensure everything was adequate for renting, given
the time they had lain empty. He said
that it was their son-in-law, Chris Needham who was joint owner of the
property, that had visited and that the Police had arrived on one
occasion. He said it was confirmed that
no rules were broken. He said that they
were upset that Mrs MacNeill continued to bring this up. He said it was one visit and it had been
clarified on that occasion at the time.
He referred to Mrs MacNeill advising of 3 vehicles being outside the
property. He advised that they
encouraged visitors to use the double garage and that many did. He acknowledged that when cars went down the
drive their headlights would shine back up the hill. He said they have asked guests to be mindful
of neighbours and pointed out that if they drove on the right hand side of the
road the lights would not shine on the neighbouring property but if they drove
on the left hand side, they would. He
said that they were open to suggestions and thought that they had been
proactive over the 6 years to any issues.
He noted that it had been confirmed by the Objectors that they had not
communicated any specific issues to them.
He said they were disappointed that the Objectors had not found the
time to raise any concerns over the years as they would have been dealt with.
Chris Needham
Mr Needham said he was disappointed to hear the remarks made about
relationships with the neighbours. He
advised that they had visited 3 or 4 weeks ago and had a very friendly chat
with Mrs MacNeill and that they had been invited for drinks with Mr MacKinnon
and Ms Moss on regular occasions. He
said he would like to draw to the Committee’s attention that it was their view
that they had a reasonable relationship with the neighbours and that if their
perception was different then they would accept that.
He referred to the submission from Mr MacDonald regarding the technical
issue of the road. He advised that as
part of this submission he had stated that he did not claim to have experienced
any disturbance from guests.
He referred to complaints by Mrs MacNeill about car lights shining into
her property. He said that Mrs MacNeill and her husband had several vehicles
and there have been occasions when their car lights have shone into their
kitchen. He said they have never had an
issue with that. He said that he
accepted this as part and parcel of being located in a cul-de-sac where there
was continuous and one way driving in operation.
The Chair sought confirmation from all parties that they had received a
fair hearing.
Mrs MacNeill advised that she had not received a fair hearing and this
was noted.
Mr MacKinnon, Mr and Mrs Holland, and Mr Needham confirmed that they
had received a fair hearing.
DEBATE
Councillor Irvine referred to all the objections. He said he personally found it was not
applicable in respect of the number of weeks the property was let. He did not think the issue around Covid was
relevant. He advised that there
appeared to be a lot of neighbour related tension as opposed to specific issues
regarding the letting of the property. He
said he was reassured that the owners lived nearby. He referred to the recommended conditions to
address the concerns from the objectors around anti-social behaviour, privacy,
littering and waste, and management of dogs.
He said that there were a number of objections that needed to be
disregarded, as they were not relevant for the Committee.
Councillor Kain said he disagreed with Councillor Irvine. He advised that while not directly relevant
in procedural issues; the issues were relevant from a community
perspective. He referred to the title
deeds and suggested any new title deeds being drawn up now would now refer to
this type of use being objected to. He
referred to 6 neighbours objecting and noted that they all lived within the
cul-de-sac. He said the Committee needed
to take into account the relationships with the neighbours. He said he was not sure if the Committee
could apply anything to this in that respect. He said he did not think the
Committee were in a good place with these applications.
Councillor Green commented on the questions raised by the
Objectors. He referred to none of the
applications being refused that have come before the Committee to date. He pointed out that each application was
considered in detail and debated on and in some cases additional conditions
were applied to licences. He referred to
discussion had today about including a condition in respect of the use of
outside areas.
Councillor Green also referred to the question asked about the
Committee having experience of living with neighbours that frequently
changed. He advised that he lived in a
flat in Oban, which had an Airbnb in the same close so he did have the
experience of changeovers right next to him.
He advised that as a Committee they understood the impact of short-term
lets on neighbours, which were both positive and negative.
Councillor Brown referred to this being a single lane from a main road
into a cul-de-sac. She commented on the
fact that the Applicant has been running this let for 6 years and understood
that during those 6 years anything that has come up in respect of issues with
neighbours has been dealt with. She said
it was striking that the Applicant was shocked about the amount of ill feeling
and complaints that have come up since applying for the licence. She said she found it disconcerting that
people did not feel they could approach their neighbours. She noted that the Applicant had been running
the business for 6 years and as far as they were concerned, everything was
fine. She said it was important to take
account of everyone’s point of view. She
advised that she thought the Objectors should have been raising these issues
long before now so things could be done and attended to.
Councillor Blair said that he felt as a Committee they gave due
diligence to each application they determined.
He said they took their regulatory role seriously. He advised that he lived at the end of a
Terrace in Dunoon and had an Airbnb next door to him for a time. He said that visitors from Japan, China and
Aberdeen came to stay with no issues. He
acknowledged that he might have been lucky.
He said he understood the concerns and angst of the neighbours. He said it was reassuring to hear that guests
and visitors had good relations with the neighbours. He said it was important for bridges to be
built between the neighbours and the Applicant.
Councillor Green sought comment from Members on how they felt about
adding a condition with a time limit on use of the outdoor space. He suggested 9 or 10 pm.
Councillor Brown advised that she stayed in a small village and that
the house across the road was a short-term let with no issues. She said there was also another short-term
let in the village that people did have issues with. She said she would agree with the Chair about
putting a time limit on use of the outdoor space. She suggested 9.30 or 10 pm at the very
latest.
Councillor Forrest agreed that a 10 pm limit would be reasonable. Having heard everyone, she confirmed that she
weighed these things up carefully. She
advised that she thought the Applicant had made every attempt to try to resolve
problems. She commented that they had
shown due diligence in getting the changes made to the uplift of the bins.
Councillor Green suggested 10 pm would be a good time. He referred to this part of the world being
fortunate to experience late sunsets during the summer months.
Councillor Blair said he would be happy to go with the recommendations
in the report with the additional condition.
Further discussion took place on the wording of an additional condition
putting a time limit on the use of the outdoor space. It was agreed there was a need to be more
specific in terms of what the outdoor space could be used for up to a certain
time. It was agreed to put a time limit
on the playing of music.
Having sought advice from Officers the Chair moved that the short-term
licence be granted subject to the additional conditions set out in report in
respect of privacy and security; littering and waste disposal; and anti-social
behaviour, with condition 3 under anti-social behaviour amended to read “the
licence holder must take reasonable steps to ensure that guests do not play
amplified music within the garden or external areas between the hours of 9 pm
and 7 am”.
No one was otherwise minded.
DECISION
The Committee agreed to grant a short-term let licence to Mrs Holland
subject to the additional conditions set out in the report in respect of
privacy and security; littering and waste disposal; and anti-social behaviour,
with condition 3 under anti-social behaviour amended to read -
“The licence holder must take reasonable steps to ensure that guests do
not play amplified music within the garden or external areas between the hours
of 9 pm and 7 am”.
(Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted)