Transcript

[ Pause ] That's us live, we'll start by reading the webcast notice. Welcome to the meeting of the Panel Roca Revi body, Panel 1. This meeting is being held in the dinner world courtroom in state chambers in high street Edinburgh and remotely by Microsoft Teams. A robi phone for live and social broadcast via the Council's website. The Council is a data controller and a general data protection regulation and a protection act 2018. The broadcast council meetings to fill a public pass obligation to enable members of public to observe the impact process. Members are reminded that the cameras are activated by the same system. They must switch on microphones when speaking and often when speaking. If they have a webcast, they'll do a roll call of members. Councillor Cameron. Good morning. Good morning, Councillor. Councillor Gardner. Good morning, Councillor. Councillor Jones. Present. Good morning, Councillor. Good morning. Good morning, Councillor. Good morning, Councillor. Good morning, Councillor. Good morning, Councillor. Good morning, Councillor. Good morning, Councillor. First item, appointment with a convener. Who do you establish? I nominate Councillor Gardner. I'll second that. Happy to accept. Councillor Gardner, appointment does convener. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Councillors say no. Okay, thank you, Blair, if we can go to the first item. It's a few best pieces. Item 3.1, are there any declarations of interest? No. Item 4.1, previous minute of six March approved the correct record. Agreed. Item 5, no procedure for nothing. No. And first of start of item is 6.1. 6, have you met Edinburgh for use, a short-term let, in retrospect, application number 3, 03614, oblique FU LSTO, decision notice, report of handling, and let us of representation. Notice of you and supporting documents have been circulated. The applicant has requested that you proceed and the basis of an assessment of the documents only. Point is coming up. Thank you, Blair. Over to you, Gina. When you convener, the application property is a one-bedroom apartment with a private entrance on the ground floor of a two-story house. You can see the property in the image on the presentation. The property comprises a living room, kitchen dining room, one bedroom and a bathroom. The property is set within a private cul-de-sac with a gated entrance on the main thoroughfare known as Abbey Mount. The flat is entered via the private garden to the front of the property leading to the main door and the property is located in an area of mixed character. There is no relevant site history for the application property. In terms of other relevant history, on the 11th of August 2021, planning permission was granted at 2-4 Abbey Mount for the change of use and alterations to form 11 short-term let-studio apartments and cafe. In terms of the description of the proposal for this application, the application seeks retrospective permission to change the residential use to a short-term let. There are no internal or external physical changes proposed. The applicant has advised that the property has been in use as a short-term let since 2018. In terms of supporting information, there is an MPF4 planning statement and a supporting statement from the owner of the neighbouring property at 6A Abbey Mount and that is referred to in the Port of Handling and they are also drawings. I will take you through the presentation. Here you can see the property in context shown on the left of the screen on the OS map and there is also a zoomed-in section on it just on the right-hand section. So you can see the property here highlighted in red and the garden to the front of it and you can see its location in the cul-de-sac. This is an aerial view of the property just to provide you with further context and its relation to the street and zoomed in section again. So you can see the two-story property there, garden to the street and its location in the cul-de-sac. You can see the short-term let's refer to in terms of the relevant history to the rear and there's also garages at the end of the cul-de-sac. This plan shows the layout of the property. You can see the entrance, the private entrance, kitchen, dining, living room, a bedroom and there's some images of the internals of the property. And this image here showing the elevation, it shows you in the red dotted line and the split of the property, so everything at ground floor including this door, sorry the window to the right-hand side that's it there, but not the door immediately adjacent to it. And this is some context taken from the statement for review showing an image of the short-term let apartments into the rear. Thank you. In terms of the relevant policies and report of handling, we have NPF policy one sustainable places, NPF policy 30. In terms of local development plan policies we have house seven and local transport planning policies try two and try three. The report of handling also notes that the guidance for a business is relevant. However, a judicial review against the council ruled on the first of December 2023, that the April 2023 guidance for businesses should be reduced, which means it must be disregarded in the consideration of this review. An updated guidance for businesses, which reflects the judicial review decision was approved in January 2024 and the panel should have regard to this updated guidance. In terms of representations, there were two objections, including one from a neighbour and one from the old town association. The key issues in the report of handling are the properties located within a private cul-de-sac with a gated entrance on the main road known as Abbey Mount. From a sheer driveway, the property is accessed via a private front garden. The applicant's planning statement notes that the cul-de-sac and driveway is in use 24/7 and the driveway has a mixed-use character. There are two commercial garages used for storage located at the end of the driveway, whilst further along the driveway and around the side of the house is the rear entrance for 11 short-term let units known as Abbey Gate and Fortitude Cafe. The two commercial units are situated approximately 15 metres to the east of the application property and the 11 short-term let units are located approximately 5 metres to the north of the application property. There's a fairly high ambient noise level and the introduction of a short-term let-use in this location will not have a detrimental impact on the immunity of the wider surrounding area. The application property also adjoins to neighbouring residential properties. On the first floor, the upper flat of the two-story dwelling is a residential property at 6A Abbey Mount. The application property also adjoins the rear wall of number 5 Abbey Mount, which is in residential use. The use of the property as a short-term let would allow visitors to arrive frequently throughout the day and night and transient visitors may have less regard for neighbours' immunity. The property also has access to a private garden to the front and the use of this space by short-term visitors may have a detrimental impact on the immunity of neighbouring residents within the tenement. The applicant submitted a supporting statement from the owner of the upper property at 6A Abbey Mount who notes there has been no issues of noise or antisocial behaviour from people staying at the property. The owner of the upstairs property has no objection against this type of lighting operation. Planning permission is granted to the property rather than individuals, which means that the property can change hands and can be operated in a different way than was intended by the applicant for planning permission. When considering the pattern of activity associated with the use only limited regard is given to how an applicant intends to manage the property. The applicant's planning statement expresses that the use of the property as a short-term let contributes to the local economy, with guests spending money, sightseeing, visiting the city's tourist attractions and on public transport in nearby amenities. The applicant asserts that the short-term let generates income for local businesses and also generates income for local cleaning and maintenance staff. The use of the property as a short-term let would result in the loss of residential accommodation, which given the needs and demand for housing and housing is important to retain where appropriate. Residential occupation of the property also contributes to the economy. There were no issues with regards to transport matters. The notice of a request for review was received on 26 December 2023 and the statement of grounds of review states, the owner is also the full-time manager of the short-term let, which was previously used as their home for almost 30 years. Each guest is fully vetted and guests can only check in at designated times between 11am and 7pm, where they are welcomed and shown around and briefed on the house rules. The grounds for review states, there has not been any formal objections to the proposal, but the panel should note that there were two formal objections submitted when the application was publicised. The property is located in a mixed use area, which includes commercial garages, student accommodation, multiple short-term let properties and houses in multiple occupancy. There are 11 short-term let properties located immediately behind the applicant's property. There are very few residential properties in the area, except for the flat above, which is on a long-term let and they join in property at 5am. It should be noted that neither resident objected to the proposal. There is a considerable amount of activity taking place throughout the day with deliveries and ongoing work with the commercial garages. The 11 short-term let's require regular servicing as well as guests coming and going throughout the day and sometimes at night. This meets the area unsuitable for long-term residents because the potential noise and disturbances from both the commercial garages and the 11 short-term let properties. There have been no complaints from neighbours regarding guests staying at the property. There were no further letters of representation and in terms of procedural options available to the local review body. As you will be aware, there was a judicial review issued on 1 December 2023. The court revoked the guidance for businesses on the basis that the Council's interpretation of the law, section 26B of the 1997 Act, was flawed in applying the Edinburgh short-term let's control area to secondary short-term let's that had been operating prior to the control area coming into force. As this application is for planning permission in retrospect and the use was taken up before the control area came into force, the application needs to consider whether a material change of use has occurred under section 26 of the 1997 Act. This will be a matter of fact and degree assessment. The mirror versus the secretary of state for communities and local government 2012 court case identifies that relevant in factors include the frequency of arrivals and departures, the character of the property in the area, the number of people staying and the likelihood of disturbance to neighbouring residents. In relation to the information provided by the applicant in seeking this review and in the report of handling, I note there is not a consideration of whether a material change of use has occurred. If the local review body does not have sufficient information in respect of this, it is possible for additional information to be sought. The LRB need to decide if there is sufficient information to proceed to consideration and determination, or whether one or a combination of the following procedures will be used for the written submissions, the holding of one or more healing sessions and/or unaccompanied or unaccompanied inspection of the land to which the review relates. If the LRB are of the mind that there is sufficient information to proceed, I would remind you that the LRB determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Thank you. Thank you, Eli. Do we think we have enough information here? I'm seeing nods, so happy to proceed, Blair. So, first up, does anyone have any questions about this? So, I see Councillor Jones, then Councillor Osler, so Councillor Jones first, please. Thank you, Kavina, and thank you for that presentation. Can you just go back to the picture again of the elevation, and can you just clarify the bit on the side? What is that, please? I wasn't quite clear. I know that obviously the flatten question's ground floor and the one above is residential. What's the bit on the side, please? Thank you, Councillor. The red dotted line delineates the extent of the property. So, we have the main, I guess, a two-story element with the pitched roof, and then on the end, there's also a two-story element with the hip truth. And the red dotted line also takes in the window here on the bottom as part of this application property. But the door immediately adjacent is not part of the application property. Yes, I believe that is the stairwell for the upper property. Thank you, so Councillor Osler, please. Thank you very much, and thank you for your presentation. We're obviously being asked to consider how seven about inappropriate uses in a residential area. I'm struggling slightly on this one, considering the number of uses in the area. You mentioned the fact that number five is towards the side of it, but it's the side of the building, but the back of number five. And the only other part of the residential is the flat above. Is that correct? Because the rest are garages and then shorts have nets behind. Correct? We can take you back to the plan, which shows the location of the site in context with the number five and the garages. The information submitted with the review does suggest that those are the two residential properties. So here you can see it outlined in red, and the upper flat, obviously, is immediately above. And number five, I understand, is this year, there is a plan which has number five on it, which might be useful to see. There we go. We can see number five indicated there. The follow-up, yes. So, just to confirm, it's only number five and the above property, which are residential. Everything else that's surrounding it is not, so there's short term that's behind it. That is the information that's submitted in support of the review does indicate that. Is there any other questions? I'll go back to Councilor. Yes, I know that also one of the objections is down as neighbour. It's Montreuse Terrace. Do we know where Montreuse Terrace is? Yeah. If you bear with me, I can have a quick. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Looking at the address from the representation, it is to the north and on the main road around the corner from Abimite. We can indicate it here on the OS plan. Okay, thank you. If there's no more questions from committee, I've got a couple of quick confirmation questions. So the garden is the exclusive use of the ground for a flat. I think I heard you saying. Is that correct, daily? Thank you, Councillor. Yes, the information indicates that the garden is solely related to the application property. And the other question was, I think I also heard you say that the first floor is a long-term residential let. That the information submitted in support of the review indicates that the residential property above is on a long-term let. Thank you. So let's go to discussion then. Councillor Jones then Councillor Stanworth. This, I'm like Councillor Osner, I'm struggling here because I feel that this flat is situated in a mixed-use area. Above is obviously residential but long-term let. But behind it's all properties to let this commercial properties in the area. And therefore, I think the impact of amenities is minimal. I think it's significant that the flat above, there have been no objections. And that obviously the owner of this particular property is running the business properly. So taking that into account and also, I mean, you could argue, this is, there are a lot of short, there are a lot of letting properties around. So it's quite good to have a cluster and therefore it does have a beneficial impact on the economic on the economy. So I'm really going to be, I really can't support the officer's recommendation here. Thank you, Councillor Jones, Councillor Stanworth. Thank you. I take the opposite view in a way, though I agree with a lot of what Councillor Jones has said. I think the fact that there are short-term let's and businesses present in the immediate area raises a question over whether it's an inappropriate use in a residential area. I also think that, amenity-wise, there are nearby short-term let's. So the noise on the street isn't really going to be impacted. And as to the neighbours, this is a one-bedroom flat according to the schematics we have. It's not a party flat. It's not likely that it's going to be particularly more disruptive than residents living there in my view. However, under MPF4, I do think it's a loss of residential property. It is a material change of use. It is planning permission-wise, it is a residence. We do have a housing emergency. I don't think the economic benefit outweighs the loss of residential property. And for that reason alone, I would uphold the officer's recommendation. But I would not uphold. I would probably only uphold reason two, not reason one. But I would still uphold refusal. Thank you, Councillor Tsai, for Councillor Caimran. Thank you. Can be an eye. I agree with everything that Councillor Tsai said. But I would be happy to uphold all the reasons for refusal. So that's a difference, I suppose. But that's where I am on this. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Caimran. Can I also do you want to comment? Yeah, I have to say I have deep concerns about this. I agree with Councillor Tsai. I cannot support House 7. I think about where we've lost an appeal from DMSub. And this is a very small residential property. It is not a party flat. It is not within a residential area. I think that's extremely weak grounds. So I cannot support House 7, but I will uphold the secondary reason. Yes, thank you for that. And I think I'm in agreement with that. I mean, I can see some of the reasons why one might consider it as a short-term let. But I think the overriding consideration is that in this case no, in fact, has some benefits of a south-facing garden. And that's quite rare in the city. So it could be quite useful residential accommodation, notwithstanding the adjoining properties. So Blair, we are going to uphold the officer's recommendation that we're going to reduce. We're going to take a high set and uphold the NPF-4. I think, Convene, that Councillor Jones had an opposing view. I don't think he's going to get a second. There's just four on the panel. We're happy if Councillor Jones wishes for his dissent to be noted. Excuse me. Councillor Cairns, shall we? Councillor Cairns, you've got your hand up. Sorry, did I miss something you're going to say? No, no, I just put it up. It was just to say that given the views of yourself and Councillor Osler and Stanislaus, I'm happy to support that as well. And, you know, leave house there if you like so. Thank you, Councillor Cairns. So Councillor Jones, it doesn't look like you're going to get a second there. So do you want your dissent to be noted? I would like my dissent noted, Convene. Thank you. Is that OK, Blair? Excuse me, Convene. Just a point of a procedure to dissent, record the must first bit of motion forward. I apologize. I jumped the gun. Please put it in motion for Councillor Jones and we can note that. And my motion is to overturn the officer's recommendation. Thank you, Councillor Jones. Does Councillor Jones have a seconder? If not, I think he would like his dissent recorded. And my dissent recorded, please. Mr Ritchie, thank you very much. Just a quick point of order, Convene. Do you need a seconder or do you not because the opposing position fell? I think from the perspective of a procedure, Convene is you'd probably put a motion as for a seconder. OK, thanks. So I'll put a motion and Councillor Stana for us on this occasion. You recommended first, so I'll take you seconder for the record. Thank you. Yeah, happy to second. Application refused on House 7. Sorry, bigger pun. I'll have to excuse on NPA 430E. OK, it's so random. Thank you, Blair. Let's take you to the next item, please. Thanks, Councillor. Nice item. 6.2.10, vote Green Edinburgh, change of use of property to short-term light. The property has been run as a short-term light, holiday business since June 2016. We expect application number 23 will be 03814 in the FULSTL. This is not a support of handling and let us have representation. Notice of reviews when documents have been circulated. The applicant has requested that the review proceed and the basis of further written assessments. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you, Gina, please. Thank you. So our next item is at 10, vote Green, and the site description is an application for a one-bedroom ground floor flat within a block of flats, and the property shares an access door and a staircase with other flats. There's no relevant history, and the proposal is for a change of use from residential property to short-term let. The property has been run as a short-term let holiday business since the 25th of June 2016. There was supplementary information provided with the application and also a statement on national planning framework for, so I'll just run you through the drawings. So here we have vote Green, and here is the location of the property in context of that. And here is the actual unit itself, so it's just a one-bedroom kitchen and lounge. And the report of handling notes that the relevant policies are NPF for sustainable policies, one, and NPF for productive places and tourism policy 30, local development plan policy, how seven and local development plan transport policies try to and try three. The report of handling notes that the guidance for businesses 2023 is also relevant. However, a judicial review against the Council ruled on 1 December 2023 that the April 2023 guidance for businesses should be reduced, which means it must be disregarded in consideration of this review. An updated guidance for businesses which reflects the judicial review was approved in January 2024, and the panel should have regard to this updated guidance. We had one letter of representation, and the key issues in the report of handling note, NPF for policy 30 seeks to encourage sustainable tourism, specifically relating to short-term light proposals, LDP policy how seven seeks to protect residential amenity. The property shares its access to the street with other properties in the block via a communal stair. The area is predominantly residential with a low degree of activity and the immediate vicinity. Use of the premises as a short-term let would allow visitors to arrive frequently throughout the day and night, and transient visitors may have less regard for neighbours amenity. The statement highlights that despite operating as a short-term let since 2016, there's been no known complaints from neighbours. The applicant ensures that the property is well managed and deals with all maintenance issues within the block. It's only a small property, so it doesn't attract large parties. Planning permission is granted to the property rather than individuals, which means that if the property changed hands, it could be operated in a different way than was intended by the applicant for planning permission. The authorised use is residential, and the proposal would result in a loss of residential accommodation. There is a recognised need and demand for housing in Edinburgh. Therefore, it's important to retain the existing supply where appropriate. The applicant confirms that the premises are occupied as a short-term let nearly 365 days a year and that they promote local businesses to guests, use local tradespeople for work on the property and the income helps essential daily costs. It's also important to recognise that having the property within a residential use also contributes to the economy using local services and fulfilling employment opportunities across the city. Long-term residents can also make consistent and long-term contributions to the local community. In this instance, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the loss of the residential accommodation is outweighed by local economic benefits as such the proposal does not comply with MPF430. There are no issues with regards to transport matters. The notice of request for review was received on the 19th of December and the statement of grounds of review states. There is no factual basis to suggest use of the property as a short-term let will have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of nearby residents. There have been no complaints. The impact on local amenity is negligible. The loss of residential accommodation will be outweighed by the benefits to the local economy through the use of local shops, tourist attractions and events. There was no further letters of representation. So, as you're aware, there was a judicial review decision issued on 1st of December, 2023. The court revoked the guidance for businesses on the basis that City of Edinburgh Council's interpretation of the law, Section 26(b) of the 1997 Act was flawed in applying the Edinburgh short-term let control area to secondary short-term let's that had been operating prior to the control area coming into force. As this application is for Planning Commission in retrospect and the use was taken up before the control area came into force on the 5th of September 2022, the application needs to consider whether a material change of use has occurred under Section 26 of the 1997 Act. This will be a matter of fact and degree and the more versus secretary of state for communities and local government court case identifies that relevant factors include the frequency of arrivals and departures, the character of the property and the area, the number of people staying and the likelihood of disturbance to neighbouring residents. In relation to information provided by the applicant in seeking this review and in the report of handling, I note the use commenced in 2016 and there is not a consideration of whether a material change of use has occurred. If the local review body considers it does not have sufficient information in respect of this, it's possible to ask for further information. Therefore, the LRB need to decide if there is sufficient information to proceed to consideration and determination or whether one of or a combination of the following procedures will be used. Further written submissions, the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or unaccompanied or unaccompanied inspection of the land to which the review relates. The requirements, if the LRB are of the mind that there is sufficient information to proceed, I would remind you that the LRB's determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Thank you. Thank you, Gina. So does the LRB consider it has our information? I'm seeing nods, Councillor Cameron. Are you happy that we have enough information as well? That's good. So, if there's any questions for Gina, Councillor Standiforth first, please. Just to clarify, unlike the previous application that we considered, this one does seem to be in a heavily residential area. Is that the case? Is there not really a mix of uses around it? That's correct. It's in a residential area. Do you want me to show the plan again? Sorry, I just need to come up with that. Okay, here we have a street view. And also the location plan, just indicating that this is a predominantly residential area of flooded development. Thank you. So, Councillor Osler. And also just to confirm the fact that you mentioned your presentation, there's a shared access to the building, so it doesn't have its own access. No, it's access through a communal stair shared with other flats. Thank you. So, I'm not seeing any other questions, so let's go to deliberation, and who wants to kick off. So, I think Councillor Standiforth first, by microsecond, and then Councillor Osler. I mean, I do think this one is fairly cut and dried. Access through a shared access, it's in a residential area, so it isn't an appropriate use for a residential area as people could be coming and going at all times. It is a loss of residential accommodation, so I'd be happy to uphold the officer's recommendation on all fronts on this one. Thank you, and Councillor Osler. Yeah, I mean, I have great sympathy for the applicant, you know, they've obviously had a thriving business of years with no complaints, but this is a planning matter rather than a regulatory licensing matter. And as the property, as obviously the change of use gives with the building, not with the applicant, we can't guarantee that for the future. And as there is an impact immediately for individuals within the area because it's shared access to it, then there needs to be protection from that point. So, I will be upholding the officer's recommendation. Thank you. And just checking if Councillor Jones or Councillor Cameron wish to comment. I'm seeing shakes ahead, so, and the committee agree with the direction of travel from Councillor Osler and Councillor Stanworth. Yes, so we will uphold the refusal on this one for the grounds stated. Thank you, player. Application refused. Please give you no? On to the next item, is it Ailey or is it the Ailey? Okay, thank you. Just to read out a bit first. Next item, 6.3, 8 cariboule farm Edinburgh, change of use from residential to shop, then land, and retrospect, application number. 23.0.3, 0.5.7, and big F-U-L-S-T-L. Decision note of support of handling and letters of representation. Notice of review and supporting documents have been circulated. The applicant has requested that you proceed on the basis of assessment of review documents on it. Please give me that. Thank you, player. The application property is a two-bedroom, two-story, traditional, stone-built house. The property forms part of a group of residential properties which were converted from former farm buildings to residential units. The property is located between two residential properties, and there's areas of parking set around the site with access from curvil farm terminating at this group of houses. The surrounding properties are entirely residential, and the wider area is rural and character made up of agricultural land. There's no relevant site history, and the proposal is for retrospective planning permission for our change of use from residential use to short-term let. The statement for review confirms the short-term let use commenced in 2018. And the supporting information includes an NPF4 planning, supporting statement, drawings, a statement for review, and a supporting comment from an owner of a neighboring property. I'll take you through the presentation. You can see the property highlighted in red here. It sits within the group of former setting buildings, and this just shows the property in context and its relationship to curry and its rural location. We have a view looking from the access road down to the farm buildings. And this is just the view looking in the opposite direction where the road terminates, and the red arrow indicates roughly the location of the property which is sort of central within the group of buildings. We have a layout plan showing the ground floor and the first floor of the property. I think that is the extent of the presentation. The relevant policies are NPF4 policy 1 and policy 30, local development plan policies, how 7 and transport planning policies, try 2 and try 3. The report of handling notes that the guidance for businesses 2023 is also relevant. However, a judicial review against the council ruled on the 1st of December 2023 that the April 2023 guidance for businesses should be reduced, which means it must be disregarded. In the consideration of this review, an updated guidance for businesses which reflects the judicial review decision was approved in January 2024 and the panel should have regard to this updated guidance. There were no representations received to the application, and the key issues in the report of handling are the house forms part of a terrorist and is situated among other residential dwellings with low levels of vehicle and pedestrian traffic and has a high level of residential immunity. Access to the dwelling is by a private front door. The property has direct access to outdoor immunity space, which is overlooked by immediate neighboring residential properties and located next to a residential garden. The use of the premises as a short term let we allow visitors to arrive frequently throughout the day and night and transient visitors may have less regard for neighbors immunity. The direct access to outdoor immunity space creates an opportunity whereby short term let users could directly affect neighboring residential immunity. The use as a short term let is not consistent with the existing neighboring residential uses. The proposed use would increase the ambient background noise levels beyond what residents would reasonably expect within the immediate and local area. The increase in frequency of movement to the property at unpredictable hours would damage the immunity to the immediate neighbors and the adjacent properties. The applicant supporting statement notes that the proposal will not result in the loss of residential accommodation as the properties occupied by the application applicant for a period of five months annually. The applicant states that if refused the property would become empty for the remainder of the year when not in use by the owners. The statement further comments that the proposal has local economic benefit by providing visiting families temporary accommodation. The current lawful use of the planning use of the property is for residential accommodation and the use of the property as a short term let for a period of seven months in the year would result in a material change of use of the property leading to a loss of residential accommodation. Given the recognised need and demand for housing in Edinburgh it is important to retain this where appropriate. There are no issues with regards to transport matters. The notice of a request for review was received on the 1st of January 2024 and the statement of grounds for review states. The property serves as our full-time residential accommodation and home during periods when we are in Edinburgh visiting our family. The decision to use the property as a short term let since 2018 has been tied to our personal circumstances and not driven solely by financial motives. During the six or seven months when we are not residing in the property it has been available as a short term let to responsible guests who are visiting or moving to the local community and we believe this contributes positively to the area. Guests adhere to strict code of conduct and there has been no negative feedback from other residents at Corivale farm steadings. We believe the lighting of the property combined with this being our summer residence allows us to maintain a connection with the community, support local businesses and provide a welcoming space for visitors. Consideration for our neighbours is highlighted under the house rules for the property. Our property holds a unique position within the community having been utilised by both our neighbours and members of the local community for accommodating their relatives. Our detailed analysis of past guests has found that 20% of them were residents of Cori and surrounding areas or families who have lived in the area or were working locally. It served as emergency accommodation for individuals as well as accommodation for numerous local guests having worked on on their own properties and having to move out during this time. There has also been people moving into the area and as well as seeking to move away from the area looking for short to medium term accommodation whilst in this transitionary phase. We also led to our close neighbours when the property to our close neighbours when friends and family come to visit. Our own research could only find two other homes within Cori, Juniper Green and Blair know with a similar set up. This demonstrates a clear and present need for this flexible accommodation within our local area. One of the key aspects not fully captured in the initial application is the strong and positive relationship that we have with our neighbours. Several of our neighbours have offered to provide supporting statements and there were no objections from any of the 17 properties on Corivale farm. We believe that our proposed short term let contributes positively to our neighbourhood and local community. It allows others to visit relatives, adds to the local economy and allows people to have short term place to stay while moving into the community. The proposed use of the property as a short term let during our absence is a deliberate effort to ensure the property remains a positive and dynamic asset to the community. There were no further letters of representation in terms of the procedural options available to the local review body. As you will be aware, there was a judicial review issued on 1 December 2023. The court revoked the guidance for businesses on the basis that the council's interpretation of the law section 26B of the 1997 Act was flawed in applying the Edinburgh short term let's control area to secondary short term let's that had been operating prior to the control area coming into force. As this application was for planning permission in retrospect and the use was taken up before the control area came into force on the 5th of September 2022 the application needs to consider whether our material change of use has occurred under section 26 of the 1997 Act. This will be a matter of fact and degree assessment. The Mirror versus the Secretary of State for Communities and local government 2012 court case identifies that relevant factors include the frequency of arrivals and departures, the character of the property in the area, the number of people staying and the likelihood of disturbance to neighbouring residents. In relation to the information provided by the applicant in seeking this review and in the report of handling, I note there is not a consideration of whether a material change of use has occurred. If the local review body does not consider it has sufficient information in respect of this it is possible for additional information to be sought. The LRB need to decide if there is sufficient information to proceed to consideration and determination or whether one or a combination of the following procedures will be used. Further written submissions, the holding of one or more heating session and/or unaccompanied or unaccompanied inspection of the land which the review relates. If the LRB are of the mind that there is sufficient information to proceed I would remind you that the LRB's determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Thank you. Thank you, Haley. First of all, do we consider if we have enough information just checking Councillor Cameron as well? Do you think the other three yes? Okay, let's proceed. So questions for the, I'm going to take Councillor Ossoff first this time and then Councillor Stanworth. Yeah, I had a career about transport. Do we know anything about the actual accessibility of this site, whether it would generate more in the way of, if the only way of accessing it is by call? Thank you, Councillor. Just having a quick look. There's nothing which was being submitted with the application review in terms of the accessibility in terms of the availability of public transport. I'm just going to have a quick look at the report of handling. The report of handling comments on parking, but it doesn't give us a detail in terms of what public transport is accessible from the site. It says there's no requirement for cycle parking for short-term rates, but there is the opportunity for cycles to be parked inside the property. But the proposals do comply with LDP policies, TRATU and TRAT-3. Just before I go to Councillor Stanworth, could you put the site plan back up just for committee's benefit, please? I mean, I'm aware that there is public transport in the Atlantic, Road, West and Kerry Hill Station, but this is down a track, isn't it? Which is grey on the site plan. That's more helpful, actually. So, Councillors, can you see the red and the sort of... Okay, so if that's okay, Councillors, let's go to Councillor Stanworth. Thank you. The applicant in their appeal talks about operating as a short-term let for six months. But my understanding is that the planning application before this is to simply change it to a short-term let. It's not sort of a partial permission over six months. Is that correct? Thank you, Councillor. The description of the proposal is for the change of use to residential short-term let in retrospect, but the information submitted with the review does indicate that the applicant is in residence for roughly five months of the year. Is that something that... I wonder where Councillor Stanworth is going, and maybe I've been wearing it since his mouth, but he's maybe wanting to see if it's possible to limit the use of the short-term let. Is that something that can be done, or does it doesn't really exist as such? Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. There is the option to continue the application and go back to the applicant to check if they wish to change the description of development to specify the time period. There would then be the consideration of how that is enforced and how that is monitored. So, that's maybe something committee consider if they wish to do that or not. I'll take any other questions and not seeing any other committee members. So, let's move on to discussion and determining this application. So, who wants to go first? I'll go to Councillor, also first, then to Councillor Stanworthor. Again, I have an almost sympathy with the applicant because understandably, if they're visiting family in the area, they might not want to stay with them. It's fortunate the fact that they can afford to purchase another property and I can understand they want to make maximum use out of it. In other cases where we have considered a partial, it's because the applicant has come forward with particular reasons. And as each application is considered on its own merits, I would be hesitant about the idea of continuing something to discuss. I think it's up to the applicant to decide what they wish to do and bring that forward as an application. So, in this instance, I would recommend the fact that we uphold the officer's decision and then it's up to the applicant to decide what they might want to come back with in terms of, you know, another application that might limit, but they would need to be able to specify, you know, exactly what it is that they are planning on doing and be quite specific because my understanding is we can look at it from that viewpoint, but each application is considered on its own merits. So, there's no sort of thought process towards what is or isn't acceptable. And I don't believe it's up to us as a council to enable others to do, is up to individuals to decide what it is that they wish to do with their applications. Thank you, Councillors for the Councillor for that. Thanks. I do have a lot of sympathy for this in that the applicant makes a very good case that short term lets her unusual in this area and that they're used a lot by family visiting. People in that area. I think that's a strong argument for having a single short term let in an area that operates for six months. My issue with it is, is that this is, before us, a full change to a short term let, we don't control who owns it in the future. And in the future, if someone let it out 365 days a year, that might actually become quite disruptive to residents because the covered applicant is somewhat answerable to them because they live there six months of the year. And if the planning permission was only for six months as a short term let, you would assume anyone buying it and operating it under those circumstances would also be living there six months of the year and therefore answer all to their neighbours. And their neighbours would actually be able to keep an eye on it and turn to us and say hold on this person isn't operating it for mere six months they're operating it all the time. So I think enforcement would be possible via the neighbourhood there, but if we pass this it's a permanent change for all 12 months of the year. And I think that has the potential to be quite disruptive in future, which is why I would uphold the officer's decision here. But I have to say if it was an application for six months I would find it a lot more difficult to uphold refusal given the evidence the applicant has given us as to how useful it is for residents nearby to have this option for their families to rent it out. So even though I have a lot of sympathy for it, because it's a full application, because it's a year-long application, I think the officer's reasons for refusing it stand. Okay, thank you, so I'm just looking and I can see Councillor Jones, so Councillor Jones please. I just want on record to commend the applicant for a very thorough application and the points that Councillor Sandoval's just raised the issue of there being a facility in that area for people to live there for a short period to decide what they want to buy there. I think they've made a very, very good application, but I just want to put that on record. Thank you. So, yeah, I agree with that sentiment, Councillor Jones, it is. We obviously consider each one on its own merits and there is some merits to this particular one that have been well made. I know the area and it is a sort of farm track you approach the setting and it potentially could be quite disruptive and therefore we need to be very careful about this. And I think it's well, the case has been made that it's very well run currently and it provides a service in the Cartier-Billerno Juniper area for families to visit and people might be moving house and require short term accommodation. So, rather than continue it, which is something we can do, I'll just take, I'll just ask officers to confirm that this is the first application on this site. And if that's the case, that is allowed to make another application within the 12 month period for free and therefore that would be officers then to determine the merits of that and to see if they can limit it in the way that Councillor Sanderforth has set out. It might be less than six months, but it might be a reasonable period for them to make a commercial return and provide a service in the community. But it still has that control factor that wouldn't pose a long term disruption to the other 17 units in the setting. So, what I think we should do today is to refuse this application, but note the merits of it and ask them to make a new application and for officers then to consider it on its revised terms. So, in this case, Blair, I think we're all minded to refuse, but seek that the applicant does reapply. Okay, thank you. Application refused. Next item, 6.4, flat 6, 18B, Hoped in Road, South Queensbury, with respect to change of use from flat. So, you can notice the short-term, right? So, you can notice the application number 23, oblique 04490 oblique FU LSTL. Decision, notice of support of handling and letters of representation. Notice of review and supporting documents have been circulated. The applicant has requested that you proceed on the basis of assessment of the review documents. Thanks, give me that. Thank you. Okay, our next application is at 18B Hoped in Road, flat 6. The property is a two-bedroom flat located within a block of flats off a shared drive to the north of Hoped in Road, Queensbury. The property shares its access to the shared drive with other properties and forms part of a modern residential development. Hoped in Road is mixed in character and the site lies within the Queensbury conservation area. There's no relevant site history. The application is for the retrospective change of use of the property from flat dwelling to short-term let and the use commenced in March 2016. I'll just take you through the drawings. So the property in question is located at the back here, so accesses via this private driveway. So we can just see this is the private driveway coming in here and you can see the property located to the rear. And this is the layout of the property, two bedrooms, living room and a kitchen. Just take your back, sorry. The report of handling notes that the following policies will apply. MPF 4, sustainable places policy 1. MPF 4, historic assets and places policy 7. MPF 4, productive places tourism, policy 30. The local development plan housing house 7. And the local development plan trap policies 2, try 2 and try 3. The report of handling notes that the guidance for businesses 2023 is also relevant. However, a judicial review against the council ruled on 1 December 2023 that the April 2023 guidance for businesses should be reduced, which means it must be disregarded in consideration of this review. An updated guidance for businesses which reflects the judicial review decision was approved in January 2024 and the panel should have regard to this updated guidance. We've had no letters of representation and the key issues in the report of handling R. MPF 4, policy 30, seeks to encourage sustainable tourism. An LDP policy house 7 seeks to protect residential amenity. The property shares its access to the street with other properties in the block via a communal stair as well as a shared driveway. Use of the premises as a short term let would allow visitors to arrive frequently throughout the day and night and transient visitors may have less regard for neighbours amenity. The authorised use is residential and the proposal would result in the loss of residential accommodation. There is a recognised need and demand for housing in Edinburgh, therefore it's important to retain the existing supply where appropriate. It's also important to recognise that having a property within residential use contributes to the local economy using local services and fulfilling employment opportunities across the city. Long term residents can also make consistent and long term contributions to the local community. In this instance it's not been sufficiently demonstrated that the loss of residential accommodation is outweighed by local economic benefits and as such the proposal does not comply with MPF 4, 30, E part 2. There are no issues with regards to transport matters. The notice of request for review was received on 2 January 2024. The result of the judicial review released on the 1st, sorry the statement of grounds review states, the result of the judicial review released on 1 December 2023 states, it's now unlawful for the Edinburgh City Council to require the applicant to apply for retrospective planning commission for a short term let if they have been trading prior to September 2022. There was no further letters of representation and the procedural options available to the local review body are. As you'll be aware there was a judicial review decision on 1 December 23. The court revoked the guidance for businesses on the basis that CEC's interpretation of the law section 26B of the 1997 act was flawed in applying the Edinburgh short term let's control area to secondary short term let's that have been operating prior to the control area coming into force. As this application is for planning permission in retrospect and the use taken up before the control area came into force on the 5th of September 2022 the application needs to consider whether a material change of use has occurred under section 26 of the 1997 act. This will be a matter of fact and decree assessment. The more versus secretary of state for communities and local government court case identifies that relevant factors include the frequency of arrivals and departures, the character of the property and the area, the number of people staying and the likelihood of disturbance to neighbouring residents in relation to information provided by the applicant in seeking this review and in the report of handling I note the use commenced in 2016 and there's no consideration of whether a material change of use has occurred. If the local review body consider it does not have sufficient information in respect of this it's possible for additional information to be sought. Therefore the LRB need to decide if there's sufficient information to proceed to consideration and determination or whether one or a combination of the following procedures will be used. Further written submissions, the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or an accompanied or unaccompanied inspection of the land to which the review relates. The requirements for determining the case are if the LRB or if the mind that there is sufficient information to proceed I would remind you that the LRB's determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In particular you must consider if the proposals will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the listed building, sorry, of the conservation area, not the listed building. It's not listed. Thank you. Thank you Gina. So any questions for, sorry, have we got enough information first of all? NODs all round, thank you. So there's a site plan up on the screens. Any questions for Gina from committee? No questions, that's fine. So let's go to discussion and who wants to kick off here. Thank you, Councillor Osler. Again, these are always really, really complicated. It's hard for residents, I can understand, that have conducted a business that have done so without impact as they believe the amenity of others around them, but as again this is planning commission not licensing and so on. We have no control over that going forward that that would stay within the hands and there is an impact towards others around them because there's shared amenity here and that does have a knock-on impact to individuals if this became a permanent change of usage for something else. So due to the fact that it is very, very clear that there is a shared usage and there is a knock-on impact I would be upholding the officers' recommendations in this one. Thank you and I can see NODs from Councillor Stanaforth and also Councillor Cameron and Councillor Jones indeed. So I think community is in agreement there and we will uphold the officers' recommendations here. Blair, thank you. Application refused. Next item 6.5/20 Randolph Lane, change of use to short-term light in retrospect. Application number 53.03948, oblique FULSTL. Decision note of support of handling and letters of representation. Notice of review and supplying documents have been circulated. Rather than having requested that we proceed on the basis of further announcements, specific matters. Let's give you a round. Thank you, Blair, and I think it is a leg in. Thank you, Convener. The application site is a first floor flat within a two-storey muse building, its 20 Randolph Lane. The living quarters of the dwelling extend over one floor and there are garages and the main door entrance at the ground floor. Steps lead up to the first floor which is a lounge, kitchen, bathroom and two bedrooms. There is no shared private or amenity space. The surrounding areas and mix of garages lock-ups with residential on first floor and some offices. The property is just out with the city centre at the west end and public transport can be reached within a five-minute walk. The application site is a category C listed building located within Edinburgh World Heritage site and the new town conservation area. There is no relevant site history and the description of the proposal is for retrospective permission to seek the change of use from residential to short-term wet. There is no internal or external physical changes proposed. The planning application form state the property has been used as a short-term wet since the 30th of September 2022. In terms of supporting information we have a planning statement and an updated version of the planning statement in relation to the application for review. There is also a record of short-term weddings for 2022 to 2023, a record of guest feedback and comments, drawings and photographs. I will just take you through the presentation. You can see here the top left hand image which shows the south west elevation and the door to the property highlighted in red. We have also got the north east elevation just shown on the top right hand corner and the extent of the property first floor is also highlighted in the red dash. We have got the south east elevation showing the property above the garages and also an image looking south east along Randolph Lane. The site location plan shows the site in context. You can see the muse there and its location and its proximity to the west end and its location in terms of Charlotte Square and other parts of the city centre nearby. We have a layout plan showing the layout of the property so you can see we've got two bedrooms, lounge and a kitchen and bathroom and there's also the stairs from the external doorway. Thank you. The relevant policies in the report of handling are NPF4 policy 1, policy 7 and policy 30. We've got local development plan, policy house 7 and local transport planning policies, chat 2 and chat 3. The listed buildings and conservation area guidance is relevant and the report of handling also notes that the guidance for businesses 2022, 2023 is relevant. However, a judicial review against the council ruled on the 1st of December 2023 that the April 2023 guidance for businesses should be reduced, which means it must be disregarded in the consideration of this review. An updated guidance for businesses, which reflects the judicial review decision was approved in January 2024 and the panel should have regard to this updated guidance. The application received two objections and the key issues in the report of handling are the properties on the first floor of a two-story news building located in a quiet, mainly residential enclave in the west end, just out with the city centre. The property is part of a block of news buildings set within a courtyard lane and it has its own main door entrance to the lane. The applicant's supporting statement asserts that the properties in Randolph lane are largely known residential and the area is in mixed use. It states that the property is well managed and there are no known complaints. As the lane is a mix of residential uses, lock-ups and garages with some offices, there is a fairly low ambient noise level. The introduction of a short-term let in this location will have a negative impact on the amenity of the surrounding area. Although it has its own main door access, the use of this property as a short-term let would have the potential to introduce an increased frequency of movement to the dwelling at unsociable hours. The proposed two-bedroom short-stay use would allow visitors to arrive frequently throughout the day and night and transient visitors may have less regard for neighbours' amenity. The applicant's planning statement sets out that the short-term let will make a positive contribution to the local economy through accommodation fees, guest utilising local businesses and creating work for local cleaning and maintenance staff. The current use of the property is for residential accommodation and the use of the property as a short-term let would result in the loss of residential accommodation which given the recognised need and demand for housing in Edinburgh is important to retain where appropriate. It is also important to recognise that residential occupation of the property contributes to the economy. It has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the loss of the residential accommodation is outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits. The proposal does not comply with NPF4 policy 30E part two. There are no issues with regard to transport matters. The notice of a request for review was received on the 9th of January 2024 and the statement of grounds of review states none of the properties in this block 2022 and 26 Randolph Lane own any of the four garages below the property. The dwellings are either second homes, for example number 17 rentals or short-term let properties, numbers 22, 26, 9 and 14 to name the closest or they're empty. The property is surrounded by garages and offices and buildings used for commercial activity. The property is in a highly sustainable location being accessible via choice of modes of transport including on food, bicycle and by public transport. Recognition should be given to the important contribution to the tourism sector that will be made by the limited number of remaining short-term let properties that comply with planning and licensing regulations. The properties on Randolph Lane are almost entirely non-residential, there are many key safes to support the short-term let businesses. The area is not predominantly residential, instead it is commercial and the main. The applicant is the owner and full-time manager responsible for advertising the property handling all bookings and providing the point of contact for guests. The record of occupancy by guests, submitted with the application, demonstrates a consistent and regular flow of guests. All reviews have been exclusively positive and there have been no complaints made by any neighbours. The short-term let apartment is relatively small with 62 square metres of living floor area and only two bedrooms and a maximum occupancy of four people. The property is a self-contained apartment with its own private entrance from the lane and is not shared with any other property. There are no other shared facilities with any residential neighbours and there are no external areas of gardens which guests might gather. There have been two objections received and the statement for review proposes that one is from an objector on Rodney Street which is a 30-minute walk from the application site and one which the applicant believes was submitted in error and relates to a short-term let it flat to 8A Randolph Crescent. There were no further letters of representation in terms of the procedural options available to the local review body. As you will be aware, there was a judicial review issued on the 1st of December 2023. The council revoked the guidance for businesses on the basis that the council's interpretation of the law, section 26B, of the 1997 Act was flawed in applying the Edinburgh short-term let's control area to secondary short-term let's that had been operating prior to the control area coming into force. As this application was for planning permission in retrospect but the use began after the short-term let area came into force. Section 26B 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act Scotland 1997 is applicable. This dates in a short-term let control area at the use of a dwelling house for the purpose of providing short-term let's is deemed to involve a material change of use of the dwelling house. The LRB need to decide if there is sufficient information to proceed to consideration and determination or whether one or a combination of the following procedures will be used. Further written submissions, the holding of one or more heating session and/or unaccompanied or unaccompanied inspection of the land which the review relates. If the LRB are of the mind that there is sufficient information to proceed, I would remind you that the LRB's determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In particular, you must consider if the proposals will have a detrimental impact on the character and opinions of the listed building or the conservation area. Thank you. Thank you, Ailey. Does committee consider that we've had enough information? No? Okay, let's go to council also. I don't, so new information was introduced into this which was the status of the surrounding properties which we don't have information on. In our papers under relevant history, there is no relevant history. The applicant has stated the fact that the two adjoining properties are both short-term let's and several others are within the immediate vicinity. I would like to continue this application while we check those facts because we don't have any information on that. And so I can't determine whether that's correct or not and whether this is a residential area because if those have been granted, there's a change then to what the area is. Let's go first to the officers just to see if that information is available and then we can make a decision whether to continue or not. So, Ailey, Gina, any comment on that? Thank you, Councillor. We can continue the application and look specifically at the planning history for the properties that are referred to in the statement for review. In terms of the relevant site history, there's no previous applications for this site, but we could look at the properties that are specifically named in the review statement. Yeah, Councillor, sir. Because it's a mixed use area, what would be useful to have not said there's only a certain number of buildings within this area, it would be useful to have an understanding which ones or offices. I appreciate that one of them is referred to as a second home, that is residential, so it's irrelevant whether it's a second home or not. But I think it'd be useful to have an understanding of what is actually the functions of several of these. So, what has been granted planned permission in this area and what the actual functions are as there's a limited number. Let's just check the committees in agreement. I'm seeing Councillor Stanforth nodding, but let's go to Councillor Jones who wants to speak. Yes, had we gone further, my first question would have been about mixed use area and clarification of that. So, in complete agreement with Councillor Osler that we do not have sufficient information to proceed. You're happy with what she has asked for and the wish to add that? I am very happy with that. Excellent, and I can see Councillor Cameron nodding and Councillor Stanforth also indicated continuation. So, a layer of good, obviously speak to officers and note the requirements for the continuation, thank you. So, I'll ask Ailey to read out what she's noted about the continuation, we'll check that that's precisely what it's been asked for. So, Ailey, thank you. Thank you, Councillor. So, we're going to continue the application to look at the properties that are referred to specifically in the statement for review in terms of their planning history and their lawful use. Could I also ask the fact that as it's a mixed use area and there's reference obviously to offices, if we just have a look at what are the actual uses of that, there's only a certain number of properties within this area. So, can we also just double check what the other ones are? Could we just, I think that makes sense, can we just go back to site plan and see the extent of what we're looking for and then that will really help officers to fulfill what's been asked? So, on the screen there is a sort of court, there's a block in the middle where the application is and then there's a courtyard with a four sided shape. So, do you want to hold the square or do you want the bit that's coming up to the square as well? Just the square or trapezium even. Excellent, I think that's helpful. So, if you're happy with that, Ailey, then I will continue it. Blair, thank you. Sorry, Councillor Jones. I'm just wondering, does that have to be formally proposed and seconded? No, it appears not, thank you. Application continued. Next item, 6.64B, Roth C. Muse. Change of use from residential to shop, then let in respect, application number 23.037.8. I believe F, U, L, S, D, L. If there's a note of support of handling and let us, of representation, notice of review and supporting documents have been circulated. The applicant has requested that you proceed in the basis of assessment of the review documents online. Thanks, give me that. Okay, so our next item is at 4B, Roth C. Muse. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat situated in a terraced two-story traditional muse. The local area is residential and character. Roth C. Muse is quiet in nature and has low levels of pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The property is sea listed and lies within the new town conservation area and the world heritage site. The relevant history is that in February 2015, we had a full and LBC application granted to form a one-bedroom flat on the ground floor of an existing muse property. The description of the proposal is for a retrospective change of use from residential to short-term let and that operation commenced in March 2016. And there's supporting information. We had site photos and a supporting statement and I'll just take you through the images. So here we have the property in question. This one here. And again, we can just see it in the location on this street, which comes in as a cul-de-sac. And here is the internal area of the property. So the report of handling notes that the following policies will apply. Sustainable policy MPF sustainable policy one, MPF for historic assets and places policy seven, MPF for productive places tourism, policy 30. We've got the LDP plan policy house seven and LDP plan policies try to and try three on transport. The non-statutory guidance that's relevant is the listed buildings and conservation area guidance. And the report of handling notes that the guidance for businesses 2023 is also relevant. However, a judicial review against the council ruled on the 1st of December 2023 that the April 2023 guidance for businesses should be reduced, which means it must be disregarded in consideration of this review. An updated guidance for businesses, which reflects the judicial review decision was approved in January 2024. And the panel should have regard to this updated guidance. We had two letters of representation, one in support and one objecting, and the key issues in the report of handling are MPF for policy 30 seeks to encourage sustainable tourism. Criterion 30B and E specifically relate to short-term let proposals. An LDP policy house seven seeks to protect residential amenity. Access to this property is via a private entrance. The location is in a cul-de-sac with limited traffic and low ambient noise. Use of the premises as a short-term let would allow visitors to arrive frequently throughout the day and night, and transient visitors may have less regard for neighbours' amenity. The authorised use is residential and the proposed ward result in the loss of residential accommodation. There is a recognised need and demand for housing in Edinburgh, and therefore it's important to retain the existing supply where appropriate. A supporting statement provided by the applicant stated that the short-term let users support the local economy through direct spending at restaurants, tourism and use of public transport. It's also important to recognise that having the property within residential use also contributes to the economy, using local services and fulfilling employment opportunities across the city. Long-term residents can also make consistent and long-term contributions to the local community. In this instance, it's not been sufficiently demonstrated that the loss of residential accommodation is outweighed by local economic benefits, and as such, the proposal does not comply with MPF 4030E Part II. There are no issues with regards to transport matters. The notice of grounds of review was received on the 4th of January 2024, and the statement of grounds of review states, The property has been a short-term let since 2016. It's a small one-bedroom unit in both a commercial and residential area. The property has a main door and no shared access. After operating for over seven years and continuing a good relationship with neighbours, I failed to accept that the short-term let will now have a materially detrimental effect on living conditions and amenity of nearby residents. We had no further letters of representation, and therefore the procedural options are. As you'll be aware, there was a judicial review decision on 1 December 2023. The court revoked the guidance for businesses on the basis that CEC's interpretation of the law, Section 26B of the 1997 Act, was flawed in applying the Edinburgh short-term let's control area to secondary short-term let's that had been operating prior to the control area coming into force. As this application is for planning permission in retrospect, and the use was taken up before the control area came into force on 5 September, the application needs to consider whether a material change of use has occurred under Section 26 of the 1997 Act. This will be a matter of fact and degree against assessment. The more versus secretary of state for communities and local government court case identifies that the relevant factors include frequency of arrivals and departures, the character of the property and the area, the number of people staying and the likelihood of disturbance to neighbouring residents, in relation to information provided by the applicant in seeking this review and in the report of handling, I note that the use commenced in 2016, and there has not been a consideration of whether a material change of use has occurred. If the local review body considers it does not have sufficient information in respect of this, it's possible for additional information to be sought. Therefore, the local review body need to decide if there is sufficient information to proceed to consideration and determination or whether one of or a combination of the following procedures will be used. Further written submissions, the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or an accompanied or unaccompanied inspection of the land to which the review relates. The requirements for determining the case are, if the LRB are of the mind that there is sufficient information to proceed, I would remind you that the LRB's determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In particular, you must consider if the proposals will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the listed building and the conservation area. Thank you. Thank you, Gina. Do we consider we have enough information to proceed? I'm seeing noads. Thank you. So, Councillor Jones, please. Thank you, Covina. Thank you for that presentation. I just want clarification, please, on the statement which says the character of the street is entirely residential. How have you managed to ascertain that fact? The information is what was in the report of handling, so it states that the local area is residential in character and it's got low levels of pedestrian and vehicular access. I would like to share the location again. So, we look like we've got converted mews. Obviously, this application itself converted in 2015. If you just bear with me, I'll just go back through the drawings. Here we have, so you access in at this point and then it comes to a cul-de-sac because the street on the other side here is much lower level. So, you drive in. The use is, I don't have anything specific in terms of what they are in terms of what was included in the papers and the supporting papers. Thank you. Is there any other questions? If not, let's move to discussion and who would like to lead on that. So, Alex, that's where it comes to stand for. Yeah, I think the officers' conclusions are correct here. It is a residential area, so it would be an inappropriate use in a residential area. It is a loss of residential accommodation. Therefore, I think we should help the officers' decision to refuse. Yes, it is a very quiet muse, isn't it, and there's a big drop at the end, as Gina said, and the retaining wall, so it's quite a quiet little residential area. So, I think I'm in agreement with that. Councillor Osler. Yeah, I think we also have to remind for the fact that, obviously, this is off a very busy, vibrant area, but it is a quiet area. And we are in danger of losing an awful lot of our very small properties sort of in these sort of quieter areas as well. So, I know it is a balance, and again, you know, I'm sure we all have great sympathy for the individual who has run something well. But again, we do need to protect this level of housing in sort of a very central location, because we don't have that much of it. And it is important, the fact that people do have that ability to be able to have this for the future. Yes, thank you, so we'll have the forest, HAU-7 and NPF-30E, and we're in agreement with those reasons for refusal. So, I'm seeing nods all round, so thank you, Blair. Application refused. Oh, yeah, sorry. Will we have 10-minute break? Yeah, thank you. Councillors are quite rightly requested break, so committee will suspend itself for 10 minutes, and we'll come back at 10-40 for anyone watching online and Councillor Cameron. We'll see you in 10 minutes, thank you. Walker Street, change of use from residential to shop down there for 100 nights in a calendar year. Application number 23, oblique, 0367, oblique, F-U-L-S-T-L. This is notice, report of handling and letters of representation, notice of review and spring documents have been circulated. The applicant has requested that we proceed in the basis of holding one or more hearing sessions on specific matters. Thanks, given it. Thank you, Blair, and it's Ailey. Thank you. Thank you, convener. The application property is a three-bedroom basement flat located in a four-story building on the corner of Walker Street and Drumshoe Gardens. The property comprises a living room, kitchen, bathroom and three bedrooms in his access via steps leading down from the street to his own main door entrance. The property has its own outdoor space at the basement level of the building. The property is part of a category, be listed building located in the new town conservation area and Edinburgh's World Heritage site. The surrounding area of the property comprises a mix of residential and office uses. There's no relevant site history for the application property, but in terms of other relevant site history, applications have been submitted for properties immediately neighboring the site in relation to proposed short-term let uses. These applications are both yet to be determined. There's an application at 29 Walker Street, which was validated on the 5th of January 2024, and the applications were a certificate of lawfulness confirming its existing use as a short-term let visitor accommodation. At 27 Walken Street on 13th of November 2023, an application was also validated for a certificate of lawfulness confirming its existing use as a short-term let visitor accommodation. This application seeks a change of use from residential to short-term let visitor accommodation for 100 nights in a calendar year. This use is not yet commenced. There's no internal or external physical changes proposed. In terms of supporting information, we have two supporting statements submitted in respect of the application, and one statement submitted in relation to the application for review and drawings. I'll take you through the presentation. We have images here showing the property on Walker Street in its location and context in relation to the West End and Jum Shoe Gardens, and you can see it here on the West map highlighted on the corner. This is a layout of the property, so you can see we've got the three bedrooms, the private entrance, hallway, a kitchen dining space and a separate living room and bathroom all at basement level. Here we have the entrance to the property shown in Red Star that's the gate to the basement stairs. We've also got shown in the Green Star, the property at 29 Walker Street referred to earlier, where there's an application for a certificate of lawfulness for short-term let use, and also shown in the yellow star is the property at 27 Walker Street, which also has an application for a certificate of lawfulness for short-term let use. I think that's the images for the presentation. The relevant policies in the report of handling are NPA4 policy 1, policy 7 and policy 30, and we've got local development plan, policy house 7 and tri2 and tri3. The listed buildings and conservation area guidance is relevant, and the report of handling notes that the guidance for businesses 2023 is also relevant. However, a judicial review against the council ruled on 1 December 2023 that the April 2023 guidance for businesses should be reduced, which means it must be disregarded in the consideration of this review. An updated guidance for businesses which reflects the judicial review decision was approved in January 2024, and the panel should have regard to this updated guidance. The application received no representations, and the key issues in the report of handling are, the property's access via its own main door entrance at basement level of a four-story building, the property is located in an area of residential and office uses. These uses are of a quiet nature and result in a moderate degree of activity during the day, and a low degree of activity at ambient noise level at night time. The applicant's supporting statement asserts that the use by visitors would have no effect on the amenities of neighbouring residents. Properties adjoining the application site at 27 and 29 walk or street are subject to a certificate of lawfulness applications in relation to proposed short-term let uses, which are yet to be determined. The current lawful use of the properties adjoining the application site are residential. The use of the application property as a short-term let would introduce an increased frequency of movement to the property and would enable visitors to arrive and state the premises for a short period of time on a regular basis throughout the year in a manner dissimilar to that of permanent residents. The applicant's planning statement notes that the property would remain available for themselves and their family for the timely stay in Edinburgh, and there would be no loss of residential accommodation. Additionally, the applicant notes that the payment of additional tax in order to own a second home located in Edinburgh is a demonstrable local economic benefit that contributes to the provision of affordable housing in Edinburgh and outweighs any perceived loss of residential accommodation. The current lawful use of the property is for residential accommodation and the use of the property as a short-term let for a period of 100 nights in a calendar year would result in a material change of use of the property leading to a loss of residential accommodation. It's also important to recognise that having the property within residential use also contributes to the economy using local services and fulfilling employment opportunities across the city. Long-term residents can also make consistent and long-term contributions to the local community. In this instance, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the loss of residential accommodation is outweighed by local economic benefits, as such the proposal does not comply with NPF or Policy 30E Part II. There are no issues with regard to transport matters. The notice of a request for review was received on 4 January 2024 and the statement of grounds of review states, The property has been occupied by the applicant, their families and friends for short periods by the applicant's daughter. It will continue to be occupied on this type of basis for the foreseeable future. The application seeks for the property to also be used as a short-term let for no more than 100 days in a calendar year. This additional use of the flat would provide accommodation for tourists. The description of the proposed use should be changed from residential to mixed, should be changed to change of use from residential to a mixed use of residential and short-term let for 100 nights in a calendar year. The report of handling states that visitors would come and go in a manner dissimilar to that of permanent residents. The only difference is that they would come and go last from the flat carrying luggage. Permanent residents would also come and go on occasions carrying luggage and would on many other occasions come and go carrying all manner of objects and shopping. The number of permanent residents that would occupy the flat is the same as the number of visitors that would occupy the flat. Even if planning permission were to be granted, there would remain many days in the year when there would be no one staying at the flat. If the flat was occupied on a permanent basis, there would be no days in the years when there would be no comings and goings. There's no material difference between the frequency and impact of comings and goings of permanent residents compared with the frequency and impact of comings and goings of the applicant's use and visitors using the flat for no more than 100 days in a calendar year. Transient visitors may in fact have more regard for neighbours' immunity. There is considerable traffic, including lorries and buses in the vicinity of the flat throughout the day and night. Background traffic noise masks any noise from activity associated with the comings and goings to and from the flat. Above the basement flat is flat 29 Walker Street, which has been used for several years for short-termlet purposes. The entrance door into the flat is above and to the side of the entrance door into the basement flat. The basement flat at 27 Walker Street, which adjoins the application property, has also been used for short-termlet purposes. And both of these properties have certificates of lawfulness and applications submitted for them. The applicants will remain the owners of the flat for the foreseeable future and it will continue to be occupied as previously outlined. There is no loss of residential accommodation irrespective of the outcome of the application. There were no further lectures of representation. And in terms of procedural options available to the local review body, this is an application for a change of use from residential to short-termlet and the use is not yet commenced. Section 26b, two of the Town and Country Planning Scotland Act, 1997 is applicable. This states, in a short-termlet control area, the use of a dwelling house for the purpose of providing short-termlets is deemed to involve a material change of use of the dwelling house. The LRB need to decide if there is sufficient information to proceed to consideration and determination or whether one or a combination of the following procedures will be used. Further written submissions, the holding of one or more heating sessions and/or unaccompanied or unaccompanied inspection of the land which the review relates. If the LRB are of the mind that there is sufficient information to proceed, I would remind you that the LRB's determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In particular, you must consider if the proposals will have a detrimental impact on the character and opinions of the listed building or the conservation area. Thank you. Thank you, Ailey. So, first of all, we need to determine whether we have enough information or not. And Councillor Jones, do you have something to say on that one? I do, because they're probably joining the application site of 2729 Walk Street or subject to certificates of lawfulness, and these are still to be determined. I think in fairness to the applicant, it's best to wait until we know the outcomes of those determinations. Hey, there may be some merit in that, because that might influence our determination of this one if they are approved as certificates of lawfulness, but I can see Councillor Ozzler wants to speak on this. My understanding is this is an application that hasn't gone ahead, so it's obviously subject to being within the control zone. So, my understanding would be that no matter what is the outcome of the certificate of lawfulness and so on, what we're being asked to judge in front of us is whether there is already material change because, of course, subject hasn't actually started yet, so I don't believe the fact that whatever the properties are above it is actually going to make a kind of difference, I think, to me personally, it's not something that is a consideration, because it's whether this is a loss of residential or not. I can see there's two different viewpoints. Personally, on this one, I see some merit in what Councillor Jones's is arguing that it might affect our determination of this one, whether they are approved as short term rights to join anyone's or not. That's my personal view, so maybe we have to go to, unless somebody else wants to say anything, we might have to go to a vote on this on whether to continue or not. So, before we go to that, I can see Alex, Councillor Stanner thoughts, to say something, so let's go to you. Yeah, just to say, I think Councillor Ozzler's argument has a lot of merit. It's not an application in retrospect. So, the control zone does apply, which makes it a lot stricter, which means the certificate of lawfulness is far less relevant than it might be were in retrospect. Obviously, two viewpoints, and if Councillor Jones is happy, I'll move to continue this to await the determination of the two adjoining STLs, because I think that is a material consideration in this particular applications, but also there's a different viewpoint from Councillor Ozzler and Stannerforth. So, Councillor Jones, do you want to second me? Yes, please convene it. Thank you, Councillor, just in terms of the point of order. We've been asked to consider the application in front of us, and we don't have a time scale for the determination of the other applications. So, we're not sure that we should be continuing it to await the decision of the other certificates of lawfulness. Okay, I'm going to have to take the professional advice and roll back on that Councillor Jones, and I think we need to hear it today on that basis. Councillor Cameron has her hand up, so happily go to her. Thank you, Kivina. It was just a question. I heard and obviously accept the point made by officers there, but is there any reason why we can't continue it? Taking account that we can't take into account what officers said. Sorry, I'm a little bit hard of hearing this morning, so I think you said, Is there any other reasons for continuing it? I'm not aware of any, but that might come out in deliberating on it, but I think those would have to be their own reasons, and it couldn't be what Councillor Jones has stated. So, on that basis, I think we can still move to continuation after debating it if that's necessary, but I think if we have enough information here now, let's consider this. So, on that basis, I'm open to taking questions, first of all, yes. And Councillors, how do you hand up first? So, let's go to her, then Councillor Stanford left that. As this is an application that hasn't started, I think it would be good to just recap exactly the situation, i.e., because the zone has been in place. What difference does that make? Thank you, Councillor. It's an application for a change of use from residential to short-term let. The use is not yet commenced. So, on that basis, section 26B2 of the Town and Country Planning Act, Scotland 1997 applies. In that state, in a short-term let control area, the use of a dwelling house for the purpose of providing short-term let's is deemed to involve a material change of use of the dwelling house. So, can I just confirm on that that there is no timing in that? It doesn't matter whether it's one day, seven days, there's no specification in terms of condition on it. That is great, Councillor. Councillor Stroud, of course. Thank you, Convener. The application before us is specifically for 100 nights in a calendar year. How enforceable do we think that is on this site? Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. There would be challenges in terms of monitoring the 100 nights. If it was for a specified months of a year, that is something that would be much more straightforward, but monitoring use, which is not the, you know, continues. It could be at any time throughout the year it would have its challenges to enforce. Yes, I understand. It would be extremely difficult, would it not, to monitor discontinuous time periods. Any further questions for officers? Councillor Jones. Yes, please. And just clarification again on 2729 Walker Street. Did I hear correctly you said that they have been used as short-term nets? Thank you, Councillor. So in terms of 27 and 29 Walker Street, they both currently have applications which are awaiting assessment. So they're in the system, they've been submitted, and they're both applications for certificates of lawfulness to confirming its existing use as a short-term let visitor accommodation. There hasn't been determination in respect of those applications, so we don't yet know the outcome of those. But that is the description of development for the applications. And the statement for review does also refer to them having been in short-term let use for some time. Good. So is there any other questions before we move to discussion? And I'll maybe kick off on this one. It's slightly different to carry veal farm in terms of the location and mitigating factors. But maybe the outcome is the same that we need to refuse this, an applicant's opposite liberty to make a new application and might specify a time period which could then be monitored more easily by planning officers. So it's a realistic prospect that it can be monitored because it's very difficult for a hundred days in 365 to know which days are and aren't being used as a short-term net as a short-term net, nigh impossible. So we can't accept this application, I would argue, at present. I'm not saying that we would in the future, but the applicant is welcome to make a new submission with a specified time period. That's an observation rather than any conditioner or anything like that. So I would move that we refuse this for the reasons stated in the report at present. Is the rest of the committee in agreement with that? And if not, please, please. Oh, well, yeah, okay, so let's go to Qatsha Stanforth to see if he agrees with her on going on this. For me, it's all about whether this is a loss of residential accommodation. And because it's a hundred days but they can be any days throughout the year, I think it's clear that it is, because I think that makes someone occupying it as a residence quite difficult. So the difficulty to enforce does come into that as well because there is a risk of it being operated for more than that, which means it's more of a loss of residential accommodation. I'm not saying the current applicant may do that, but obviously anyone may inherit that planning permission by buying this property, and we cannot guarantee that it will be operated in a reasonable way. And they may scatter those hundred days throughout the year. They may push their look and go beyond those. And then it would become less and less a viable prospect for anyone to actually live there through any length of time. Because of that, I think this is a loss of residential accommodation if we pass it as it stands. And that's why, yes, I would support you in refusing it. Okay, thank you for that. Now, I think I had seen, I did see, also, but also saw Councillor Jones, I think, first up. So, okay, Councillors, sir. Thanks. Yeah, no, this is unfortunate in a lot of ways. I can see, obviously, that they've individuals done the right thing, but again, we have to judge what's put in front of us, and it is too opaque and too open to interpretation. If individuals wish to do something, then they need to be very, very clear in their application, and we can only judge what is put in front of us in terms of an application, and having just a random number of days is not a kind of suitable element, because it's too hard, and that puts the emphasis onto the Council to have to enforce something. And the whole point of anything is to try to get the residential. I'm not saying whether we would or would not make any changes of whatever came in front of us, because that's a totally separate thing. But presented as it is in front of us today, this is not an application I could support. So I would be upholding the Office's recommendation. OK, so that's clear. Now let's go to Councillor DROWEN to take your to comment. Thank you, Kavina. I personally would stand by my original comment that I believe we should wait and continue this, because I think it is important to know what the outcome is with regards to the other aspects that are awaiting determination. So that's really basically where I stand at the moment. OK, so in terms of determining this application, for me I'm going to take the professional advice as officers that there isn't merit in continuing it. What can happen is obviously that applicant may have a new application once those STLs are determined, but we don't know when that's going to be. And that might or might not have a weight on what the officers consider on the new application and if it comes to LRB after it is refused then also we can take that into account as well if we are sitting on the application. So I don't think there is any scope to continue it to Councillor DROWEN. So on that basis, given what's been said, I'm minded to move a refusal. You can seek a second or to see if anything else switches to continue it, but I'm minded to go for refusal on the basis that's been outlined. So I don't know if you're going to move anything or it... Well, I would move continuation, but I don't know if I've got a seconder. Let's put it out there. So it's our seconder for Councillor Jones, first of all, and if not, over to you, Councillor Jones. Do you wish your dissent noted? Yes, please. Thank you. Now, is that all in order, Blair, or do I need to move a counter-proposal? I think you've got to move a counter-proposal. So if either of the Councillors have spoken, wish to, secondly, on the counter-proposal, Councillor Standifor is agreeing to that. Yeah, happy to second. He's happy to second. Thank you, Blair. OK, so now, so that falls, the continuation falls, and is the rest of the committee in agreement with the position that we're going to reject this at present for the reasons stated? Is that clear, Blair, do you need anything more for you? Do you want your dissent recorded, Councillor Jones? I would like my dissent recorded. Thank you very much. Well, yes, Councillor. Application refused. OK, let's move on to the next item, and if Councillors can concentrate on where we are, thank you. Finally, is item 6.8, two F1, six, West Point Gomory Place, change of use from residential to shop, then, in retrospective, application number 23, oblique 0390, oblique FULSTL. Decision, notice, support of handling, and letters of representation, notice of review, and supporting documents have been circulated. Rather than getting those requested, that you proceed on the basis of an inspection of the land which the review relates. So, thanks, give me a note. Thank you, and is it, Gina? Thank you, Chair. OK, so our last item today, it's a one bedroom, second floor flat. The property shares its access to the street via a communal stair containing 12 flats. There's a shared garden to the rear. West Gomory Place is predominantly residential, and there is a cafe open normal day-time hours at the corner of Montgomery Street. Public transport links are easily accessible from the site. The site lies within the new town conservation area. There is no relevant history, and the application is for a change of use from residential to short-term let. The applicant advises that the short-term let use has been in operation since December 2016. We have a planning statement and also MPF4 planning statement, and I'll just take you through images. So, this is the access to the property, and it is the second floor flat. So, just in terms of its site location, and this is the internals for the flat, so kitchen diner, bathroom, and a living bedroom space. Just take you back. So, the report of handling notes that the relevant policies are MPF4, policy 1, MPF4, policy 30, and the LDP policies, how 7, TRATU and TRAT3. The report of handling notes that the guidance for businesses is also relevant. However, a judicial review against the council ruled on 1 December 2023 that the April 2023 guidance for businesses should be reduced, which means it must be disregarded in consideration of this review. An updated guidance for businesses, which reflects a judicial review decision was approved in January 2004, and the panel should have regard to this updated guidance. We've also got the listed buildings and conservation area guidance that's relevant as this is within the Newtown Conservation Area. There was four letters of representation, and the key issues in the report of handling note. Policy MPF4, policy 36 to encourage sustainable tourism, specifically relating to short-term lap proposals, and the LDP policy, how 7, seeks to protect residential amenity. The application property lies, sorry, shares its access to the street with other properties in the block via a communal stair and is located within the predominantly residential area. The supporting statement states that the property is very small and the flat at the rear of the building and is not visible from the street. The statement continues that the property is in a mixed use area and guests do not have access to the shared rear garden. Therefore, there's no negative impact on residential amenity. Use of the premises as a short-term let would allow visitors to frequently arrive throughout the day and night, and transient visitors may have less regard for neighbours' amenity. The authorised use is residential, and the proposal would result in the loss of residential accommodation. There's a recognised need and demand for housing in Edinburgh, and therefore it's important to retain the existing supply where appropriate. The applicant statement suggests that the owners sometimes use the property when visiting relatives in the city, therefore it's still used for residential purposes, but they haven't specified a particular number of nights. The statement submits that the small size of the property and layout are similar to a hotel suite, and it's not suitable for long-term residential use. The statement asserts that the short-term let guests use local businesses, which is good for the local economy. It's also important to recognise that having the property within residential use also contributes to the economy, using local services and fulfilling employment opportunities across the city. Long-term residents can also make consistent and long-term contributions to the local community. In this instance, it's not been sufficiently demonstrated that the loss of residential accommodation is outweighed by local economic benefits, and as such, the proposal does not comply with MPF4030E Part II. There's no issues with transport. The notice of request for review was received on 8 January, and the statement of review states, Within the immediate vicinity, there's a primary school and a busy cafe which creates significant activity. The use of the property as a short-term let would manifestly not introduce increased frequency of movement to the property, and it has been used as a short-term let for the past seven years. Due to the size of the property, guest numbers are never more than two, and frequently single travellers. There have never been any complaints from our neighbours or issues with security, and we would question whether evidence exists that the guests would come and go any more frequently than permanent residents. Our flat has been in use as a short-term let since 2016, and therefore does not represent a loss of residential accommodation. None of the comments come from residents of West Montgomery Place and the property is located in the Newtown Conservation Area, and the proposed use will have no impact on the character of the area, unlike the boarded-up windows across the street. There's no further letters of representation, and you'll be aware that there was a judicial review decision on 1 December 2023. The court revoked the guidance for businesses on the basis that CEC is interpretation of the law. Section 26B of the 1997 Act was flawed in applying the Edinburgh short-term let's control area to secondary short-term let's that have been operating prior to the control area coming into force. As this application is for planning permission in retrospect, and the use taken up before the control area came into force in September 2022, the application needs to consider whether a material change of use has occurred under Section 26 of the 1997 Act. This will be a matter of fact and degree. The more versus secretary of state for communities and local government court case identifies that relevant factors include frequency of arrivals and departures, the character of the property area, property and area, the number of people staying and the likelihood of disturbance to neighbouring residents. In relation to information provided by the applicant in seeking this review and in the report of handling, I note the use commenced in 2016, and there is not a consideration of the material change of use has occurred. If the local review body consider it does not have sufficient information in respect of this, it's possible to ask for additional information to be sought. Therefore, the LRB need to decide if there is sufficient information to proceed to consideration and determination or whether one of or a combination of the following procedures will be used. Further written submissions, the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or an accompanied or unaccompanied inspection of the land to which the review relates. The requirements for determining the case are, if the LRB are of the mind, there is sufficient information to proceed. I would remind you that the LRB's determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In particular, you must consider if the proposals will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the listed building or, sorry, it's not listed building. I should remove that. Please strike that, whether it has an impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Thank you. Thank you, Gina. So first up, do we have enough information to determine? Yep. And then second up, questions for officers. Councillor Jones, please. Thank you for that presentation. Can you just clarify and go back to the picture again, the boarded up areas, the ground floor is flat and then I think in the report it remensions opposite boarded up areas. Can you enlighten me on those points? I think it does mean adjacent because this is the access to the flat and obviously the windows are in the same stair. But you're in the street view and can you zoom around? It's just an image, sorry. Just a quick follow up. So am I right thinking that the boarded up flat is not actually being used or is it not used or is habitable? I can't comment on that. But there is a statement in the applicant supporting statement that says this, their use will not have a detrimental impact on the character of the conservation area and it makes reference, I think, to the fact that these windows have been boarded up by the resident for the last couple of years and that, you know, this is the result in a conservation area. But actually, their own property is obviously in good condition. Any other questions for officers? And if not, who would like to commence the discussion? So Councillor Jones? Well, I think this is very clear cut. This is obviously shared stairwell and the impact on immunity is obvious. I have sympathy with the applicant, but I'm afraid it boils down to there is definitely here loss of residential accommodation. So I would be supporting the officers' recommendations to reviews. Thank you. Councillor stander for? Yeah, I completely agree with Councillor Jones there. I would add that the suggestion that because it's small, it's not suitable as an actual full-time residence, I would dispute that there are young, single adults in the city who are looking for small areas, small places to live that because they are cheaper, because it is easier to manage them, you know, actually there is quite a high demand for one person, flats, whatever their size in the city. So I wouldn't accept that as a reason that we can accept the loss of residential accommodation here. Yes, I agree with that. Housing associations find the one-bedroom flats the easiest to land. So that argument sort of falls for me as well. Does anyone else want to join the discussion before we go formal, as it were? No. So I think committee is minded to agree with the officer recommendation for refusal here for the reasons stated. And if you can note that, please, I'm seeing nods. So if you can note that, please, Blair. That ends today's committee. So thanks very much. Thank you. [end of transcript] [BLANK_AUDIO]