Transcript

That says live or start reading the webcast notice, welcome to the meeting of the planning local review body panel 2. This meeting is reheld in the Denovial Code Room in the city chambers in the high seat in Edinburgh and remotely by Microsoft Teams, it will be filmed for live and subsequent broadcast via the Council's website. The Council is a data controller and the general data protection regulation and data protection in 2018. We broadcast council meetings to fulfill a public task obligation to enable members of the public to observe a democratic process. Members that are mainly the cameras are activated to be the same system, they must switch on microphones when speaking and often when speaking for the benefit of the webcast, I'll do the roll call of members. Councillor Biel, good morning. Morning. Morning, Councillor, Councillor Maynese, Meehan, Good morning. Morning, Councillor, I'm Councillor Maynese, Morning, Councillor. Of course, to one point, one is a point of a convener, who used a point? Councillor Beaude. Seconded. Next item, 2.1, is order of business. Before we go on order of business, because the information on those additional items was circulated extremely late, I do wonder, and I would like to take the view of members of the local review body, whether we should continue those items. Does anybody have a view on that? I think, you know, this is a very large set of papers, the whole set of papers is reissued, and to do that at, you know, after five o'clock, the day before, is in what is a busy week for all Councillors, because it's a full Council week. I think it's just not fair when this is a local review body to be doing that when it's difficult to access the information, so I would continue both the minutes and 6.1 until the next meeting, especially in the case of 6.1, where it was the additional information the committee had asked for that didn't, wasn't issued until after five o'clock, the day before. Can I just ask our planning advisors, can you just clarify exactly what the information was that was circulated last night, what was additional, and which items are we talking about? Thank you, Councillor. I can confirm that the information that was circulated last night was an email from the agent in relation to the further information that was requested, which was justification as to why a time pre-planning permission for a change of use from residential to short-term late for 12 months would be a suitable compromise, and the purpose of the time pre-permission to the email, and there was also one further email which had some comments on the decision that was issued with the continuation, and that was in relation to six cold-bridge gardens. Which is item 6.1 on the agenda. Okay, so I think the proposal from Councillor MARA is that we continue that item. I have some sympathy with that position. Any other views of, I see Councillor MATAS-QUELLO agreeing, Councillor Beal, did you want to come in? Yeah, I suppose more questions, why was it late, because that's the real question, is it because it was submitted late, or is it because it's planned well, I think that's an issue and you need to kind of understand why it was so late, and therefore whether we need to include it or not, thanks. Thank you, Councillor. I can confirm that it wasn't an issue that with the applicant they submitted their information on time, so it was just a more internal issue with getting it onto the system and circulating to two Councillors. I did have one further question, which I think it would be helpful just to clarify on the record, there isn't an issue with us continuing it with a risk of non-determination, is that because this is an appeal? Yes, that's correct. Okay, on that basis I would suggest that we continue item 6.1, are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Can I make a general point that not just for members of the review body, but for members of the public as well, it's important that information is provided in the public domain in plenty of time before the meeting. So if we could please try and ensure that this is not repeated, can't somebody speak and you want to just come in? Yes, sorry, apologies for my voice. Was there also not documents submitted regarding old church lane last night? No, that's a piece of information that was submitted partly due to a kind of late document for that review, so it's disregarded anyway, it's not part of the appeal today. Okay, with that, Blair, could we go on with the agenda, please? Well, it's going to be not item 3.1, are there any day collisions of interest? None. Item 4.1, previous minutes of March approved as a correct record. Is that agreed? Agreed. Oh, it has come out. The minutes weren't submitted until yesterday, so I haven't had a chance to read them, I'd like the minutes to continue till the next meeting, please, as well, because then the original papers, they were to follow. Okay, are we agreed to, sorry, Blair, on? Excuse me, give you that. Sorry, the minutes were taken, or circulated on Thursday with the papers? So the suggestion is that the minutes were circulated on Thursday, let me just double check my version of the papers, hang on. I'm sorry, I downloaded the papers as soon as they were circulated, and it's diminished, so 20th of March is to follow on the pages. I also downloaded them last week, but there are parts of the pack. Yeah, the line's giving up, yeah, there's a version 1 submitted on Thursday, and as a later version 2 submitted, it was Thursday off Friday with the minutes. I mean, given that Councilman hasn't had a chance to read them, this is a particularly busy week, we've had lots of meetings, I don't think there's any risk in us just deferring that to the next meeting of LRB Panel 2, is there? If the other members of the committee are happy to note them and think they're a correct record and have read them, then that's, I can just say, you know, I can just sit this as his map. I mean, I did read them and I didn't see any obvious errors, Councilman Eastmeakin. Just to support, sorry, just to support Councillor MOWIT on this. On that basis I suggest we just defer it to the next meeting, okay. Minutes defer to next meeting. Next item, 5.1, no procedure for nothing. That's it. First of standard item is 6.1, 6 copies of gardens, so that is being continued. Next of standard item is, yeah, bear with me, item 7.1 is two, easily placed Edinburgh, means of use to short-term work, in retrospect, application number, 03933, a big FU LSTL, decision notice, support of handling and letter of representation, notice of review and spelling documents and further reps have been circulated, wrap again has requested, that will be proceed in the basis of assessment of due documents, so thanks for being up. Okay, so our first item today is two ends of the place, flat 1, and the site description is a one-bedroom, lower ground floor flat situated in a traditional Georgian terrace pavilion, accesses via a communal ground floor front door that is accessed by three further properties. The immediate area is residential in character with low levels of pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The properties category A listed and lies within the new town conservation area and the world heritage site, there's no relevant history. And the description of the proposal is for a change of use from residential to short-term let in retrospect, and the use commenced in July 2016, and I'll just take you through the presentation, so it's this property here with the white door, and here we have it on its plan form, obviously showing the property and its ground to the rear, and then we have the unit itself, so one bedroom coming in off a communal entrance down through the stairwell and into the property, so we've got kitchen, bedroom, and hallway. So the relevant policies are NPA4 policy 1, NPA4 policy 7, NPA4 policy 30, how 7 from the local development plan, and also TRATU and TRATRA3, also in the local development plan. Non-statutory guidance includes the listed buildings and conservation area guidance, and also 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 four letters of representation, three objections and one in support, and the key issues in the report of handling are NPA4 policy 30, which seeks to encourage tourism and criterion 30B and, e specifically, relate to short-term let's, and LDPO policy, how 7 seeks to protect residential amenity. Access to the property is via a shared entrance and communal stairwell, used by three further properties. The surrounding area is residential in character and has low levels of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 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 neighbour's amenity. The authorised use is residential, and the proposal will 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. A supporting statement provided by the applicant stated that the property would remain a second home of planning permission was refused. It would be more economically beneficial to the local economy, and short to let this as a short-term let, rather than have the property vacant. Short-term let users benefit the local businesses through direct spending and creating employment opportunities. The property is equipped with cooking facilities, allowing users to support the local shops and occupants of hotels and B&Bs would not. It's also important to recognise that having a 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 a consistent and long-term contribution to the local economy. 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 MPF430 part E, there are no issues with regards to transport matters. The notice of grounds of review was received on the 15th of January, and the statement of grounds of review states, "The appellant refers to the composite motion of the city of Edinburgh Council on the 14th of December, 2023, whereby it's noted that lord braids ruling on the judicial review on the 1st of December, 2023, found the local authorities interpretation of Scott's law on holiday-led control areas was unfair and illogical, and that it was wrong for the council to introduce a blanket requirement for all owners of whole property short-term lets to obtain planning permission as part of a plan and application for a licence. We had one further letter of representation maintaining their objection, and the procedural options available to the local review body are. In a judicial review decision issued on the 1st of December, 2023, the court revoked the guidance for businesses 2023. 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 control area to secondary short-term lets that had 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. The more versus 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 information provided by the applicant in seeking the review and in the report of handling, I note the use commenced in July 2016 and there's 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 LRB need to decide if there's sufficient information to proceed to consideration and determination or whether one of 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 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 for the conservation area. Thank you.

• Thanks, Rachina. So the first question, do we have sufficient information to proceed? I see nods. Questions to Gina, please? Councillor McNeese-Meakin.
• Hi, I'm not sure if we have this detail, but in my experience of this type of property, the stairs are stone, they're generally not carpeted, they're just generally the original stone, which I would think an shared stair would have impact on how much noise is being generated by rollerbacks. So do we have that information? I think probably we don't, but I just thought I'd ask.
• Thank you, Councillor, but I'm afraid we don't have that information. We don't have any internal photographs of the property, so I can't confirm if the steps are stone or carpeted.
• Could I just ask Gina, so my understanding is, obviously, there was lots of discussion about the guidance for businesses, which was mentioned in the judicial review, so the previous guidance for businesses, which was 2023, was set aside, and the new guidance for businesses, which was approved in January of this year, is a material consideration and determination of this, is that correct?
• Yes, that's correct. We should now be looking at the guidance for businesses 2024 and considering this application.
• So there's a supplementary question to that, page 9 of that guidance for businesses says that if the property is accessed off a stair, whether or other flats off that stair, it's very unlikely that a change of use will be supported. Is that relevant to this application?
• Yes, it is, it's a communal stair, so the front door access gives access to this flat plus three others.
• Thank you, any further questions? So we need to decide whether a material change of use has occurred, to my mind a material change of use has occurred. This is, in particular, we're required to look at the likelihood of disturbance. Our guidance clearly says that in a communal stair, there's more likelihood of disturbance to neighbors, I would therefore argue that material change of use has occurred. Oh, I agreed on that, I don't see anybody dissenting. So on the actual application and the application for a change of use, my view is that the officer's report is clear. We have a number of objections from immediate neighbors. I think this is contrary to the development plan, in particular MPF4 policy 30E1 and 2, and LDP policy house 7, so I suggest that we should uphold the officer's decision. There's anybody of a contrary view, I don't see anybody wanting to come forward, so it appears we are all agreed, thank you.
• Application refused. Next item, 7.24, Bothell Street, change of use to short-term like, application number 23, a week, 04, 137, a week, F-U-L-S-T-L, decision notice to report a final link and that as a representation, notice of you as when documents have been circulated, I think it has requested that you proceed in the basis of assessment of the new documents. Thanks for being up.
• Thank you, convener. The application property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat within a traditional four-story tenement at four Bothell Street. It is accessed via a communal ground floor front door with access to a shared stair which is used by further residential properties. The property also has access to a rear communal garden space. The property is in close proximity to Easter Road and the immediate area is a residential character with moderate levels of pedestrian footfall. There's no relevant site history. The proposals for the change of use to short-term let and the use is not yet commenced. In terms of supporting information, there are drawings and a supporting appeal statement. I'll just take you through the presentation now, so there's some images here showing the property which is the red door and looking east along Bothell Street in the top left-hand screen, top left-hand side of the screen. We've also got looking west along Bothell Street towards Easter Road and you can see the application property on the ground floor on the bottom left-hand there in the red and a view along Bothell Street from Easter Road. You can see it on the aerial here, the red pin point just shows it in relation to, you can see Easter Road which runs perpendicular and you can also see it in relation to like South London Road and other main thoroughfares. Next we have the ordinance survey just showing it in context again and we have the layout of the property which shows you its relationship to the front door. You can see the common steer, the bedroom, living room, kitchen and bathroom. Thank you. The relevant policies in the report of handling are MPF4 policies 1 and policy 30, LDP policies house 7 and a local transport planning policies, tri2 and tri3. The report of handling also notes that the guidance for businesses 2023 is 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. There were 13 representations and objection to the proposal and the key issues in the report of handling are the application property is a one bedroom ground floor flat within a traditional four-storey tenement. The property is accessed via a communal ground front door and it has access to a shared steer which is used by a further 15 residential properties. It also has access to a rear garden space. The immediate area is residential and character with moderate levels of pedestrian traffic. It's in close proximity to Easter Road which is characterised as mixed use with residential commercial retail bar and restaurant uses and a high level of vehicular entrance and pedestrian movement. Both will street however does not have through traffic and it enjoys a relatively good low level of residence, a good level of residence or amenity and low level of traffic. The use is a short term let which allow visitors to come and go from the premises for inconsistent periods of time on a regular basis throughout the year in a manner that is dissimilar to that of a permanent resident and transient visitors may also have less regard for neighbours amenity than individuals using the property as a principal home. The property's access to a communal steer and outdoor amenity space creates an opportunity whereby short term let users could directly affect neighbouring residential amenity. The use is a short term let is not consistent with the existing neighbouring residential uses and a change of use would increase the level of ambient background noise in this context to beyond what is reasonably expected by neighbouring residents and will have a detrimental effect on the living conditions and amenity of nearby residents. NPA4 Policy 30E Part 2 requires that where there is a loss of residential property is only supported where the economic benefits of the proposal are outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits. The current lawful use of the property is for residential accommodation and given the recognised needs and demand for housing in Edinburgh, it is important to retain this word appropriate. The LDP technologies that Turim is the biggest source of employment in Edinburgh, however having the property in residential use would also contribute to the economy through the use of a variety of local services and employment across the city. Long term residents also have the ability to make constant and long term contributions to the local economy. There are no issues with regard to transport matters. The notice of a request for a review was received on 13 January 2024 and the statement of grounds for review states in terms of the history of the operation, it states that the property has been operating as a service accommodation for several years predating the requirement for planning permission. Throughout this period we have maintained a harmonious relationship with our neighbours and have not received any complaints regarding our operation. This historical context demonstrates our commitment to being responsible and considerate part of the community. In terms of accommodation practices it notes that the business model prioritizes longer-term bookings and we also accept short-term bookings to optimise occupancy and contribute to the local economy. By accommodating a mix of short and long-term residents we aim to strike a balance that ensures the property's viability while minimising any potential impact on the community. In relation to the no increase in housing stock, it states refusing the planning application does not align with the stated goal of increasing the housing stock in the area, our property will continue to operate as a service to commutation, facilitating longer-term bookings. There were no further letters of representation. In terms of the procedural options available to the local review body, as this is an application for a change of use from a short-term let and the use is not commenced section 26b2 of the Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 is applicable. It states that in a short-term let control area, the use of a dwelling house for the purpose of providing short-term let is deemed to involve a material change of use of the dwelling house. The LRB need to decide if there are sufficient information to proceed to consideration and dare of termination or whether one or a combination of the following procedures will be used. Are there written submissions, the holding of one or more heating 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's determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Thank you. Thank you very much. So the first question is do we have sufficient information to proceed? I see nods, any questions? Councillor Matas-Cuellier. Thank you, Canvenor. I'm just a bit confused because they say they have been a service long-term apartment something along those lines for a while and they want to alternate short-term with long-term. Do we have any idea of what they call long-term? I'm just a bit confused how, but they want to manage this, thank you. Thank you, Councillor. The application forms indicate that the short-term let use hasn't been taken up yet. The application for review supporting statement does state that the property has been operating a service accommodation for several years and we do know from the representations that were submitted, a lot of them do reference the fact that it was a longer term let until I think early 2023 it was mentioned but there's nothing that definitively say it's out when it stops becoming a longer term let and becoming a shorter term let. Thank you. Thank you. Did you want to come back? Councillor Matas-Cuellier. No. Okay. Councillor at least speaking. Yeah. I'm sorry. My question was along the same lines if we can have any guidance. It sounds as if they're saying there would be six months or a year long service accommodation and I'm just, I would like some clarity on how that works with what's called short-term because I don't know if we've got a definition of long-term service and short-term that might be longer days. Thank you, Councillor. My understanding from the information submitted is it's been a longer term let so people have lived there and resided there for a period of time and the intention is to make it for shorter term, stays, holidays but people could stay there for a longer than just a short holiday was the indication but there isn't anything further in the papers that drills down further in terms of the length of stays. Did you want to come back, Councillor Matysmican? I just, it's so, I'm sorry, for me it seems vague. I don't know whether they mean somebody that's here for a full semester as a supply teacher. It seems vague but I don't obviously, we don't have that clarity. I don't know whether it would help. Do we have any definition in planning? So obviously there's a legal perspective, what type of lease you have but the planning system presumably doesn't take that into account. In what respect, I suppose how is a short-term let defined in planning terms? Do we have any clarity on exactly what, how short is a short-term let, if you see what I mean? Thank you, Councillor. As far as I'm aware there's nothing in the Scottish Government guidance that stays when it stops becoming a longer term and when it becomes a shorter term there's not a lot, a period of time that's em-specified. Councillor Beal, did you want to come in? I'll wait for discussion, because there's questions in there. Okay any further questions? So let's go on to the discussion then. Councillor Beal. Thanks for being here. Just to point out, again I think that's a bit of a red herring whether this is about the management of this application, this application is a short-term let, so that's what we need to consider. And as the management of it is not something we can consider, it's therefore irrelevant to this discussion to my mind. The question is, this is up for short-term let, plan for permission, and I see no evidence why we shouldn't be upholding this decision, certainly mean, I don't see any evidence, the overturn that decision, despite the appeal statement has talked about the other management and increasing the housing stock, but clearly this is going to reduce the housing stock if this property gets planned for permission to be short-term let, so I don't see how that is a valid argument, so I see no reason to not uphold this application, thanks for coming up. Thank you. I see Councillor MATAS QUELLIO and then Councillor MATAS. Thank you. I understand Councillor Beal's comments, but the thing is for me it has been used as a long-term and we definitely need housing stock, so for me that's what I wanted to clear and I am supporting the officers proposal on this, thank you. Yeah, I think this is one which I struggle with because it exposes the shortcomings of the legislation that we have to work with, that we don't actually have a particularly good definition of short-term let, because a short-term let, I think is really defined in the absence of a short-assured tenancy agreement, so it could be for someone who's coming for three months or six months, they are used, I mean if you wanted to live somewhere that was not your home for a period of time to, if you had an insurance claim and you needed to be, to take lodgings elsewhere, those now all fall under the ages of a short-term let, and for those purposes a short-term let that was operating in that way would actually be operating in exactly the same way as someone as a permanent resident in Edinburgh would be living because it would be a permanent resident who was momentarily temporarily out of their own property into another property, so it would be very difficult to say that they were going to behave differently because they lived in Brunsfield rather than Newtown because they had to leave their flat because they had been a flood, so this is where I think we get into difficult territory and I think the applicant here is saying this, we're also asked actually in our business for guidance to consider the frequency of comings and goings and the intensity of the use, which actually without a detailed operating plan for the property, we don't really have that information, but I think what we do have here is a property which is off a common stair applying for a short-term let without saying it has been used this way, but now we're applying for this use, but not, and I do understand the tensions about the management, but I think some of the guidance we've got to work with strays into that start stepping a toe into that water, but I think the questions for us here, is this going to be a loss of a conventional housing unit that would be available for short shelf tenancy, yes, is it in a common stair so that if it is being used for one's form of short-term let's, and there's nothing that we can condition to say it has to be a particular type of short-term let's, and there's nothing in the application stating that so that we'd have an enforcement case against them, then yes there would be additional disturbance to those other people, so I think working within what we have the officers owed up, hold the officers report, but I think there is further work for us to do and it may not be for us, but it may be for other people to look at that at how we interpret them. Okay, thanks colleagues, I think I agree there are clearly questions about how we define a short-term let, but I think I agree with colleagues, you know, we have 13 objectives from neighbours, this is of a common stair, our guidance clearly suggests that common stairs are more likely to have an impact on neighbours, therefore I think the officer's decision is sound and we should uphold it, is there anybody of a contrary view? Nope, okay we are agreed, thank you. And if used, next item, 7.3, 7C blunsing with north, change of use to short-term and rep respect application number if you believe 0.5, 6, 3, 5, 3, if you're a LSTL, decision note of support of handling and let us, of representation, note of review and supporting documents have been circulated, rep again has requested that you proceed in the basis of an assessment of the view documents online, thanks for giving up. Okay, thank you, so our next one is at 7C Bronston Road north, the property is a one-bedroom flat located within a subdivided mid-19th-century house to the west of Bronston Road north forming the corner with Portobello Beach promenade, the property has its own main door but shares its access to the street via a shared driveway, Bronston Road north is of a predominantly residential character, though the character of the promenade to the immediate north-east of the building is defined by its relationship with the Portobello Beach, the property is category be listed and lies within the Portobello conservation area, public transport links are moderately accessible from the site, we have no relevant history and the description of the proposal is for the retrospective change of use of the property from a flooded dwelling to a short-term let and the use commenced on the 27th of September 2022. So here we are, I'll just take you through the drawings, so this is the property and its entirety and you can see there's a gated entrance here that takes you to the private driveway that accesses all of the properties. So just in terms of its location, as you come down Bronston Road you come into the driveway here and the flat itself sits in the middle of this larger property, just in terms of its layout, got kitchen lounge and bedroom in a box room and it's actually the property here with the blue door and then you see it in context with the other properties within that courtyard. So again just coming through the private entrance into the courtyard area, you can see the red car there, just go back one, you can see it parked in front of the properties there and again just parking on the opposite side from the property itself. So the relevant policies are MPF4 policy 1, MPF4 policy 7, MPF4 policy 30, LDP policy house 7, LDP policy tri 2 and tri 3. We've also got the non-statutory guidance for listed buildings and the conservation areas and the report of handling notes that the guidance for businesses 2023 is also relevant. However as a judicial review against the council ruled on the 1st of December that the April 2023 guidance for businesses should be reduced, it means it must be disregarded in consideration of this review and instead an updated guidance for businesses which reflects the judicial review which was approved in January 2024 should be considered. The presentations, there was none and the key issues in the report of handling are. Although the property has its own front door, access to the site is fire shared driveway, the property is a one-bedroom flat which will to some extent mitigate the impact on amenity. The surrounding area is residential and character and the premises are in close proximity to the portabello promenade. 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's a recognised need and demand for housing in Edinburgh, therefore it's important to retain the existing supply where appropriate. It's important to recognise that having 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 the MPF430E part two. There are no transport issues. The notice of grants of review is received on the 24th of January 2024 and the statement of grants of review states, 'My neighbours have always been on board but the short term letting and three of the properties have used it to their benefit. I don't understand how the authority states they are negatively impacted when they tell me contrary to the contrary. There have been no further letters of representation so the procedural options available to the local review body are. As you'll be aware there was a judicial review decision on the 1st of December 2023. The court revoked the guidance for businesses 2023 and on that basis that CSE is interpretation of the law section 26B of the 1997 Act was flawed and applying the Edinburgh short term let control area to short term let's that have been operating prior to the control area coming into force. As this application for planning permission is in retrospect but the use commenced on the 27th of September 2022 after the short term let control area came into force on the 5th of September 26 B 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act is applicable and states 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 from the dwelling house. 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. The 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 if the LRB are of the mine 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 in particular you must consider if the proposals will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the listed building or the conservation area. Thanks very much, so the first question do we have sufficient information to proceed? I see nods, okay, questions. Okay, so this use commenced after the 5th of September so we have automatically determined that a material change of use has occurred so that's the decision that's been taken and that because that's automatic under the legislation so she's just appealing that right so that just threw me momentarily I just needed to talk it through. So just to confirm yes the use did commence after the short term light control area had come into force which means it's an automatically deemed material change of use. So I suppose the question for us is not whether a material change of use has occurred that is automatic the question for us is whether or not this complies with the with the development plan I mean so I'm slightly struggling with this one I think this is slightly more borderline but I suppose just to clarify things in my head just to be 100% clear the planning permission goes with the property not with the management and therefore if we grant permission for this to be used as a short term let and I note that there are no objections to this specific application despite the fact there are a number of neighbours in the area if we grant permission for this there is nothing to stop the applicant you know either changing their management style or selling it to somebody else who does not have such a respectful attitude to the neighbours and therefore that could have an impact on a minute is that correct. Yes that's correct the use would go the change of use would apply to the property and not the person operating it so this property would become a short term let in perpetuity if you were minded to overturn the decision today any other questions any comments Councillor Williams speaking thank you I'm maybe not in the same spaces as others but and I'm looking at two of the things in terms of impact on listed property it doesn't appear to me to have a significant impact on listed property but the other issue for me is the the officers have said there's a shared driveway but that does seem substantially different from a shared stairway to me stairways by their nature enclosed and noise reverberates and I can I think that causes a lot of disturbance I know from speaking to residence I see less opportunity for disturbance of someone walking or driving over a driveway and I cannot see any shared external space in the photographs that have been submitted I see rubbish bins which to me mean it would be unlikely somebody would be using that driveway area for socializing so I'm not convinced that I would agree with the recommendation but I'd like to hear others' views on it. Councillor Beel. Yeah thanks I have some sympathy with Councillor he's being saying something looked at this looked at the papers I thought mmm I'm not heard of a shared driveway doesn't happen often as a shared immediacy I've seen photographs I can see why because it's very tight space and it's clearly very close to other dwellings within you know you can see how close they are so actually I do think that's a valid reason for refusing planned permission on this and certainly in terms of loss of residential accommodation that's kind of against that's fairly obvious and just to pick up on the point on the management again is the management is not relevant to planning permission usually because it can change planned permission goes to the property so again I don't see any reason to overturn this decision thanks commuter. Any other comments? Councillor MURPHY. Yeah I mean Councillor MURPHY is making this point about the I suppose the approach your view on the driveway and the shared driveway is going to vary so much from person to person I think it's a very subjective way that people will experience that space. And actually if you have space that you know if you have a property which has a street outside but you enter off the street there will be people using the street that you know a passing by and you don't know them so that would be the same really with the ship for some people they would do that in the same way but other people they would say well this is a shared driveway there's a gate I expect to know everyone interesting we have no and one of the things here is we don't have any objections from the neighbours and indeed the applicant has said my neighbours use this and I know lots of examples where people do make use of short-term nets to accommodate family and friends when they visit because they're around the corner and it's cheaper than a hotel and it's a bit more comfortable if they're coming up to see family. So I don't take any I think that's perfectly legitimate comment and I think there is a need when people have converted things that you know people do make use of these properties to accommodate additional you know people around them will make use of them because they may not have the space to put people up but you know we don't I mean I suppose part of me says but whilst planning does not legislate for use actually there's another regime that does do that so we're I'm sort of more relaxed about granting planning permission for these items because there is that other regime and if this property did change hands as a short term let and is managed in a completely different way there is an avenue that that can be managed and that that can be that has an enforcement resource allocated to it and can manage those issues in a way that planning can't so I think I'm probably more relaxed about the management and here we have one so I'm probably swithering but this is a main door property yes it's quite a quiet area but I don't see that it's particularly different to I don't think it's so different and so quite given how close it is to a very busy area which is the prom that I would so you're just coming down to a loss of traditional housing which obviously that is it that's a question about whether having a small because this is a very small short term that and then likely to cause disturbance to neighbors and hasn't so far whether that so that I think is the balance we have to that's my focus is is that taking it out for use that has been used you know some people have found useful but in the wider issue about loss of the presidential it's not something we're willing to get yeah I mean I think as I sort of alluded to in my question earlier I can see both sides of the argument I can see that on the one hand you know this is not a shared stare our guidance clearly says you know shared stairs usually won't be accepted this isn't a shared stare this is a main door this is a smaller flat and therefore is less likely to have an impact on neighbors it's not going to be a party flat it's clearly well run at the moment although I would agree with council a bill that is not a planning decision the impact you know what we need to consider is the impact on immunity whether or not it's but it's well run I would note the comment from the applicant which was made in their application form that says I'm not sure what I can provide here other than evidence of messages from my neighbors if anyone can advise on whether I'm okay to do so please let me know I mean I think you know clearly they had some messages of support from their neighbors but they didn't submit them as part of this application I think they perhaps would have benefited from the use of a planning advisor I mean as I say this one is borderline for me I can see both sides of the argument but I think I on balance I come down on the same side as council a bill and the immunity argument is not a massively strong one but I do think that if this was not well managed it could have a significant impact on the immunity of the neighbors in particular in that sort of shared courtyard but the point that has not been addressed at all in the application is the loss of housing and if we had a statement in terms of the you know the economic benefits in terms of loss of housing I think perhaps I might have been swayed the other way but I don't see that in the appeal and therefore on balance I believe that the officer's decision is sound and we should uphold it. So does anybody want to propose that we overturn the officer's decision? No I don't actually but I'm just going to explain why I don't and I do think your point about there being no you know the onus is on the applicant to supply that you know the guidance is quite clear they are they need to supply that economic benefit it doesn't have to be a hugely detailed but I think they do need to address that point because it's a clear it is a clear ground of refusal that they need to address the national planning framework and I do think that I think we have to be quite careful as a committee and this is maybe a good moment to send out a message you know this thing about well we can't control how it's managed but actually you addressed the immunity issue by saying it's a small flat it's you know it's a small flat so it can't be a party flat and it's got its own door so I think we have to take that as red and sort of say right because the management is being dealt with elsewhere so but I would agree with you that we haven't got any information on the economic benefit or otherwise and that case we do need to be able to consider that and we have nothing in the absence of that then the guidance the MPF430 has to stand. Okay thanks Councillor MACK. Councillor MACK. Can you speak and I saw your hand and you appear to have taken it down again are you moving overturning the officer's decision or not? No I was just going to say I won't move overturning the officer's decision it's clear I don't have the seconder and I agree that it would have been helpful to actually have been supplied with that information from the neighbours as to how they've benefited but we don't have that so I won't I won't put forward an alternative proposal. Okay so can I double just double check then we seem to be an agreement that we are upholding the officer's decision to refuse is that correct? Okay thank you. Application refused. I say at some point four thirty five eight Cumberland Street change of use the secondary lettering application number two three oblique zero four two three oblique FULSTL decision notice support of handling and let us have representation notice of your answer when documents have been submitted applicant as requested that we proceed on the basis of an assessment of your documents online thanks for giving up. Thank you. The application property is a two-bedroom basement flat which forms part of a four-story and basement tenement on the corner of Cumberland Street and Dundas Street. The property is accessed by a private door set within a basement well facing on Cumberland Street and has access to a private rear courtyard which is overlooked by neighbouring residential properties. The area immediately next to the application site is predominantly residential with a retail unit in the corner of Cumberland Street and Dundas Street. Cumberland Street has lower levels of pedestrian and vehicular traffic compared to Dundas Street. The property is a category A listed building located within the new town conservation area and Edinburgh's World Heritage site. In terms of the application site history it's worth noting that in terms of this application which is being considered for review it was submitted sorry it was refused on the 14th of November 2022, on the 29th of November 2023 the property was subject to an enforcement notice for the alleged unauthorized change of use from residential to short stay commercial visitor accommodation. On the 5th of January 2024 the applicant submitted an appeal against the enforcement notice and then on the 13th of January 2024 this notice of a request for review was received. On the 27th of March the appeal decision was issued dismissing the appeal and upholding the enforcement notice which requires the use of the property as a short term let to cease. In terms of the description of the proposal the application is for the retrospective change of use of an existing residential flattered property to a short term let. The supporting statement for the application for review comments that the use has been operating for several years therefore prior to the control area coming into force. In terms of supporting information there are drawings and a supporting appeal statement there was a consultation with historic environment Scotland as it's a category A listed building and there was no comments from historic environment Scotland and I'll take you through the presentation. We can see here the property on the top right hand corner is the dark door at the basement level they are accessed via the stairwell and we can also see in the top left hand corner the rear of the application property and you might know that was referenced to a private rear courtyard which is in behind the vegetation here and then on the bottom left hand corner we've got a view looking along Cumberland street front and down street and then the opposite view looking along Cumberland street towards Dundall street. The red point there just indicates that in terms of the aerial to give you an idea of context of where it sits in the new town and we also have the OS map and you can see the red line outlines the property and we've also got the blue line which shows the extent of the courtyard to the rear and we have the layout of the property so you can see the access at basement level which is the main door access to the property and it's its own access not shared with any other properties and we've got two bedrooms and a shared living dining space and bed bathroom and then there's the rear patio area which I assume is the courtyard. The relevant policies in the report handling are NPF policies 1 and 7 and 30 and LDP policies how 7, Tra 2 and Tra 3. The listed buildings and conservation area guidance and the Edinburgh design guidance are relevant. The report of handling also notes that the guidance for businesses 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 one objection and the key issues in the report handling are the flattered property is situated within a residential tenement and a predominantly residential area, the short term let use would allow visitors to come and go from the premises for inconsistent periods of time on a regular basis throughout the year in a manner dissimilar to that of a permanent resident. A transient visitor may also have less regard for neighbours' immunity than individuals using the property as a principal home. The use as a short term let is not consistent with existing neighbouring residential uses, the property also has access to a rear outdoor amenity space that could be utilised by guests. This is overlooked by neighbouring residential properties and increases the likelihood of there being a detrimental impact on residential amenity. A change of use would increase the level of ambient background noise beyond that what is reasonably expected by neighbouring residents and will have a significant detrimental effect on the living conditions and amenity of nearby residents. The proposal does not comply with NPF4 policy 30E Part 1 and LDP policy House 7. NPF4 policy 30E Part 2 requires that where there is a loss of residential accommodation this will only be supported where the loss is outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits. The LDP acknowledges that tourism is the biggest source of employment in Edinburgh but it is important to recognise that having the property within residential use also contributes to the economy utilising local services and fulfilling employment opportunities across the city. Long term residents can also make consistent and long term contributions to the local economy and community. The proposed change of use to a short term let result in the loss of residential accommodation and as there is a recognised need and demand for housing in Edinburgh it is critical to retain the existing supply where appropriate. In this instance it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the loss of residential accommodation is outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits as such the proposal does not comply with NPF4 policy 30E Part 2. There are no issues with regards to transport matters. The notice of a request for review was received on the 13th of January 2024. The statement of grounds of review states in terms of the history of operation the property has been operating as a service accommodation for several years predating the requirement for planning permission throughout this period we have maintained a harmonious relationship with our neighbours and have not received any complaints regarding our operation. This historical context demonstrates our commitment to being irresponsible and consider it part of the community. In terms of accommodation practices the business model prioritizes longer term bookings and we also accept short term bookings to optimise occupancy and contribute to the local economy. By accommodating a mix of short and long term residents we aim to strike a balance that ensures the property's viability whilst minimising any potential impact on the community. With regards to no increase in housing stock refusing the planning application does not align with the stated goal of increasing the housing stock in the area. Our property will continue to operate as a service accommodation facilitating longer term bookings. There were no further lectures of representation. As you will be aware there was a judicial review decision 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 and retrospect and they used taking 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 mere versus the decorative state for communities and local government 2012 court case identifies that relevant factors include the frequency of arrivals into partures, the character of the property in the area, the number of people staying and the likelihood of disturbance to neighbouring residents and relation to the information provided by the applicant in seeking this review and in the report of handling I know 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 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 of 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 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 decision 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 list of building or the conservation area. Thank you. Thank you very much. So the first question do we have sufficient information to proceed? I see nods. Any questions? Councillor MART. Yes, thank you. You said that there was an enforcement notice that had been put on as property which had then been upheld, that it had been appealed and then upheld. Do we have any details of that enforcement notice because it would be interesting to know the grounds of it and that might be material to this application. We will have an answer to that question very shortly. Apologies, Convener. Thank you for bearing with us your correct and that there was an enforcement notice. The property was subject to an enforcement notice for the alleged unauthorized change of use from residential to short to stay commercial visitor accommodation and the appeal was in relation to that. We don't have any further information in terms of the detail of the appeal that was submitted with the papers. So if we did wish, if the panel did wish further information on the appeal they could consider continuing the application for that to be solved. Councillor MART, did you want to come back on that? I suppose we're in committee's hands. I just think this is one of the first ones where we have had an enforcement notice issued against property and I think it would be interesting to know the nature of that, especially in light of the letter that the applicant's agent has sent in which in their supporting documentation they say they haven't had any issues, they've run this really well and it's all been amazing for the last and if there's been an enforcement notice there is a question in my head as to whether that is borne out in evidence. So just to be clear, so the enforcement notice was an appeal against, they will have ticked the box to say that there's not been a material change of use and the enforcement notice has been upheld saying that there is a change of use and therefore it is operating as short to inlet. I think if you want to see additional information that's included in that enforcement notice then we could continue it and you could have a look at the content of that but it may not go into detail as to amenity issues. But that's what I'm trying to, I think I would like to see that additional information. The reason being because there's a number of reasons why people bring enforcement notices sometimes just because they think there's an unauthorized use, others because it is grounded in and we do have a resident's objection as well. So I think I'd be more comfortable seeing that so we've got a complete picture. Okay, I have Councillor Beel and then I have Councillor MURPHY speaking. Yes, so thanks to me, I just wanted to just explore a little bit more. So this enforcement actions in general, are they likely to be raised by the department or by a neighbour complaining? Thanks. Thank you Councillor, it is normally that it is submitted to the department and this can be done online and anybody can submit an enforcement notice complete. Can I just seek clarity on that? You said normally, my understanding is that the Planning Department never does proactive enforcement, it's always in response to an application from a member of the public. Can you just clarify that? Thank you, Councillor. I'm aware in the past that if something has been seen in terms of listed buildings by a member of the department, the new reason, but in terms of the short term list, I believe it is normally something that is raised by a member of the public. Okay, that's interesting. We have obviously had discussions about proactive enforcement in the past and have been told in no uncertain terms that that is not something that the department does. Anyway, I have Councillor McNeese speaking next. Thank you. I had a couple of questions, but the first one was really along the lines of what's been asked by colleagues, but just for clarity, is this the first time where we've been asked to consider an application where we know that there was an enforcement which was in which the decision was found against the applicant? Probably wasn't a very clear question. Thank you, Councillor. Clarify, I understand your point, is it the first application that you as a panel have been asked to consider where there's been enforcement activity, but an appeal decision issue, does that correct? Thank you, Councillor. We'd have to confirm, take that away and confirm that. I can certainly remember enforcement cases, perhaps not on STLs, but I can remember an enforcement case in my ward where a pub put in outside the seating and there was an enforcement case on that. I can remember another one that was also in my ward where there was an enforcement case on replacement railings on it, I think it was either a scheduled instrument or something like that. They're all an enforcement case on an STL, but certainly there have been enforcement cases in the past. Do we have any further questions? So I think if I understood correctly, there was a proposal from Councillor Mayart that we continue this to get further information on the enforcement case. For what it's worth my personal view is that I'm not sure I would support that. I believe we have sufficient information in front of us to determine, obviously we need to, first of all, determine whether or not a material change of use has occurred, but we also need to determine whether or not this application, whether the decision of officers to refuse it is sound and should be upheld. So I think I would prefer that we determine it today. I see Councillor Beall. Yeah, I'd also not support the continuation of this, I think it's here because it needs planned permission, and so I don't think the detail of that enforcement notice is particularly relevant to our decision today. Thanks. Could we not? Would anybody like to move continuation? I was just going to take the temperature. I was going to ask if you wanted to take the temperature of the rest of the committee before we had to go through that motion. Would any of the other members like to come in on this? I don't see any hands up, I see shaking of heads. I'm not sensing that there's a lot of support for that position, so I'm happy to, I'm not going to press it. Okay, so in that case then we need to, first of all, determine whether a material change of use has occurred. In my view I think that there has, you know, we have, you know, clearly there has been an impact. Although we don't know the detail of the enforcement notice the fact that an enforcement process has started would seem to suggest to me that there is some sort of an impact, whether it's an impact on immunity or whether neighbours are concerned about the loss of housing. And that to me would suggest that a change of use has occurred. Does anybody have a contrary view on that question before we move to, I see shaking of heads, so the next question then is whether or not the application complies with development plan or if it doesn't, whether the material reasons why we should set that aside and grant the application. I don't see any strong reasons to do so, although I do note that it has its own main door and it is a relatively small flat, nonetheless I do note that we have an objection from a neighbour. I note that there is a private outside area which backs onto a tenement and therefore that could have a, potentially have an impact on the immunity of neighbours. But crucially as with some of the previous applications we don't have a statement for why the loss of housing is justified in economic terms. And therefore I believe that the officer's decision is signed and we should uphold it. I see Councillor McNeese-Meekham. I think I wasn't going to disagree, in fact it was specifically on your point about the external garden space. I see that as an area where there potentially could be a lot of impact on residents. You know, with people out there enjoying that and maybe not having regard to the level of noise that they are generating on full time residents. So I am in agreement with you. Councillor Beel. Thanks, Convida. Yes, there is any arguments about loss of residential accommodation, not seeing any strong arguments against that. In terms of immunity, slightly less strong arguments, however, there is a private rear courtyard. There is also a quiet residential area which I think have also a big effect. I think the fact that there have been complaints of some kind, either from the, we have had the objections just now and potentially from the enforcement notice that there have been issues. And again, we say management is not an issue but clearly, immunity has been an issue for neighbours in the past and that has been an argument that I would use to say that, yeah, there is going to be a loss of immunity for the neighbours if this is granted permanent planned permission. So I would be happy to uphold this application. Thanks, Convida. Councillor McNeese-Meekham. Just so that I think, again, we're left with one which doesn't have any justification for the loss of residential and it's very, very clear, you know, it couldn't be clearer that this is a short term that, you know, so I'm happy to uphold the officer's recommendation. Okay, we are in agreement to uphold the officer's decision, thank you. You know, fused. Next item, 7.5, 1.C Edinburgh, change of use from residential to shop, then let in, in retrospect, application number 233833, like FULSTL, decision notice, report of handling and let us, of representation and notice of a view, that's why documents have been circulated, the applicant has requested that we proceed and the basis of an assessment of the documents online. Okay, so our next item is flat 3, one Doc Street. The proposed use is a two-bedroom, first floor flat situated in the former Marinus Church. The flat is accessed via a communal ground floor front door and a shared stairwell. The immediate area is mixed use and character with moderate levels of pedestrian and vehicular access, some traffic. The property is category C listed and lies within the Leith Conservation Area. It was granted for the conversion of the building to residential flat development in 2002, but there's no specific history for flat 3. The description of the proposal is for a change of use from residential to short-term let and the use commenced in July 2022 and we had supporting information in the form of a statement regarding MPF4. I'll just take you through the drawings. So here we have the property with its main door access, taking access to this, to a communal stair and up to the flat, so just again in terms of its location within that building and then the green area is a bins and recycling area that's communal to the rear. And just in terms of the layout, you can see the stairs coming up giving access to the flat from the sheds hallway and then the two-bedroom sit-in-room and kitchen of the unit. So the report of handling notes that the following policies will apply, MPF4 policy 1, MPF4 policy 7, MPF4 policy 30, and we've also got LDP policy house 7 and LDP policies, TRATU and TRAT3. The listed building and conservation guidance is also 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 regards of this review. An updated guidance for businesses in January 2024 reflects a judicial review decision and should be considered as part of this application. We had five letters of objection and the key issues in the report of handling are access to the property as via a shared entrance and communal stairwell uses by three other properties. The surrounding area has a mix of uses and moderate levels of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 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 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 use supports the local economy through direct spending on services provided by tourists, provided two tourists. It's also important to recognise that having a 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 fully demonstrated that the loss of residential accommodation is outweighed by local economic benefits. There are no issues with regards to transport matters. The notice of a request for review was received on 22 January. In the statement states, the original application description was for a change of use from residential to short-term let for 52 weeks of the calendar year with a maximum stay of intervals of 28 days. If you'll notice review application description, it's proposed to update that by the applicant to a combined use where it's predominantly used as private residents in short-term let for a maximum of five calendar months per year, normally made through to September at a maximum stay of 28 days and a minimum of three-day intervals. Letting the property as a short-term let maintains the flexibility for the applicant to return to Edinburgh for work and long-term letting doesn't allow this. The impact on amenity is a generalisation, there have been no complaints from residents in the communal stair. The use of the premises as a short-term let has a positive impact on surrounding amenity and if consent is refused and the property will remain empty for periods of time. CEC has a duty to consider personal circumstances and the applicant is an individual and not an investor. The short-term let's well managed and contributes to the surrounding local economy. 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 2023 and 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 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 5 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 the relevant factors include frequency of arrivals and departures, the character of the 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 that the use commenced in July 2022 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 is 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. 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 and less material considerations indicate otherwise. In particular, you must consider if the proposals will have a detrimental impact on the character and the location appearance of the listed building and the conservation area. Thank you. Thanks very much indeed, Gina, so the first question, do we have sufficient information to proceed? I see nods, so questions and apologies, Gina, for not raising this beforehand. It would appear that the first objection from neighbours refers to a different property, so can I just clarify, is it correct to say that there are four objections or is it just that the wrong one was put in? There are still five objections for this application, but you're correct, the one that's appeared in the papers, the very first one does relate to a different application, but there are the further five objections. Is it reasonable to assume that the text of the objection that we don't have is very similar to the text? I beg your pardon, I can't count, okay, so further questions, silence. So okay, I have a question about the loss of residential, because I think the applicant is arguing that there's no loss of residential because they are currently based away from Edinburgh, but they need to retain a base in Edinburgh in order to come back. So he just, I suppose, to help me understand that point. The loss of residential, as far as I understand it, is planning, it's simply a change of the planning use, and therefore the fact that he, the applicant is intending to still use it as his base when he comes back here, that's not relevant. The relevant issue is the change of use in planning terms, is that correct? That's correct. The person is applying for a change of use to short-term loss, and therefore, it will not be a residential use if it has been used as a short-term loss. So we would still have a loss of residential. You're correct in saying that the applicant is suggesting that they come back from time to time to work, but we don't have specific time periods for that, or, you know, length of time. That's obviously on an ad hoc basis when they have work that brings them back to the city. So yeah, we'd still be making an application for a change of use to short-term let, which by its nature would result in a loss of residential use. I see Council Bill, I'm going to come to you in a minute, just to sort of clarify this point then. If we decide to uphold the officer's decision to refuse permission, is it open to the applicant, say, for example, that they were going to use the property for short-term let's for, you know, say, just two months in the year or something like that, that they could either submit a planning application or a certificate of lawfulness application to state that that was a lawful use, and that sort of no material change of use has occurred is it open to them if we refuse this for them to submit a new application that's slightly different? Yes, of course, they can submit further applications with differing proposals in the future. And I note that in their appeal statement, apologies, Council Bill, I'll come to you in a minute, I note that in their appeal statement they're effectively sort of trying to change what they're asking for. Can you just clarify from a planning perspective whether that is valid? So the appeal before us is on the basis of the original application, which was for a change of use to short-term let in retrospect. And what's been suggested to us as a panel is that you consider whether he could change that title effectively to permit short-term letting from maximum of five calendar months with a minimum stay of three days in a maximum of 28 and that it would do that through May to September. However, that's not what the refusal was based on, and we are reviewing what the refusal was for. Okay, I'll shut up now. I'll come to Council Bill. Well, actually, that's exactly what I was going to make. It was the, yeah, had that five month thing I was going to ask, how relevant that was and if that question's been answered, so that's great. Thanks. Further questions? Comments? Okay, I'll kick off then. I mean, I do think this is a tricky one, and I would note that it's a relatively small flat, just two bedrooms. I would note that the objections don't appear to be from neighbours in the immediate stair, but nonetheless, I would also note that it is a common stair and the planning permission goes with the property, not with the personal. I note that I think there was a comment saying that this is very personal to the applicant and that they're applying in order to try and address their own personal circumstances. We've been told many times in the past it's not appropriate for us to grant a personal permission in the circumstances of the short term let. I note that it is open to the applicant to submit a new application if they were to come, you know, if they were to propose, for example, a few months in the year and so on, and that would be judged on its own merits, and I note that we have to determine the application that was originally submitted, and I would suggest that on that basis, because it's a common stair, because no specific justification has been put forward for the loss of housing that we wish we should uphold. So I see Councillor McNeese-Meekin and then Councillor Beel. Yes, thank you. Sorry for full transparency, we had our wedding reception in here when it was still a night club before it became residential, but it's subsequent. I know the building quite well and it is a communal stair, it is chaired by the other plats, and I can't see how granting permission for short term letting would not impact on the other residents, so I think we should be upholding the officer's recommendation. Councillor Beel. Yes, thanks. Can we not echo those comments as well? I mean, it's shared common stair, it's going to affect the meaning of the flats. There's a lot of residential accommodation, no arguments will be put against those. I would add the sizes are relevant, it doesn't matter what size of the flat is, it's still going to have the same effect, and again, the management is not relevant, so I can't see any reason to overturn this application. I do see that there are some personal circumstances that have been raised in this bad thing, we can take those into account as the application is in front of us, so thanks for giving up. Councillor interjecting. I think everyone said what needs to be saying. If the applicant did want to continue to short term let occasionally, there are other ways in which he could make use of the licensing scheme with which to do so, which wouldn't actually require the planning permission, but what we have in front of us is an application for a short term let and then it has been amended and that amendment is not what we're asking to be, is not the application in front of us, so on the face of what we have, the original submission did the officers address that, apply the policies correctly, yes they did, so I'll uphold the officer's decision. Councillor interjecting. Okay, we seem to be in agreement that we are going to uphold the officer's decision to refuse, I will agree, if you are agreed, thank you. Could we have a quick comfort break in agreement? Yes, that's a good idea, so suggestion five minutes or a bit longer? Yes, just a bit longer. Okay. Let's go for 10 minute comfort break, I make it 1134 at the moment, matters okay online, yes we do. Brilliant, right, let's restart, where do we got to. Item 7.6, ladies there's close 4-7-7-1 market, change of use from residential to shop down light for 52 weeks in a calendar year, application number 33 week, 0-7-0-4-0-7-1 F-U-L-S-T-L, decision notice, support of handling and letters of representation and notice of review, and someone documents have been circulated, but again has requested that if you proceed in the basis of an assessment of the documents and holding one of the more hearing sessions on specific matters, thanks for giving up. Thank you, Counvenor. The application site is a one bedroom, third floor flat, two lady stairs close on the lawn market, the property shares its access to the street via a communal stair and an entrance door with other properties, lawn market is a key that are fair with significant levels of pedestrian football and general vehicular traffic, there's a mix of uses on the street in the surrounding area including residential office, retail, restaurants, public houses and tourist attractions, public transport links are easily accessible from the site, the application property is the category B listed building located in Edinburgh World Heritage site and within the Old Town Conservation area, there's no relevant site history and the description of the proposal, the application is for the retrospective change of use from residential to short-term let for 52 weeks in the calendar year, there's no internal or external physical changes proposed, the applicant advises that the short-term let use has been in operations since December 2019. In terms of supporting information, there's an NPF4 planning statement, drawings, photographs and a supporting appeal statement, I'll take you through the presentation, so we can see the property here, this is an image that's provided by the applicant which indicates the location of the property in the building and we can see here we've got the OS map just showing it in context with the lawn market and where it sits and also the layout of the property, we've got one bedroom, a combined kitchen living room and communal hall, sorry, common hall not communal, we also have some images of the property, we've got living spaces, view outside and a internal spaces such as bathrooms. The relevant policies and report of handling are NPF4 policies, policy 7 and policy 30, local development plan policies, how 7 and local transport planning policies, try 2 and try 3. The listed buildings and conservation area guidance is relevant, the report of handling notes of 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 three objections including one from the old town community council, the key issues and the report of handling are this one bedroom property is on the third floor of the tenement and cheers its main entrance door and stairwell with other properties, the applicant has submitted a statement addressing the impact of the short term let on residence amenity, it states that the property is small with no shared amenities and located in a mixed use to the state and bustling part of the city, it asserts that the property is well managed and there are no known complaints, there is a mix of uses in the surrounding area and as such there is a fairly high ambient noise level, the introduction of a short term let in this location will have no further deterioration in the amenity of the surrounding area, however the use of the property as a short term let would introduce an increased frequency of movement to the property, there is no guarantee that guests would not come and go frequently throughout the day and night and transient visitors may have less regard for neighbours immunity than individuals using the property as a principal home, the potential for noise to be generated would be significantly different from the ambient background noise that neighbouring residents might reasonably expect and will have significantly detrimental effect on the living conditions and immunity of nearby residents, the proposal does not comply with NPA4 policy 30E part 1 and LDP policy house 7, the applicant's planning statement asserts that the short term let use offers high quality, well managed and easily accessible to just accommodation which is not suitable for long term residential use due to the noise and activity levels in the surrounding area, the statement highlights that the short term let use is generating income for local businesses, fees for accommodation and guests will also support the two to city attractions which help the local economy, the current lawful use of the property is for residential accommodation and the use of the property as a short term let for 52 weeks and a year 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 important to recognise that the residential occupation of the property contributes to the economy as well by making contributions to the local community, in this instance it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the loss of the residential accommodation is outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits and as such the proposal does not comply with NPA4 policy 30E part 2, there are no issues with regard to transport matters, the notice of a request for review was received on 21 January 2024 and the statement of grounds of review states, the property is located in one of the most touristic areas of Edinburgh next to the castle and overlooking the Royal Mile, the provision of high quality well managed and easily accessible premises for short term let such as this property contributes directly to encouraging and promoting tourism and to inspiring people to visit Scotland, the properties only the staircoals are largely non-residential with one other short term let operator in the building, there have been no complaints since trading started in December 2019, the area is not predominantly residential in a state that has a mixed use character, the guidance states that in mixed use areas regard will be had to the nature of the surrounding uses and the proximity of the site to residential properties also taking into account ambient noise levels, it is a family run business and the applicant is the owner and full time manager, the property was voted first in the top ten Airbnb's in Edinburgh, the short term let is relatively small with 39 square metres living floor area in only one bedroom with a maximum occupancy of two people, it is not conducive for large gatherings and its small size makes unlikely that guests would generate noise sufficient to cause disturbance, there are no shared facilities with any residential neighbours and the apartment has no external areas or gardens which guests might gather, all of these factors reduce the likelihood of noise being caused and certainly not at levels that might disturb the living conditions of residents in the nearest flats or apartments, the use of the property as a short term let makes a positive contribution to the local economy in the following ways, one the accommodation fees paid by guests generate income for a locally run business, two guests will visit the city's attractions and frequent local bars, restaurants and shops providing increased income for these businesses and three businesses generating income for local cleaning and maintenance staff, there were no further letters of representations in terms of the procedural options available to the local review body, as you will be aware there was a judicial review decision 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 in to force, as this application was for planning permission and retrospect and the use taken up in December 19 before the control area came in to 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 MUR versus Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 2012 court case identifies that relevant factors include frequency of arrivals and departures, the character of the property in the area, the number of people staying and likelihood of disturbance to neighboring 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 considers it does not have sufficient information in respect of this it is possible for additional information to be sought, the ALRB 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 seeding sessions and/or unaccompanied or unaccompanied inspection of the land which the review relates, if the ALRB are of the mind that there is sufficient information to proceed I would remind you that the ALRB'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. Thanks Rachel, so the first question do we have sufficient information to proceed, I see nods, questions, Councilor Biel? Yeah I have got a couple of questions, the first one is in the appeal statement the applicant says the property is largely non-residential and the stair, now this is flat 8 and I am quite sure there are other flats in the same block, so do we have any evidence for that statement, thanks. Thank you Councillor, I know the reference that you may talk about in the appeal statement there isn't anything further in terms of the other properties, it's just a referencing statement as you've described and there's no further information in there. Do the second question roll back to you, I'm just also in the statement, it was mentioned that it's been registered for non-domestic rights, now I don't know if that's relevant or not, but would that have any bearing on planning, would in order to gain non-domestic rights, would there be any reason to have planning involved in that process, thanks. Not in the racing process, no. Councillor McNeese speaking. Thank you, I believe you had said that there was no external or shared space in regards to impacting on amenity, but the photograph that we saw appears to show was either an external balcony or an external shared walkway, so can we get any clarity on that, yeah, in the upper left there, that looks like an external space that's either individual or shared. Thank you, Councillor, if you just bear with me, I'm just checking, the appeal statement does mention that it is the property is more small with no shared amenity areas and I'm just going to check the images. [ Pause ] I'm completely at a loss to try and fit this into this building with only this bit of the jigsaw. I mean, I know these stairs and I know these flats quite well, but I can't think of this exact particular one, so I think we just have to work from the plans. What I would say is that this flat does not, that's the front of the lawn market, this is accessed off Lady Stairs' Clothes, which is sort of at the back of the courtyard, and the flat, given the sizes on it and the size of it, it is not coming, so I'm not entirely sure what those three windows are meant to indicate, but. Thank you, Councillor, and Councillor McNeese, making a relation to your comment. We don't have information in which coral breeze where that view is taken from, whether it's taken from the flat or looking at the flat with the stairs. Okay, it could just be representative, this is what Edinburgh looks like photo that they just submitted. Yes, it's, and we don't have any further information about where that's taken from. I'm purely speculating here, but I wonder whether that might be either taken from the common stair, which has access to the outside, and what we can see there is actually the front door of a neighbouring flat, or else it's a view out of the window of the flat, showing the proximity to a neighbouring property. I would suggest that the floor plan, which is on page 2, 3 of the presentation, seems to suggest that there isn't a balcony or any sort of external area, and certainly that is supported in the statement that they submitted, isn't it? Councillor MATT. I think, equally, if we're discussing the floor plan, it does say common hall, so it may be that that door that is shown goes into a common hall and there are a number of flats that come off that, although there aren't other doors shown off that, so I think that the reality is, they say there's no amenity space that's there, but they've provided the floor plan that says common hall. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Councillor, I would just add one further comment that the image of the external hall is titled outside landing on the planning portal, but it doesn't see which outside landing that is. Okay, any further questions? Comments? Councillor Bion? Well, again, I can't really see in strong grounds for overturning this application, it's in the common stairs, at least eight flats in the stair. In terms of the loss of residential accommodation, part 30E, again, I don't see the evidence to overturn that, in terms of economic benefits, so I don't see, again, no matter how it's managed it, because with the planning permission, that's irrelevant, unfortunately, so I don't see any reason to overturn this decision, thanks for coming up. Yes, I'm in agreement with Councillor Beall, and my first flat in Edinburgh was in the adjacent close, so I'm not persuaded by the argument that, well, it's a largely tourist area anyway, so we're not losing residential amenity. It's a great area to live in, so I wasn't persuaded by that argument. Councillor Mater. I think it's interesting, we've got three objections, one from a resident, one from a close by resident, two from amenity associations in the area, so this is an area, there are absolutely residents, and again, although some people might say, oh, this is a very small flat, actually, you might want a tiny flat when you've got quite a lot of amenity around you, and also, it will mean that there's got some implications about what you can let this floor, but there would be no problem letting this on a long term, because there are actually a lot of residents that live round and about that square, so I think it's noticeable that they say in the papers, there's the applicant sets, there aren't other residents, but we've got, there's one other short term, that's in the stairs, so presumably the other, there's eight other flats, and there's one of eight flats in the stair, at least, so this is a malleable accommodation right in the heart of the city, so I would be certainly supporting the, supporting that we uphold the officer's recommendation, because I can't see that they've earned their decision. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. So I would just note that we, because the application is retrospective, and the use started before the control area came to force, we just do need to confirm whether or not a material change of use has occurred, I would suggest on the basis of comments that we're in agreement that it has, just checking that that's the case, yet they see nods, and personally I'm not in disagreement with colleagues, I don't see any strong reasons to overturn the officer's decision, I note that in terms of the economic arguments used to justify the loss of housing, that these are generic arguments, you know, they refer to the generic research that was done by the Council, and they refer to the generic research produced by the ASSC, they don't provide any specific, you know, arguments for economic benefit for this particular reason. I would also note it's a common stare, and therefore I don't see any reason to overturn the officer's decision, are we all agreed? We are agreed, thank you. Application refused, next item 7.73 old choice lane, short term properly, which has been operated as a short term letter since June 2018, application number 23.04364, a big FULSTL, decision notice support of handling and letters of representation, notice of reviews for the documents have been circulated, that they can have requested that you proceed in the basis of assessment of the document and further written submissions on specific matters. Okay, so our next item is at three old church lane. The property is a full bedroom house located on the southern side of old church lane. The property has its own access to the street via a private drive. Old church lane in the surrounding area is a predominantly in residential character with the exception of Doddingston Road West from where the application property is primarily accessed. It has a comparatively high traffic volume and bus links are moderately accessible from the site. The site lies within the Doddingston Conservation Area. We've got no relevant history and the description of the proposal is for a retrospective change of use of the property from residential to short term let and the use commenced in June 2018 and the supporting information was linked to the advertisements for this as a short term let. So here we have the property I am with old church lane running around this side and Doddingston Road West on this side and I'll just take you through the drawings. So once we're inside the gates which are accessed off of Doddingston Road West I'm into the courtyard area obviously with a private access. So just in terms of its positioning on the street in terms of its location and then the layout of the entrance coming in and then the property running linear along old church lane. So the relevant policies are MPF4 policy 1, MPF4 policy 7, MPF4 policy 30, local development plan house 7 and local development plan TRATU and TRAT3. We've also got listed building and conservation area guidance and the report of handling notes of the guidance for businesses 2023 is also relevant however following the judicial review against the Council on the 1st of December this guidance should now be reduced and therefore disregarded in consideration of this review and an updated guidance for businesses which was approved in January 2024 should be considered as part of this review. We have one letter of representation and the key issues in the report of handling are the four bedrooms size of the property and the outdoor amenity areas surrounding the property may intensify the amenity issues resulting from a short-term let use. 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. However, whilst there are residential properties across on old church lane that may be impacted by the proposed use, the distance to these properties, the degree of activity along Doddingston Road West and old church lane and the built form of the area featuring high stone walls, dense foliage and front garden areas sufficiently mitigates the impacts of the proposed use such that there would not be a significant amenity impact from the proposal to neighbouring residents. 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 and 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 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 economy. 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 MPF430E part two, there are no transport issues. A notice of request for review is received on 18 January 2024 and the statement of grounds of review states. The property is operated as a short-term let since June 2018 with no issues. The property comprises a detached single-storey four-bedroom cottage with private garden and car park. The property has its own pedestrian and vehicular access gates. Both entrance doors open onto our private garden. Some of our windows open towards our private garden and some open onto the public road. The statement that there will result in a loss of residential accommodation is not justified. No further letters of representation have been received and the procedural options available to the local review body are. In a judicial review decision issued on 1 December 2023, the court revoked the guidance for businesses 2023 on the basis of CEC's interpretation of the law section 26(b) of the 1997 Act being flawed in applying the Edinburgh short-term let control area to secondary short-term let that had 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. The more versus secretary of state communities and local government court case identifies that relevant factors include frequency of arrivals and departures, the character of the property and area, the number of people staying and the likelihood of disturbance the 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 June 2018 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 to this, it is possible 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. Whether 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 conservation area. Thank you. Thanks, Roger. Indeed. So the first question, do we have sufficient information to proceed? I see nods. Any questions? Councillor Beel. Yeah, I wonder if you could, I mean, I know it's a detached house, but I mean, does it not clear whether it's actually got any gardens that might be next to other people's houses? I just kind of wonder what's in the vicinity. Thanks. Just bear with me and I'll share the site plan again. So here we've got the property here, so we've got the church hall next to it. This is the grounds of the church, sat below it, so it has its own, obviously, courtyard with its own gardens and then on the other side it's directly onto old church lane. There's a strip here, I'm not entirely sure what that is. I'll go take you back to the photos of the street, see if that clarifies at all. No, that's as much information as I have, I'm afraid. Councillor McNeese-Meakin. Thank you. Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong, but there were no objections from Daddington Kirk. Is that correct? That is, they are the adjacent neighbour. Bear with me, there was one letter of representation, I'll just find out who that was from again. Okay, but it's from number five, church lanes are not the immediate neighbour, or actually one. Any further questions? Councillor Mater. No. No. Okay. Comments? Councillor McNeese-Meakin. Thank you, my feeling again on this one was that there's less of an argument for impact on amenity given that it's detached and it's got its own entrance driveway and so on. The objection by another church lane resident implies to me that there is an impact which I imagine is probably vehicular because you can see, if you have a look, you can see that it's got a large parking area, I assume it accommodates large parties of people all arriving by car, so I think it will be having an impact on residents because of that factor. Councillor MART. Yeah, I think if you read the objection closely actually, it was very much a letter of representation in that someone wanted to know what was going on and then wrote again and asked someone tell him what was going on and what the planning applications for because there are new changes, so I don't think we have any evidence that this existing use has caused any impact on amenity and when you look at the site plan and you look at the photographs, it does seem to be located well away from any properties, however, so I don't think there's an amenity issue with this at all. What I think there is is an issue with lack of residential and MPF4. It's clear there's a material change of use because the applicant says there's a material change of use, so this is a short-term met, but as absolutely, unfortunately, he's asked the question in his submission, what could I do? Well, read the documentation and read the policies and the policies very clear in the case of an economic argument. We can consider whether we could permit the use as a short-term met, but there has been no attempt to justify why this, there might be any economic benefit that would outweigh this being a residential property, and it's obviously more than adequate as a residential property situated to make a perfectly good family home, so therefore, we have nothing with which to assess that against MPF4, a paragraph-y, so I think we have to say that the offices have determined this in accordance with the legislation. I would tend to agree with that. Any other colleagues? Nope. Okay, so I would just note that this application is retrospective, and the use started before the control area came into force, so the first question we need to ask ourselves is whether a material change of use has occurred, I think it's clear to me that it has, yep, I've seen nods, and the next question is whether or not we uphold the officer's decision to refuse it, and I would tend to agree with Councillor MOWIT for the reasons that she's set out, that we should do so, is anybody of a contrary view? Nope. Okay, we are agreeing to uphold the officer's decision, thank you. The final item is 7.8, 9 Williams to Edinburgh, choose the use of the property from a long-term letter shot and letter for a secondary home application number, 23.03.932, a big F-U-L-S-T-L, decision notice support of handling and notice representation, and notice of the view that documents have been circulated, that they can as requested that if you proceed in the basis of an assessment of the view document shot, thanks, give me a note. Thank you, Convenor. The application property is a two-bedroom flat located on the second floor of a tenement on William Street. The property comprises a lounge, kitchen, two bedrooms, and a bathroom, and is accessed via a communal main door entrance in sheer stairway. The property forms part of a category B-list to building, and is located within the new town conservation area and the World Heritage Site, surrounding area comprises a mixed use character with commercial and residential uses. There's no relevant site history, and the description of the proposal, the application seeks permission to change the residential use to short-term let. There's no internal or external physical changes proposed. The flat has been used as a long-term let since 2002, and it's currently empty and has been closed since July 2023, the applicant advises. Supporting information includes an NPF4 planning statement and drawings, and also a statement in support of review, and I'll just take you through the presentation. Here we have the doorway to the property indicated with the red star, and it's the ground floor doorway. It's the property on William Street, and this is looking south west along William Street towards Walker Street, and then the opposite, I'm sorry, maybe I missed that, and you can see it here in the context on the OS plan which shows where it is located on William Street. And then I think there's a bouillon, there we are, so you can see we've got lounge, and kitchen, and two separate bedrooms, that's it, there we go, that's it there, thank you. The relevant policies in the report of handling are NPF4 policy 1, NPF4 policy 7, and policy 30, local development plan policies, and local transport planning policies, tri2 and tri3. The listed buildings and conservation area guidance is relevant, the report of handling notes that the guidance for business is 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. The application received two objections, and the key issues in the report of handling are the application property is located in a mixed use commercial and residential area in William Street, the application property forms part of a three-story and basement building that has commercial uses along its ground floor, the commercial uses in the surrounding area include cafes, shops, pubs and a bar, there is a fairly high ambient noise level and the introduction of a short-term light used in this location will not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the surrounding area, the application property is located in a tenement sharing access to 9 William Street with three other neighbouring residential properties via a communal main door entrance and shared staircase. The use of the property as a short-term light would introduce an increased frequency of movement to the property, the proposed short-term light would enable visitors to arrive and state the promises for a short period of time on a regular basis throughout the year in a manner dissimilar to that of permanent residents and transient visitors who may have less regard for neighbours' amenity than individuals using the property as a principal home. MPF4 policy 30E part two requires that where there is a loss of residential accommodation, this will only be supported where the loss is outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits. The applicant's supporting planning statement provides information to address MPF4 policy 30E part two, the statement expresses that the proposal will have a positive impact on the economy and would support local shops. The current lawful use of the property is for residential accommodation and the use of the property as a short-term light would result in the loss of residential accommodation which given the recognised need and demand for housing in Edinburgh is important to retain where to appropriate. The applicant asserts that the short-term light use of the property provides employment for local businesses to ensure it is appropriately maintained for guests, additionally guests are encouraged to support the businesses in the local area. The residential occupation of the property also contributes to the local economy. There are no issues with regard to transport matters and the notice of a request for review was received on 19 January 2024. The statement of grounds of review states, "The property is now going to be used regularly by myself and immediate family as our second home and only home in Scotland. Since July 2023 the property has been used regularly for visits for a short period of time. I am a native Scot and currently live in Spain but now you wish to retain the property for my own use with my husband and family to be able to visit relatives who live in and around Edinburgh. It is our plan to live permanently in the property when my husband retires within five to eight years. It is not the plan to return to long-term lighting even if planning permission for a change of use to a short-term light is not granted. With regard to the property being located in a tenement building with three other residential neighbours, it is relevant to note that this entrance and staircase is also shared by two cafes directly on the ground floor of the building which use the entrance to access, which use the entrance to access the basement. Out of the three other residential neighbours, one is a second home and is really there. There is currently there for a maximum of two residential neighbours living in permanently in the building. If this application is not successful, the applicant intends to allow friends and family to use the property as non-paying guests when they are not in attendance. It will essentially be a short-term use property until the time that the applicant returns to living there a longer term. Therefore, in light of the current use of the property since July 2023 and the applicant's decision to retain the property for their own use as their own home in Scotland, it has been illustrated that the property is now being used regularly for short-term visits. The applicant and their family will be coming and going with suitcases not dissimilar to that of a short-term let and if this will cause harmful impact immediate neighbours living conditions and immunity, there is no evidence to say that this impact would be dissimilar should the property be able to offer short-term lets. Rather than the property being empty, when it is not being used, it would be mutually beneficial to be able to offer short-term lets to recover some of the running costs while simultaneously offering an added economic benefit for the local area as well as to the tourist industry. It should also be noted that the applicant will be using the property regularly and would be able to react quickly to any potential problems caused and fine solutions, running planning permission for the change of use to short-term let, in this instance it would therefore not result in a loss of residential accommodation. There were no further lectures of representation and the procedural options available to the local review body as this is an application for a change of use from residential to short-term let and the use is not yet commenced, section 26B2 of the Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 is applicable. The states that in a short-term let control area, the use of a dwelling house for the purpose of providing short-term let 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-off or a combination of the following procedures will be used for the written submissions, the holding of one or more hearing 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's determination must be made in accordance with the development plan and less material considerations indicate otherwise, in particular you must consider if the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the character and pedans of the listed building or the conservation area. Thank you. Thanks Rachel. Indeed. So first question, do we have sufficient information to proceed? I see nods largely, perhaps during questioning perhaps we will clarify whether we have sufficient information. No questions, Councillor MAT. I suppose the only question is to put it out there, is that there is no special category of short-term let that covers this situation of someone having a second, you know, a property that they then live in sometimes and short-term let, it's just the same as any other short-term let and were the property to be sold, it would be sold with that planning permission as a short-term let. That is correct, Councillor. You're right, the planning permission runs with the property so if it was to be sold on, it would remain as a short-term let in perpetuity. Can I just clarify, we've had it previously but I don't think we've had it today, just to clarify that personal permission would not be appropriate in this, in these circumstances and can you just clarify why not? Thank you, Councillor. The circular and conditions is quite specific in relation to personal permissions and it's really only in unusual circumstances such as on compassionate grounds that a personal permission is advisable, I mean I wouldn't note that the applicant has said that part of the reason that they need to be in Edinburgh is in order to be close to relatives whose health is not great, does that come into the category of compassionate grounds or is it compassionate specifically in terms of the applicant rather than their family? Thank you, Councillor. My understanding of the circular is that it is in relation to the applicant themselves. Any other questions, comments, Councillor Beal? I think given what the question has been, I do have a lot of sympathy with this situation and sort of make some good arguments but again in terms of the use because this sits with the building, the dwelling, it doesn't matter who's actually living there in terms of planned permission still to apply so I think we have to apply that, taking a dispassionate view of it and again it's in a common stair with other flats, the same stairwell and it's also going to be a loss of residential accommodation so again I don't really see the arguments against those two policies so I don't know if there's any reason to overturn this application unfortunately. Thanks. Give me that. Thank you, Councillor MACK. Nice speaking. Thank you. Yeah, this seems to me actually fairly straightforward, the applicants argue that in eight years time they're going to retire and obviously clearly they could lead it out to the housing market for eight years but it sounds as if they don't intend to do that, they're not under any sort of financial duress and they're just going to let family and friends stay there for free which to me implies that the economic benefits that were argued for as a grounds for granting permission as a short-term left, those academic benefits will be in place anyway because they and their friends and family are all going to come and stay there and obviously I would assume be patronising local shops so I would be happy to be upholding the officer's recommendation. Councillor MACK. Yeah, I suppose on the surface we look at this and we say oh there's some unique circumstances here that we should take into consideration and I have, I went through this one very carefully because these ones I think where this is someone being used as a second home by someone some of the time and they want to short-term let it for other parts of the time actually to me makes very sensible use of a property. However, it's because she wants to come back and live in it and retire to this property that I think firstly we have the appear, we have the review, the officers with the information they had in front of them I think took the correct decision on the application as it came in. So we now need to consider if there's anything overwhelming that changes that in what's been submitted but actually I think that the case that they want to live in it means that we'd actually turn this into, if we grant this application today, we turn it into a short-term that they would actually need to reapply for planning permission to turn it back into a property for a short-term let if they wish to use it. Now there are arcane licensing arguments in here which I could bore you with but because I'm aware of them I'm actually reasonably relaxed about saying I don't think we should overturn the officer's decision in this instance because with the information they had I think they took the appropriate decision and actually Councillor MURPHY makes the same point I was going to make that if you are going to have friends and visitors and we don't control the way people use their properties and I appreciate that can stick in the throat for someone who wants a short-term let application because people could be having visitors to stay, they could have big families to stay, they could be coming and going because they split their time between Edinburgh and somewhere else and so they could be coming and going with suitcases but we don't control that and we can't control that so as long as this is their property and they're using it and using it either for themselves or for their families and visiting to come over and provide that care for relatives on a flexible basis I think it's the nature of what we grant when we grant a short-term let would be inappropriate in this situation. Thank you, Councillor MURPHY. I would like to agree with what colleagues have said, I mean I do note that the applicant has stated that in the stair there are two existing short-term let's and the remaining property is a second home and therefore the impact on the immunity of neighbours would be minimal but as far as I'm aware we don't have any evidence to support that claim and you know our guidance clearly says that common stairs we should you know the impact on neighbours is likely to be more or so yeah and you know I would just agree with colleagues that the arguments being put forward to overturn the officer's decision are not strong in this case in particular I think the economic case has really not been made in terms of the loss of residential accommodation and so I think I'm in agreement with colleagues that we should uphold the officer's decision to refuse this I note that this is not a retrospective application therefore we therefore we don't need to consider whether a material change of use has occurred it is deemed to have occurred so our only question is whether or not we uphold the officer's decision and I think the consensus of this seems to be that we should do so is anybody of a contrary view no officer's decision held thank you application refused and that concludes the business thank you the next question. Thank you. a lot of questions. [ Silence ]

Transcript

That's as live, I'll start with reading the webcast notice. Welcome to the meeting of the planning local review body, panel 2. This meeting is being held in the Dean of Global Cutroom in the city chambers, in the high seat Edinburgh in the motley by Microsoft Teams. It will be formed for live and subsequent broadcast via the Council's website. The Council is a data controller and the general data protection regulation and data protection Act 2018. We broadcast council meetings to fulfill a public task obligation to enable members of the public to observe a democratic process. Members that are reminded that the cameras are activated by the same system, they must switch on microphones when speaking and often finish speaking for the benefit of the webcast of the local members. Councillor Biel, good morning. Morning. Morning. Councillor. Good morning. Morning. Councillor. Morning. Councillor. One point. One is a point. We can be there. Good use to a point. Councillor Beaude. Seconded. Councillor Bufa point. Pointed. Next item 2.1 is order of business. Other information for 1860.1 was said yesterday, item 3.1, are there any day collisions? Hang on. Sorry. Before we go on order of business, because the information on those additional items was circulated extremely late, I do wonder, and I would like to take the view of members of the local review body, whether we should continue those items. Does anybody have a view on that? Councillor MAT. Yeah, I think, you know, this is a very large set of papers. The whole set of papers is reissued, and to do that, you know, after five o'clock the day before is in what is a busy week for all Councillors, because it's a full Council week. I think it's just not fair when this is a local review body to be doing that when it's difficult to access the information. So I would continue both the minutes and 6.1 until the next meeting, especially in the case of 6.1, where it was the additional information the committee had asked for that didn't—wasn't issued until after five o'clock the day before. Can I just ask our planning advisors, can you just clarify exactly what the information was that was circulated last night, what was additional, and which items are we talking about? Thank you, Councillor. I can confirm that the information that was circulated last night was an email from the agent in relation to the further information that was requested, which was justification as to why a time pre-planning permission for a change of use from residential to short-term late for 12 months would be suitable, would be a suitable compromise, and the purpose of the time pre-permission to the email, and there was also one further email which had some comments on the decision that was issued with the continuation. And that was in relation to six cold bridge gardens. Which is item 6.1 on the agenda. Okay, so I think the proposal from Councillor Maui is that we continue that item. I have some sympathy with that position. Any other views of—I see Councillor MATAS-Ckello agreeing, Councillor Beal, did you want to come in? Yeah, I suppose more questions. Why was it late? Because that's the real question, is it because it was submitted late, or was it because it's the planning part? I think that's the issue. You need to kind of understand why it was so late and therefore whether we need to include not, thanks. Thank you, Councillor. I can confirm that it wasn't an issue that with the applicant they submitted their information on time. So it was just a more internal issue with getting it onto the system and circulating to Councillors. I did have one further question which I think it would be helpful just to clarify on the record, there isn't an issue with us continuing it with a risk of non-determination, is that because this is an appeal? Yes, that's correct. Okay, on that basis I would suggest that we continue item 6.1, are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Can I make a general point that not just for members of the—looker review body, but for members of the public as well, it's important that information is provided in the public domain in plenty of time before the meeting. So if we could please try and ensure that this is not repeated, can't something else me, can you want to just come in? Yes, sorry, apologies for my voice. Was there also not documents submitted regarding old church lane last night? No, that's a piece of information that was submitted partly due to a kind of late document for that review, so it's disregarded anyway, it's not part of the appeal today. Okay, with that, Blair, could we go on with the agenda, please? Well, it's giving up, item 3.1, are there any day collisions of interest? None. Item 4.1, previous member of the 20th March has approved as a great record. Is that agreed? Agreed. Oh, the castle map. The minutes weren't submitted until yesterday, so I haven't had a chance to read them. I'd like the minutes to continue till the next meeting, please, as well, because then the original papers, they were to follow. Okay, are we agreed to, sorry, Blair, on? Excuse me, give you that. Sorry, the minutes were taken, or circulated on Thursday with the papers? So the suggestion is that the minutes were circulated on Thursday, let me just double check my version of the papers, hang on. I'm sorry, I downloaded the papers as soon as they were circulated and it's diminished, then 20th of March is to follow on the page of this. I also downloaded them last week, but there are parts of the pack. Yeah, the lines are giving up, yeah, there's a version 1 submitted on Thursday, and as a later version 2 submitted, it was Thursday off Friday with the minutes. I mean, given that Councilman hasn't had a chance to read them, this is a particularly busy week. We've had lots of meetings, I don't think there's any risk in us just deferring that to the next meeting of LRB panel 2, is there? If the other members of the committee are happy to note them and think they're a correct record and have read them, then that's, I can just say, you know, I can just sit this system out. I mean, I did read them, and I didn't see any obvious errors. Councilman Lee speaking? Just to support, sorry, just to support Councillor MOWIT on this. On that basis, I suggest we just defer to the next meeting. Okay. Minutes to defer to next meeting. Basically, it's 5.1, no procedure for nothing. Noted. First of standard item is 6.1, 6 copies of gardens, so that has been continued. Next of standard item is, yeah, you're with me, item 7.1 is two, easily placed in, but change of use to short-term work and retrospect, application number, 0393, 933, a big FULSTL, decision notice, support of handling and letter of representation, notice of review and spelling documents and further reps have been circulated, but I think it has requested that we proceed in the basis of assessment of review documents. Thanks for being up. Okay, so our first item today is two ends of the place, flat one, and the site description is a one-bedroom, lower ground floor flat situated in a traditional Georgian terrace pavilion, this is via a communal ground floor front door that is accessed by three further properties. The immediate area is residential in character with low levels of pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The properties category A listed and lies within the new town conservation area and the world heritage site. There's no relevant history, and the description of the proposal is for a change of use from residential to short-term let in retrospect and the use commenced in July 2016, and I'll just take you through the presentation, so it's this property here with the white door, and here we have it on its plan form, obviously showing the property and its ground to the rear, and then we have the unit itself, so one bedroom coming in off a communal entrance down through the stairwell and into the property, so we've got kitchen, bedroom and hallway. So the relevant policies are NPF4 policy 1, NPF4 policy 7, NPF4 policy 30, how 7 from the local development plan and also TRATU and TRATRE also in the local development plan. Non-statutory guidance includes the listed buildings and conservation area guidance, and also 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 four letters of representation, three objections and one in support, and the key issues in the report of handling are NPF4 policy 30, which seeks to encourage tourism and criterion 30B and E specifically relate to short-term let's, an LDPO policy, how 7 seeks to protect residential amenity. Access to the property is via a shared entrance and communal stairwell used by three further properties. The surrounding area is residential in character and has low levels of pedestrian and vehicular or traffic. Use of the premises is 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 will 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. A supporting statement provided by the applicant stated that the property would remain a second home of planning permission was refused. It would be more economically beneficial to the local economy in short to let this as a short-term let rather than have the property vacant. Short-term let users benefit the local businesses through direct spending and creating employment opportunities. The property is equipped with cooking facilities allowing users to support the local shops and occupants of hotels and BMBs would not. It's also important to recognise that having a 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 a consistent and long-term contribution to the local economy. 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 430 part E, there are no issues with regards to transport matters. The notice of grounds of review was received on the 15th of January and the statement of grounds of review states, the appellant refers to the composite motion of the city of Edinburgh Council on the 14th of December 2023 whereby it's noted that Lord Braid's ruling on the first of – on the judicial review on the first of December 2023 found the local authorities interpretation of Scott's law on holiday-like control areas was unfair and illogical and that it was wrong for the council to introduce a blanket requirement for all owners of whole property short-term let's to obtain planning permission as part of a plan and application for a licence. We had one further letter of representation maintaining their objection and the procedural options available to the local review body are. In a judicial review decision issued on the 1st of December 2023 the court revoked the guidance for businesses 2023 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 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 on 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. The more versus 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 information provided by the applicant and seeking the review and in the report of handling I note the use commenced in July 2016 and there's 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 LRB need to decide if there's 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 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 for the conservation area. Thank you. Thanks for watching Gino. So the first question do we have sufficient information to proceed? I see nods. Questions to Gino please. Thank you Councilor McNeese speaking. Hi, I'm not sure if we have this detail but in my experience of this type of property the stairs are stone they're generally not carpeted they're just generally the original stone which I would think an a shared stair would have impact on how much noise is being generated by roller backs so do we do we have that information I think probably we don't but I just thought I'd ask. Thank you Councilor but I'm afraid we don't have that information we don't have any internal photographs of the property so I can't confirm if the steps are stone or carpeted. Could I just ask Gino so my understanding is obviously there was lots of discussion about the guidance for businesses which was mentioned in the judicial review so the previous guidance for businesses which was 2023 was set aside and the new guidance for business which was approved in January of this year is a material consideration and determination of this is that correct? Yes that's correct we should now be looking at the guidance for businesses 2024 and considering this application. So there's a supplementary question to that page 9 of that guidance for businesses says that if the property is accessed off a stair where there are other flats off that stair it's very unlikely that a change of use will be supported is that relevant to this application? Yes it is it's a communal stair so the front door access gives access to this flat plus three others. Thank you any further questions? So we need to decide whether a material change of use has occurred to my mind a material change of use has occurred. This is in particular we're required to look at the likelihood of disturbance our guidance clearly says that in a communal stair there's more likelihood of disturbance to neighbours I would therefore argue that material change of use has occurred. Oh I agreed on that I don't see anybody dissenting. So on the actual application and the application for a change of use my view is that the officer's report is clear we have a number of objections from immediate neighbours I think this is contrary to development plan in particular NPF4 policy 30E1 and 2 and LDP policy how 7 so I suggest that we should uphold the officer's decision. Is anybody of a contrary view? I don't see anybody wanting to come forward so it appears we are all agreed thank you. I'm confused, next item 7.24 Bothell Street change of use the short term application number 23 a bleak 04137 a bleak FULSTL decision notice report of handling and let us a representation notice of you and when documents have been circulated I think has requested that you proceed in the basis of assessment of the documents on the thanks giving up. Thank you, the application property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat within a traditional four-story tenement at four Bothell Street it is accessed via a communal ground floor front door with access to a shared stair which is used by further residential properties. The property also has access to a rear communal garden space. The property is in close proximity to Easter Road and the immediate area is a residential character with moderate levels of pedestrian footfall. There's no relevant site history. The proposal is for the change of use to short-term let and the use is not yet commenced. In terms of supporting information there are drawings and a supporting appeal statement. I'll just take you through the presentation now. So there's some images here showing the property which is the red door and looking east along Bothell Street in the top left hand screen, top left hand side of the screen we've also got looking west along Bothell Street up towards Easter Road and you can see the application property on the ground floor on the bottom left hand there in the red and a view along Bothell Street from Easter Road. You can see it on the aerial here the red pin point just shows it in relation to you can see Easter Road which runs perpendicular and you can also see it in relation to like South London Road and other main thoroughfares. We have the ordinance survey just showing it in context again and we have the layout of the property which shows you its relationship to the front door. You can see the common steer, the bedroom, living room, kitchen and bathroom. Thank you. The relevant policies in the report of handling are MPF4 policies 1 and policy 30, LDP policies how 7 and a local transport planning policies, try 2 and try 3. The report of handling also notes that the guidance for a business is 2023 irrelevant. However, a judicial review against the council ruled on 1 December 2023 that the April 2023 guidance for a business should be reduced which means it must be disregarded in the consideration of this review and 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 13 representations and objection to the proposal and the key issues in the report of handling are the application property is a one bedroom ground floor flat within a traditional four story tenement. The properties access via a communal ground front door and it has access to a shared steer which is used by a further 15 residential properties. It also has access to a rear garden space. The immediate area is residential and character with moderate levels of pedestrian traffic. It's in close proximity to Easter Road which is characterised as mixed use with residential commercial retail bar and restaurant uses and a high level of vehicular and trash and pedestrian movement. Health Street does not have through traffic and enjoys a relatively good level of residence or amenity and low level of traffic. The use is a short term let which allow visitors to come and go from the premises for inconsistent periods of time on a regular basis throughout the year in a manner that is dissimilar to that of a permanent resident. And transient visitors may also have less regard for neighbours immunity than individuals using the property as a principal home. The properties access to a communal steer and outdoor amenity space creates an opportunity whereby short term let users could directly affect neighbouring residential immunity. The use is a short term let is not consistent with the existing neighbouring residential uses and a change of use would increase the level of ambient background noise in this context to beyond what is reasonably expected by neighbouring residents and will have a detrimental effect on the living conditions and immunity of nearby residents. NPA4 Policy 30E Part 2 requires that where there is a loss of residential property is only supported where the economic benefits of the proposal are outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits. The current lawful use of the property is for residential accommodation and given the recognised needs and demand for housing in Edinburgh it is important to retain this route appropriate. The LDP acknowledges that tourism is the biggest source of employment in Edinburgh however having the property in residential use would also contribute to the economy through the use of a variety of local services and employment across the city. Long term residents also have the ability to make constant and long term contributions to the local economy. There are no issues with regard to transport matters. The notice of a request for a review was received on the 13th of January 2024 and the statement of grounds for review states in terms of the history of the operation it states that the property has been operating as a service accommodation for several years predating of the requirement for planning permission. Throughout this period we have maintained a harmonious relationship with our neighbours and have not received any complaints regarding our operation. This historical context demonstrates our commitment to being responsible and considerate part of the community. In terms of accommodation practices it notes that the business model prioritizes longer term bookings and we also accept short term bookings to optimise occupancy and contribute to the local economy. By accommodating a mix of short and long term residents we aim to strike a balance that ensures the property's viability while minimising any potential impact on the community. In relation to the no increase in housing stock it states refusing the planning application does not align with the stated goal of increasing the housing stock in the area. Our property will continue to operate as a service to commutation facilitating longer term bookings. There were no further letters of representation in terms of the procedural options available to the local review body as this is an application for a change of use from a short term let and the use is not commenced section 26 B2 of the Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 is applicable it states that 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. The LRB need to decide if there are sufficient information to proceed to consideration in terms of termination 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 inspection of the land to which the reviewed release 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 very much so the first question is do we have sufficient information to proceed? I see nods, any questions, Councillor MATAS quenio. Thank you, convener. I'm just a bit confused because they say they have been a service long term apartment something along those lines for a while and they want to alternate short term with long term do we have an idea of what they call long term I'm just a bit confused how but they want to manage this, thank you. Thank you, Councillor. The application forms indicate that the short term let use hasn't been taken up yet. The application for review supporting statement does state that the property has been operating a service accommodation for several years and we do know from the representations that were submitted a lot of them do reference the fact that it was a longer term wait until I think early 2023 it was mentioned but there's nothing that definitively states out when it stops becoming a longer term wait and becoming a shorter term wait. Thank you. Did you want to come back? Councillor MATAS quenio. No. Okay, Councillor at least speaking. Yeah, I'm sorry, my question was along the same lines if we can have any guidance. It sounds as if they're saying there would be six month or year long service accommodation and I'm just I'm with like some clarity on how that works with what's called short term because I don't know if we've got a definition of long term service and short term that might be longer days. Thank you, Councillor. My understanding from the information submitted is it's been a longer term wait so people have lived there and resided there for a period of time and the intention is to make it for shorter term, stays, holidays, but people could stay there for a longer than just a short holiday was the indication, but there isn't anything further in the papers. The drill is down further in terms of the length of stays. Did you want to come back, Councillor Monique's making? I just it's so I'm sorry, for me it seems vague. I don't know whether they mean, you know, somebody that's here for a full semester as a supply teacher, it seems vague, but I don't obviously we don't have that. It's clarity. I don't know whether it would help. Do we have any definition in planning? So obviously there's a legal perspective, what type of lease you have, but the planning system presumably doesn't take that into account. In what respect, I suppose how is a short term let defined in planning terms? Do we have any clarity on exactly how short is a short term let, if you see what I mean? Thank you, Councillor. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing in the Scottish Government guidance that stays when it stops becoming a longer term and when it becomes a shorter term, there's not a lot, a period of time that's em-specified. Councillor Beal, did you want to come in? I'll wait for discussion, because there's these questions in there. Okay, any further questions? So let's go on to the discussion then. Councillor Beal. Thanks for me. Yeah. Just to point out, I mean, again, I think that's a bit of a red herring whether it's this is about the management of this application, this application is for short term let, so that's what we need to consider. As far as the management of it is not something we can consider, it's therefore irrelevant to this discussion to my mind. The question is, this is up for short term let, plan for permission, and I see no evidence why we shouldn't be upholding this decision, certainly mean, yeah, I don't see any evidence to overturn that decision, despite the appeal statement has talked about the other management and increasing the housing stock, but clearly this is going to reduce the housing stock if this property gets planned for permission to be short term let. So don't see how that is a valid argument, so I guess, you know, reason to not uphold this application. Thanks for coming up. Thank you. I see. Councillor MATIS QUELLIO and then Councillor MARTIN. Thank you. I understand Councillor Beal's comments, but the thing is, for me, it has been used as a long term, and we definitely need housing stock. So for me, that's what I wanted to clear, and I am supporting the officer's proposal on this. Thank you. Yeah. I think this is one which I struggle with because it exposes the shortcomings of the legislation that we have to work with that we don't actually have a particularly good definition of short term let's, because a short term let I think is really defined in the absence of a short, short tenancy agreement. So it could be for someone who's coming for three months or six months, they are used. I mean, if you wanted to live somewhere that was not your home for a period of time to, if you had an insurance claim and you needed to be, to take lodgings elsewhere, those now all fall under the ages of a short term let. And for those purposes, a short term let that was operating in that way would actually be operating in exactly the same way as someone as a permanent resident in Edinburgh would be living because it would be a permanent resident who was momentarily, temporarily out of their own property into another property, so it would be very difficult to say that they were going to behave differently because they lived in Brunsfield rather than Newtown because they had to leave their flat because they'd been a flood. So this is where I think we get into difficult territory and I think the applicant here is saying this, we're also asked actually in our business for guidance to consider the frequency of comings and goings and the intensity of the use, which actually without a detailed operating plan for the property, we don't really have that information but I think what we do have here is a property which is off a common stair, applying for a short term let without saying it has been used this way but now we're applying for this use but not and I do understand the tensions about the management but I think some of the guidance we've got to work with strays into that start stepping a toe into that water but I think the questions for us here, is this going to be a loss of a conventional housing unit that would be available for short-shelled tenancy, yes, is it in a common stair so that if it is being used for one's form of short term let's and there's nothing that we can condition to say it has to be a particular type of short term let's and there's nothing in the application stating that so that we'd have an enforcement case against them then yes there would be additional disturbance to those other people so I think working within what we have the officers owed up hold the officers report but I think there is further work for us to do and it may not be for us but it may be for other people to look at that at how we interpret them. Okay thanks colleagues I think I agree there are clearly questions about how we define a short term let but but I think I agree with colleagues you know we have 13 objectives from neighbours this is off a common stair our guidance clearly suggests that common stairs are more likely to have an impact on neighbours and therefore I think the officer's decision is sound and we should uphold it is there anybody of a contrary view no okay we are agreed thank you. We've been refused to some point 3 7c blunston with north change of use to short term let and rep respect application number if you're bleak 0 5 6 3 5 3 if you're a LSTL decision notice of support of handling and let us of representation of reduced point documents have been circulated rep again has requested that you proceed the basis for an assessment of the documents online fine it's giving up. Okay thank you so our next one is at 7c blunston road north the property is a one bedroom flat located within a subdivided mid 19th century house to the west of blunston road north forming the corner with portobello beach promenade the property has its own main door but shares its access to the street via a shared driveway. Blunston road north is of a predominantly residential character though the character of the promenade to the immediate north east of the building is defined by its relationship with the portobello beach. The property is category be listed and lies within the portobello conservation area public transport links are moderately accessible from the site we have no relevant history and the description of the proposal is for the retrospective change of use of the property from a flooded dwelling to a short term let and the use commenced on the 27th of september 2022. So here we are I'll just take you through the drawings so this is the property and its entirety and you can see there's a gated entrance here that takes you to the private driveway that accesses all of the properties. So just in terms of its location as you come down brunston road you come into the driveway here and the flat itself sits in the middle of this larger property. Just in terms of its layout got kitchen lounge and bedroom in a box room and it's actually the property here with the blue door and then you see it in context with the other properties within that courtyard. So again just coming through the private entrance into the courtyard area you can see the red car there just go back one you can see it parked in front of the properties there and again just parking on the opposite side from the property itself. So the relevant policies are MPF4 policy 1, MPF4 policy 7, MPF4 policy 30, LDP policy house 7, LDP policy tri 2 and tri 3. We've also got the non-statutory guidance for listed buildings and the conservation areas and the report of handling notes that the guidance for businesses 2023 is also relevant. However, as a judicial review against the council ruled on the 1st of December that the April 2023 guidance for businesses should be reduced it means it must be disregarded in consideration of this review and instead an updated guidance for businesses which reflects the judicial review which was approved in January 2024 should be considered. The limitations there was none and the key issues in the report of handling are although the property has its own front door access to the site is fire shared driveway the property is a one-bedroom flat which will to some extent mitigate the impact on amenity. The surrounding area is residential and character and the premises are in close proximity to the port of Elipor promenade. 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's a recognised need and demand for housing in Edinburgh therefore it's important to retain the existing supply where appropriate. It's important to recognise that having 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 the MPF430E part 2. There are no transport issues. The notice of grants of review is received on the 24th of January 2024 and the statement of grants of review states, 'My neighbours have always been on board but the short term letting and three of the properties have used it to their benefit. I don't understand how the authority states they are negatively impacted when they tell me contrary to the contrary. There have been no further letters of representation so the procedural options available to the local review body are. As you'll be aware there was a judicial review decision on the 1st of December 2023. The court revoked the guidance for businesses 2023 and on that basis that CSE's interpretation of the law section 26B of the 1997 Act was flawed and applying the Edinburgh short term let control area to short term let's that have been operating prior to the control area coming into force. As this application for planning permission is in retrospect but the use commenced on the 27th of September 2022 after the short term let control area came into force on the 5th of September, section 26B of the Town and Country Planning Act is applicable and states 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 from the dwelling house. 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. So the 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. If the LRB are of the mine there is sufficient information to proceed I would remind you that the LRB's determination must be made in accordance with the development plan and less 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 the conservation area. Thank you. Thanks very much so the first question, do we have sufficient information to proceed? I see nods, okay, questions. Councillor MAT. Okay, so this use commenced after the 5th of September. So we have automatically determined that a material change of use has occurred. So that's a decision that's been taken and that because that's automatic under the legislation so she's just appealing that, right, so that just threw me momentarily I just needed to talk it through. So just to confirm, yes the use did commence after the short term let control area had to come into force which means it's an automatically deemed material change of use. So I suppose the question for us is not whether a material change of use has occurred, that is automatic. The question for us is whether or not this complies with the development plan. I mean so I'm slightly struggling with this one, I think this is slightly more borderline but I suppose just to clarify things in my head, just to be 100% clear, the planning permission goes with the property, not with the management and therefore if we grant permission for this to be used as a short term let and I note that there are no objections to this specific application despite the fact there are a number of neighbours in the area. If we grant permission for this, there is nothing to stop the applicant either changing their management style or selling it to somebody else who does not have such a respectful attitude to the neighbours and therefore that could have an impact on immunity, is that correct? Yes that's correct, the use would go, the change of use would apply to the property and not the person operating it so this property would become a short term let in perpetuity if you were minded to overturn the decision today. Any other questions? Any comments? Councillor M but next speaker. Thank you, I'm maybe not in the same spaces as others but I'm looking at two of the things in terms of impact on listed property it doesn't appear to me to have a significant impact on listed property but the other issue for me is the officers have said there is a shared driveway but that does seem substantially different from a shared stairway to me, stairways by their nature are enclosed and noise reverberates and I think that causes a lot of disturbance I know from speaking to residents, I see less opportunity for disturbance of someone walking or driving over a driveway and I cannot see any shared external space in the photographs that have been submitted. I see rubbish bins which to me it would be unlikely somebody would be using that driveway area for socializing. So I'm not convinced that I would agree with the recommendation but I'd like to hear others use on it. Councillor Beal. Yeah, thanks. I have some sympathy with Councillor M but he's saying something looked at this, looked at the papers I thought, hmm, I'm not heard of a shared driveway, it doesn't happen often as a shared immediacy. Having seen photographs I can see why because it's very tight space and it's clearly very close to other dwellings within, you know, you can see how close they are so actually I do think that's a valid reason for refusing planned permission on this and certainly in terms of loss of residential accommodation that's kind of, that's fairly obvious. And just to pick up on the point on the management, again, the management is not relevant to planning permission usually because it can change, planned permission goes to the property. So again, I don't see any reason to overturn this decision. Thanks, coming up. Any other comments? Councillor MACKEN's point about the, I suppose the approach your view on the driveway and the shared driveway is going to vary so much from person to person, I think it's a very subjective way that people will experience that space. And actually, if you have space, you know, if you have a property which has a street outside but you enter off the street, there will be people using the street that, you know, are passing by and you don't know them. So that would be the same really with the, for some people they would do that in the same way but other people they would say, Well, this is a shared driveway, there's a gate. I expect to know everyone. Interesting and we have no. And one of the things here is we don't have any objections from the neighbours and indeed the applicant has said, My neighbours use this, and I know lots of examples where people do make use of short-term lengths to accommodate family and friends when they visit because they're around the corner and it's cheaper than I hotel and it's a bit more comfortable if they're coming up to see family. So I don't take any, I think that's a perfectly legitimate comment. And I think there is a need when people have converted things that, you know, people do make use of these properties to accommodate additional, you know, people around them will make use of them because they may not have the space to put people up but, you know, we don't. I mean, I suppose part of me says but whilst planning does not legislate for use, actually there's another regime that does do that. So we're, I'm sort of more relaxed about granting planning permission for these items because there is that other regime and if this property did change hands as a short-term let and was managed in a completely different way, there is an avenue that that can be managed and that that can be, that has an enforcement resource allocated to it and can manage those issues in a way that planning can't. So I think I'm probably more relaxed about the management and here we have one. So I'm probably swithering but this is a main door property, yes it's quite a quiet area but I don't see that it's particularly different to, I don't think it's so different and so quite given how close it is to a very busy area which is the prom that I would, so you're just coming down to a loss of traditional housing which obviously that is a question about whether having a small, because this is a very small short-term let and unlikely to cause disturbance to neighbours and husbands so far, whether that. So that I think is the balance we have to, that's my focus is that taking it out for use that some people have found useful, but in the wider issue about loss of residential is that something we're willing to go? Yeah, I mean I think as I sort of alluded to in my question earlier I can see both sides of the argument, I can see that on the one hand this is not a shared stair, our guidance clearly says shared stairs usually won't be accepted, this isn't a shared stair, this is a main door, this is a smaller flat and therefore is less likely to have an impact on neighbours, it's not going to be a party flat, it's clearly well run at the moment, although I would agree with Councillor Beal that it's not a planning decision, the impact you know what we need to consider is the impact on immunity, whether or not it's well run. I would note the comment from the applicant which was made in their application form that says I'm not sure what I can provide here other than evidence of messages from my neighbours if anyone could advise on whether I'm okay to do so please let me know, I mean I think clearly they had some messages of support from their neighbours but they didn't submit them as part of this application, I think they perhaps would have benefited from the use of a planning advisor, I mean as I say this one is borderline for me I can see both sides of the argument but I think on balance I come down on the same side as Councillor Beal, the immunity argument is not a massively strong one but I do think that if this was not well managed it could have a significant impact on the immunity of the neighbours in particular in that sort of shared courtyard. But the point that has not been addressed at all in the application is the loss of housing and if we had a statement in terms of the you know the economic benefits in terms of loss of housing I think perhaps I might have been swayed the other way but I don't see that in the appeal and therefore on balance I believe that the officer's decision is sound and we should uphold it. So does anybody want to propose that we overturn the officer's decision? Councillor MAT. No I don't actually but I'm just going to explain why I don't and I do think your point about there being no you know the onus is on the applicant to supply that you know the guidance is quite clear they are they need to supply that economic benefit it doesn't have to be a hugely detailed but I think we do need to address that point because it's a clear it is a clear ground of refusal that they need to address the National Planning Framework and I do think that I think we have to be quite careful as a committee and this is maybe a good moment to send out a message you know this thing about well we can't control how it's managed but actually you addressed the immunity issue by saying it's a small flat it's you know it's a small flat so it can't be a party flat and it's got its own door so I think we have to take that as read and sort of say right because the management is being dealt with elsewhere so but I would agree with you that we haven't got any information on the economic benefit or otherwise and that case we do need to be able to consider that and we have nothing in the absence of that than the guidance that the the MPF430 has to stand okay thanks Councilor McNeese me can I saw your hand and you appear to have taken it down again are you moving overturning the officer's decision or not no I'm I was just going to say I won't move overturning the officer's decision it's clear I don't have a seconder and I agree that it would have been helpful to actually have been supplied with that information from from the neighbors as to how they've benefited but we don't have that so I won't I won't put forward an alternative proposal okay so can I double just double check then we seem to be an agreement that we are upholding the officer's decision to refuse is that correct okay thank you application refused let's say to some point four thirty five eight Cumberland Street change of use the secondary letting application number two three oblique zero forty two three oblique FULSTL decision notice support of handling and let us a representation a notice of your answer when documents have been submitted the applicant has requested that we proceed the basis of an assessment of the documents online thanks give me that thank you can be there the application property is a two-bedroom basement flat which forms part of a four-story and basement tenement on the corner of Cumberland Street in Dundas Street the property is accessed by a private door set within a basement well facing on to Cumberland Street and has access to a private rear courtyard which is overlooked by neighboring residential properties the area immediately next to the application site is predominantly residential with a retail unit in the corner of Cumberland Street in Dundas Street Cumberland Street has lower levels of pedestrian and vehicular traffic compared to Dundas Street the property is a category A listed building located within the new town conservation area and Edinburgh's World Heritage site in terms of the application site history it's worth noting that in terms of this application which is being considered for review it was submitted so it was refused on the 14th of November 2020 on the 29th of November 2023 the property was subject to an enforcement notice for the alleged unauthorized change of use from residential to short stay commercial visitor accommodation on the 5th of January 2024 the applicant submitted an appeal against the enforcement notice and then on the 13th of January 2024 the this notice of a request for review was received on the 27th of March the appeal decision was issued dismissing the appeal and upholding the enforcement notice which requires the use of the property as a short-term let to cease in terms of the description of the proposal the application is for the retrospective change of use of an existing residential flathead property to a short-term let the supporting statement for the application for review comments that the use has been operating for several years therefore prior to the control area coming into force in terms of supporting information there are drawings and a supporting appeal statement there was a consultation with historic environment Scotland as it's a category A listed building and there was no comments from historic environment Scotland and I'll take you through the presentation we can see here the property on the top right hand corner is the dark door at the basement level they are accessed via the stairwell and we can also see in the top left hand corner the rear of the application property and you might know that was referenced to a private rear courtyard which is in behind the vegetation here and then on the bottom left hand corner we've got a view looking along Cumberland Street front and down street and then the opposite view looking along Cumberland Street toward Dundall Street the red point there just indicates that in terms of the aerial to give you an idea of context where it sits in the new town and we also have the OS map and you can see the red line outlines the property and we've also got the blue line which shows the extent of the courtyard to the rear and we have the layout of the property so you can see the access in a basement level which is the main door access to the property and it's it's own access not shared with any other properties and we've got two bedrooms and a shared living dining space and bedroom and then there's the rear patio area which I assume is the courtyard the relevant policies in the port handling are NPF policies one and seven and thirty and LDP policies how seven try to and try three the listed buildings and conservation area guidance and the Edinburgh design guidance are relevant the report of handling also notes that the guidance for businesses 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 the application received one objection and the key issues in the report handling are the flatted property is situated within a residential tenement and a predominantly residential area the short term let use would allow visitors to come and go from the premises for inconsistent periods of time on a regular basis throughout the year in a manner dissimilar to that of a permanent resident a transient visitor may also have less regard for neighbors immunity than individuals using the property as a principal home the use is a short term let is not consistent with existing neighboring residential uses the property also has access to a rear outdoor amenities space that could be utilized by guests this is overlooked by neighboring residential properties and increases the likelihood of there being a detrimental impact on residential immunity a change of use would increase the level of ambient background noise beyond that what is reasonably expected by neighboring residents and will have a significant detrimental effect on the living conditions and immunity of nearby residents the proposal does not comply with NPF4 policy 30E part one and LDP policy how 7 NPF4 policy 30E part two requires that where there is a loss of residential accommodation this will only be supported where the losses outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits the LDP acknowledges that tourism is the biggest source of employment in Edinburgh but it is important to recognize that having the property within residential use also contributes to the economy utilizing local services and fulfilling employment opportunities across the city long term residents can also make consistent and long term contributions to the local economy and community the proposed change of use to a short term let it result in the loss of residential accommodation and as there is a recognized need and demand for housing in Edinburgh it is critical to retain the existing supply where appropriate in this instance it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the loss of the residential accommodation is outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits as such the proposal does not comply with NPF4 policy 30E part two there are no issues with regards to transport matters the notice of a request for review was received on the 13th of January 2024 the statement of grounds of review states in terms of the history of operation the property has been operating as a serviced accommodation for several years predating the requirement for planning permission throughout this period we have maintained a harmonious relationship with our neighbours and have not received any complaints regarding our operation this historical context demonstrates our commitment to being irresponsible and considerate part of the community in terms of accommodation practices the business model priorities prioritises longer term bookings and we also accept short term bookings to optimise occupancy and contribute to the local economy by accommodating a mix of short and long term residents we aim to strike a balance that ensures the property's viability whilst minimising any potential impact on the community with regards to no increase in housing stock refusing the planning application does not align with the stated goal of increasing the housing stock in the area our property will continue to operate as a serviced accommodation facilitating longer term bookings there were no further lectures of representation as you will be aware there was a judicial review decision issued on the 1st of 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 and retrospect and they used 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 factors include the frequency of arrivals into partures the character of the property in the area the number of people staying and the likelihood of disturbance to neighboring residents in relation to the information provided by the applicant in seeking this review and in the report of handling I know 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 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 of 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 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 decision might 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 very much so the first question do we have sufficient information to proceed I see nods any questions cut them out yeah thank you you you said that there was an enforcement notice that had been put on this property which had then been upheld that it had been appealed and then upheld do we have any details of that enforcement notice because it would be interesting to know the grounds of it and that might be material to this application we will have an answer to that question very shortly apologies convenient thank you for bearing with us and you're creating that there was an enforcement notice and so we can the property was subject to an enforcement notice for the alleged unauthorized change of use from residential to short to stay commercial visitor accommodation and the appeal was in relation to that we don't have any further information in terms of the detail of the appeal that was submitted with the papers so if we did wish with the panel did wish further information on the appeal they could consider continuing the application for that to be solved council out did you want to come back on that I suppose we're we're in committee's hands I mean if I just think this is one of the first ones where we have had an enforcement notice issued against the property and I think it would be interesting to know the nature of that especially in light of the letter that the applicant the applicants agent has sent in which in their sort of supporting documentation they say they haven't had any issues they've run this really well and it's all been amazing for the last and and if there's been an enforcement notice there is a question in my head as to whether that is borne out in evidence and so just to be clear so the enforcement notice was an appeal against they will have tipped the box to say that there's not been a material change of use and the enforcement notice has been upheld saying that there is a change of use and therefore is operating as short to let I think if you want to see additional information that's included in that enforcement notice and you know we can continue it and you could have a look at the content of that but it may not go into detail as to amenity issues but that's what I'm trying to I think I would like to see that additional information the reason being because there's a number of reasons why people bring enforcement notices sometimes just because they think there's an unauthorized use others because it is grounded in and we do have a a resident's objection as well so I think I'd be more comfortable seeing that so we've got a complete picture okay I have Councillor Beal and then I have Councillor at least speaking yeah so thanks to me I just wanted to just explore a little bit more so this enforcement action enforcement actions in general are they likely to be raised by the department or by a neighbour complaining thanks thank you Councillor it is normally that it is submitted to the department and this can be done online and anybody can submit an enforcement come it notice complete can I just seek clarity on that you said normally my understanding is that the applying department never does proactive enforcement it's always on the in response to an application from a member of the public can you just clarify that thank you Councillor I'm aware in the past that if something has been seen in terms of listed buildings by a member of department me reads it in but in terms of the short term let's believe it is normally something that is raised by a member of the public okay that's interesting we have obviously had discussions about proactive enforcement in the past and have been told in no uncertain terms that that is not something that the department does anyway I have Councillor McNeese meeken next thank you I had a couple of questions but the first one was really along the lines of what's been asked by colleagues but just for clarity is is this the first time where we've been asked to consider an application where we know that there was an enforcement which was an in in which the decision was found against the applicant probably wasn't a very clear question but thank you Councillor just to clarify I understand your point is it the first application that you as a panel have been asked to consider where there's been enforcement activity but an appeal decision issue does that correct thank you Councillor we'd have to confirm take that away and confirm that I can certainly remember enforcement cases perhaps not on STL's but I can remember an enforcement case in my ward where a pub put in outside the seating and there was an enforcement case on that I can remember another one that was also in my ward where there was an enforcement case on replacement railings on a I think it was either scheduled in should monument or something like that I can't recall an enforcement case on an STL but certainly there have been enforcement cases in the past do we have any further questions so I think if I understood correctly there was a proposal from Councillor Merritt that we continue this to get further information on the enforcement case for what it's worth my personal view is that I I'm not sure I would support that I believe we have sufficient information in front of us to determine obviously we need to first of all determine whether or not a material change of use has occurred but we also need to determine whether or not this application you know whether the decision of officers to refuse it is sound and should be upheld so I think I would prefer that we determine it today I see Councillor Beel you know I'd also not support the continuation of this I think it's kind of it's it's here because it needs planned permission and so I don't think the detail of that enforcement notice is particularly relevant to our decision today thanks for being up would anybody like to move continuation I was just going to take the temp I was going to ask if you wanted to take the temperature of the rest of the committee before we had to go through that motion would any of the other members like to come in on this I don't see any hands up I see shaking of heads I'm not sensing that there's a lot of support for that position so I'm happy to I'm not going to press it okay so in that case then we need to first of all determine whether material change of use has occurred in my view I think that there has you know we have clearly there has been an impact although we don't know the detail of the enforcement notice the fact that an enforcement process has started would seem to suggest to me that there is some sort of an impact whether it's an impact on immunity or whether neighbors are concerned about the loss of housing and that to me would suggest that a change of use has occurred does anybody have a contrary view on that question before we move to I see shaking I've had so the next question then is whether or not the application complies with development plan or if it doesn't whether the material reasons why we should set that aside and grant the application I don't see any strong reasons to do so although I do note that it has its own main door and it is a relatively small flat nonetheless I do note that we have an objection from a neighbor I note that there is a private outside area which backs on to a tenement and therefore that could have a potentially have an impact on the immunity of neighbors but crucially as with some of the previous applications we don't have a statement for why the loss of housing is justified in economic terms and therefore I believe that the officer's decision is sand and we should uphold it I see Councillor McNeese Meekham. I think I wasn't going to disagree in fact it was specifically on your point about the external garden space I see that as an area where there potentially could be a lot of impact on residents you know with people out there enjoying that and maybe not having regard to the level of noise that they're generating on full time residents so I'm in agreement with you. Councillor Beel. Thanks, Conveeda. Yeah, there's any arguments about loss of residential accommodation and not seeing any strong arguments against that. In terms of immunity slightly less strong arguments however there is a private rear courtyard there's also it's a quiet residential area which I think have also a big effect and I think the fact that being complaints of some kind either from the we've had the objections just now and potentially from the enforcement notice there have been issues and again we say management is not an issue but clearly immunity has been an issue for neighbours in the past and that have been argument that I would use to say that yeah there's going to be a loss of immunity for the neighbours if this is granted permanent planned permission so I'd be happy to uphold this application. Thanks, Conveeda. Councillor McNeese. Just so I think again we're left with one which doesn't have any justification for the loss of residential and it's very clear, you know, we couldn't be clearer that this is a short term that and you know so I'm happy to uphold the officers' recommendation. Okay, we are in agreement to uphold the officer's decision, thank you. The next item, 7.5 1.C Edinburgh, change of use from residential to shop in length and retrospect, application number 2303 833 like FULSTL, decision notice, report of handling and length of representation and notice of review and support documents have been circulated after again has requested that we proceed in the basis of an assessment of the documents online. Okay, so our next item is flat 31 Dock Street. The proposed use is a two-bedroom first floor flat situated in the former Marinus Church. The flat is accessed via a communal ground floor front door and a shared stairwell. The immediate area is mixed use and character with moderate levels of pedestrian and vehicular access, some traffic. The property is category C listed and lies within the Leith Conservation Area. It was granted for the conversion of the building to residential flat development in 2002, but there's no specific history for flat 3. The description of the proposal is for a change of use from residential to short term let and the use commenced in July 2022 and we had supporting information in the form of a statement regarding MPF4. I'll just take you through the drawings. So here we have the property with its main door access taking access to this to a communal stair and up to the flat. So just again in terms of its location within that building and then the green area is a bins and recycling area that's communal to the rear. And just in terms of the layout you can see the stairs coming up giving access to the flat from the sheds hallway and then the two-bedroom sit and room and kitchen of the unit. So the report of handling notes that the following policies will apply MPF4 policy 1, MPF4 policy 7, MPF4 policy 30 and we've also got LDP policy house 7 and LDP policies trattoo and trathree. The listed building and conservation guidance is also 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 the 1st of December 2023 that the April 2023 guidance for businesses should be reduced, which means it must be disregarded in regards of this review. An updated guidance for businesses in January 2024 reflects a judicial review decision and should be considered as part of this application. We had five letters of objection and the key issues in the report of handling are access to the property as via a shared entrance and communal stairwell uses by three other properties. The surrounding area has a mix of uses and moderate levels of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 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 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 use supports the local economy through direct spending on services provided by tourists, provided two tourists. It's also important to recognise that having a 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 fully demonstrated that the loss of residential accommodation is outweighed by local economic benefits. There are no issues with regards to transport matters. The notice of requests for review was received on 22 January. In the statement states, the original application description was for a change of use from residential to short-term let for 52 weeks of the calendar year with a maximum stay of intervals of 28 days. You'll notice review application description, it's proposed to update that by the applicant to a combined use where it's predominantly used as private residents in short-term let for a maximum of five calendar months per year, normally made through to September at a maximum stay of 28 days, no minimum of three-day intervals. Letting the property as a short-term let maintains the flexibility for the applicant to return to Edinburgh for work and long-term letting it doesn't allow this. The impact on amenity is a generalization, there have been no complaints from residents in the communal stair. The use of the premises as a short-term let has a positive impact on surrounding amenity and if consent is refused and the property will remain empty for periods of time. CEC has a duty to consider personal circumstances and the applicant is an individual and not an investor. The short-term let's well managed and contributes to the surrounding local economy. 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 2023 and 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 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 5 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 the relevant factors include frequency of arrivals and departures, the character of the 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 that the use commenced in July 2022 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 is 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 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. 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 and less material considerations indicate otherwise. In particular, you must consider if the proposals will have a detrimental impact on the character of the construction appearance of the listed building and the conservation area. Thank you. Thanks very much indeed, Gina. So the first question, do we have sufficient information to proceed? I see nods. So questions and apologies, Gina, for not raising this beforehand. It would appear that the first objection from neighbours refers to a different property. So can I just clarify, is it correct to say that there are four objections or is it just that the wrong one was put in? There are still five objections for this application, but you're correct. The one that's appeared in the papers, the very first one, does relate to a different application, but there are further five objections. Is it reasonable to assume that the text of the objection that we don't have is very similar to the text? I beg your pardon. I can't count. Okay, so further questions? Silence. So okay, I have a question about the loss of residential, because I think the applicant is arguing that there's no loss of residential, because they are currently based away from Edinburgh, but they need to retain a base in Edinburgh in order to come back. So he just, I suppose, to help me understand that point. The loss of residential, as far as I understand, is planning. It's simply a change of the planning use, and therefore the fact that the applicant is intended to still use it as his base when he comes back here, that's not relevant. The relevant issue is the change of use in planning terms, is that correct? That's correct. The person is applying for a change of use to short-term loss, and therefore it will not be a residential use if it has been used as a short-term loss. So we would still have a loss of residential. We're correct in saying that the applicant is suggesting that they come back from time to time to work, but we don't have specific time periods for that or, you know, length of time. That's obviously on an ad hoc basis when they have work that brings them back to the city. So yeah, we would still be making an application for a change of use to short-term loss, which by its nature would result in a loss of residential use. I see Council Bill, I'm going to come to you in a minute, just to sort of clarify this point then. If we decide to uphold the officer's decision and to refuse permission, is it open to the applicant, say for example, that they were going to use the property for short-term loss for, you know, say just two months in the year or something like that, that they could either submit a planning application or a certificate of lawfulness application to state that that was a lawful use and that sort of no material change of use has occurred is it open to them if we refuse this for them to submit a new application that's slightly different? Yes, of course, they can submit further applications with differing proposals in the future. And I note that in their appeal statement, apologies, Council Bill, I'll come to you in a minute, I note that in their appeal statement they're effectively sort of trying to change what they're asking for. Can you just clarify from a planning perspective whether that is valid? So the appeal before us is on the basis of the original application, which was for a change of use to short-term let in retrospect. And what's been suggested to us as a panel is that you consider whether he could change that title effectively to permit short-term letting from maximum of five calendar months with a minimum stay of three days and a maximum of 28, and that it would do that through May to September, however that's not what the refusal was based on and we are reviewing what the refusal was for. Okay, I'll shut up now, I'll come to Council Bill. Well actually that's exactly what I was going to make, it was the, I had that five-month thing I was going to ask how relevant that was and if that question's been answered to, that's great. Thanks. Further questions, comments? Okay, I'll kick off then, I mean I do think this is a tricky one and I would note that it's a relatively small flat, just two bedrooms, I would note that the objections don't appear to be from neighbours in the immediate stair, but nonetheless I would also note that it is a common stair and the planning permission goes with the property, not with the personal, I note that I think there was a comment saying that this is very personal to the applicant and that they're applying in order to try and address their own personal circumstances. We've been told many times in the past it's not appropriate for us to grant a personal permission in the circumstances for short-term let. I note that it is open to the applicant to submit a new application if they were to come, you know, if they were to propose, for example, a few months in the year and so on and that would be judged on its own merits and I note that we have to determine the application that was originally submitted and I would suggest that on that basis because it's a common stair because no specific justification has been put forward for the loss of housing that we wish we should uphold. So I see Councillor MACKEN and then Councillor Biel. Yes, thank you, sorry, for full transparency we had our wedding reception in here when it was still a nightclub before it became residential, but I know the building quite well and that it is a communal stair, it is chaired by the other plats, and I can't see how granting permission for short-term letting would not impact on the other residents, so I think we should be upholding the officer's recommendation. Councillor Biel. Yes, thanks. Can you add a comment as well, I mean it's shared common stair, going to affect the mean to the flats. There's a lot of residential accommodation, no, it's going to be put against those. I would add the size is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what size the flat is, it's still going to have the same effect, and again, the management is not relevant, so I can't see any reason to overturn this application. I do see there are some personal circumstances that have been raised in this, but I don't think we can take those into account as the application is in front of us, so thanks for giving up. I mean I think everyone said what needs to be saying, if the applicant did want to continue to short-term let occasionally there are other ways in which he could make use of the licensing scheme with which to do so, which wouldn't actually require the planning, the planning permission. But what we have in front of us is an application for a short-term let, and then it has been amended, and that amendment is not what we're asking to be, is not the application in front of us. So on the face of what we have, the original submission did the officers address that, apply the policies correctly, yes they did, so I'll uphold the officer's decision. Okay we seem to be in agreement that we are going to uphold the officer's decision to refuse, I will agree, if you are agreed, thank you. Could we have a quick comfort break agreement? Yes, that's a good idea, so suggesting five minutes or a bit longer, okay, let's go for a ten-minute comfort break, I make it 1134 at the moment, matters okay online, yes we do. Brilliant, right let's restart, where do we got to? Okay, next we have item 7.6, ladies there's close 4-7-7-1 market, change the views from residential to shop in light for 52 weeks in a calendar year, application number 33 week, 0704071 FULSTL, decision notice, support of handling and letters of representation and notice of review, that's when documents have been circulated, map again has requested, if you proceed in the basis of an assessment of the documents and holding one of the more hearing sessions on specific matters, thanks give you an up. Thank you, convener, the application site is a one bedroom, third floor flat, two lady stairs close on the lawn market, the property shares its access to the street via a communal stair and entrance door with other properties, lawn market is a key thoroughfare with significant levels of pedestrian football and general vehicular traffic, there's a mix of uses on the street in the surrounding area including residential office, retail, restaurants, public houses and tourist attractions, public transport links are easily accessible from the site, the application property is the category B listed building located in Edinburgh World Heritage site and within the Old Town Conservation area, there's no relevant site history and the description of the proposal, the application is for the retrospective change of use from residential to short term let for 52 weeks in the calendar year, there's no internal or external physical changes proposed, the applicant advises that the short term let use has been in operations since December 2019. In terms of supporting information, there's an NPA4 planning statement, drawings, photographs and a supporting appeal statement, I'll take you through the presentation, so we can see the property here, this is an image that's provided by the applicant which indicates the location of the property and the building and we can see here we've got the OS map just showing it in context with the lawn market and where it sits and also the layout of the property, we've got one bedroom, a combined kitchen living room and communal hall, sorry common hall not communal, we also have some images of the property, we've got living spaces view outside and a internal spaces such as bathrooms, okay, the relevant policies and report of handling are NPA4 policies 1, policy 7 and policy 30, local development plan policies, house 7 and local transport planning policies, try to in try 3, the listed buildings and conservation area guidance is relevant, the report of handling notes of 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 3 objections including one from the old town community council, the key issues and the report of handling are this one bedroom property is on the third floor of the tenement and shares its main entrance door and stairwell with other properties, the applicant has submitted a statement addressing the impact of the short term let on residents' amenity, it states that the property is small with no shared amenities and located in a mixed use to the state and bustling part of the city, it asserts that the property is well managed and there are no known complaints, there is a mix of uses in the surrounding area and is such that there is a fairly high ambient noise level, the introduction of a short termlet in this location will have no further deterioration in the amenity of the surrounding area, however the use of the property as a short termlet would introduce an increased frequency of movement to the property, there is no guarantee that guests would not come and go frequently throughout the day and night and transient visitors may have less regard for neighbours' amenity than individuals using the property as a principal home, the potential for noise to be generated would be significantly different from the ambient background noise that neighbouring residents might reasonably expect and will have significantly detrimental effect on the living conditions and amenity of nearby residents, the proposal does not comply with NPA4 policy, 30E Part 1 and LDP Policy House 7, the applicant's planning statement asserts that the short termlet use offers high quality, well managed and easily accessible to just accommodation, which is not suitable for long term residential use due to the noise and activity levels in the surrounding area, the statement highlights that the short termlet use is generating income for local businesses, fees for accommodation and guests will also support the Tudor city attractions which help the local economy, the current lawful use of the property is for residential accommodation and the use of the property as a short termlet for 52 weeks and a year would result in the loss of residential accommodation which given the recognised need and demand for housing in Edinburgh is important to retain and wear appropriate. It is important to recognise that the residential occupation of the property contributes to the economy as well as making contributions to the local community, in this instance it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the loss of the residential accommodation is outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits and as such the proposal does not comply with NPF4 Policy 30E Part 2, there are no issues with regard to transport matters, the notice of a request for review was received on 21 January 2024 and the statement of grounds of review states, the property is located in one of the most touristic areas of Edinburgh next to the castle and overlooking the Royal Mile, the provision of high quality, well managed and easily accessible premises for short term nets such as this property contributes directly to encouraging and promoting tourism and to inspiring people to visit Scotland. The property's own Lady Steer Coals are largely non-residential with one other short termlet operator in the building, there have been no complaints since trading started in December 2019, the area is not predominantly residential and is stated to has a mixed use character, the guidance states that in mixed use areas regard will be had to the nature of the surrounding uses and the proximity of the site to residence residential properties also taking into account ambient noise levels. It is a family-run business and the applicant is the owner and full-time manager, the property was voted first in the top 10 airbnbs in Edinburgh, the short termlet is relatively small with 39 square metres living floor area and only one bedroom with a maximum occupancy of two people, it is not conducive for large gatherings and its small size makes it unlikely that guests would generate noise sufficient to cause disturbance. There are no shared facilities with any residential neighbours and the apartment has no external areas or gardens which guests might gather. All of these factors reduce the likelihood of noise being caused and certainly not at levels that might disturb the living conditions of residents in the nearest flats or apartments. The use of the property as a short termlet makes a positive contribution to the local economy in the following ways. One, the accommodation fees paid by guests generate income for a locally run business. Two, guests will visit the city's attractions and frequent local bars, restaurants and shops providing increased income for these businesses and three, the business is generating income for local cleaning and maintenance staff. There are no further letters of representations and in terms of the procedural options available to the local review body. As you will be aware, there was a judicial review decision issued on 1 December

1. 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 termlets control area to secondary short termlets that had been operating prior to the control area coming into force. As this application was for planning permission and retrospect and the use taken up in December 19 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 secretary of state for communities and local government in 2012 court case identifies that relevant factors include frequency of arrivals and departures, the character of the property in the area, the number of people staying and 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 considers it does not have sufficient information and respect of this, it is possible for additional information to be sought. The ALRB 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 seeding sessions and/or unaccompanied or unaccompanied inspection of the land, which the review relates. If the ALRB are of the mind that there is sufficient information to proceed, I would remind you that the ALRB'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 obedience of the listed building or the conservation area. Thank you. Thanks for that indeed. So the first question, do we have sufficient information to proceed? I see nods, questions. Councillor Beel. Yeah, I've got a couple of questions. The first one is in the appeal statement, the applicant says the property is largely non-resident in the stair. Now this is flat 8 and I'm quite sure there's other flats in the same block. So do we have any evidence for that statement? Thanks. Thank you, Councillor. I know the reference that you may talk about in the appeal statement. There isn't anything further in terms of the other properties. It's just a reference statement as you've described and there's no further information in there. Do the second question, Councillor. Yeah, just also in the statement, it was mentioned that it's been registered for non-domestic rates. Now I don't know if that's relevant or not, but would that have any bearing on planning? Would in order to gain non-domestic rates, would there be any reason to kind of have planning involved in that process? Thanks. Not in the racing process, no. Councillor McNeese speaking. Thank you. I believe you had said that there was no external or shared space in regards to impacting on amenity, but the photograph that we saw appears to show was either an external balcony or an external shared walkway. So can we get any clarity on that? Yeah, in the upper left there. That looks like an external space that's either individual or shared. Thank you, Councillor. If you just bear with me, I'm just checking the appeal statement that does mention that the property is more small with no shared amenity areas, and I'm just going to check the images. I'm completely... I'm just going to check the appeal statement. I'm going to check the appeal statement. I'm completely at a loss to try and fit this into this building with only this bit of the jigsaw. I mean, I know these stairs and I know these flats quite well, but I can't think of this exact particular one. So I think we just have to work from the plans. What I would say is that this flat does not... That's the front of the lawn pocket. This is accessed off Lady Stair's Clothes, which is sort of at the back of the courtyard, and the flat, given the sizes on it, and the size of it, it is not coming. So I'm not entirely sure what those three windows are meant to indicate, but... Thank you, Councillor. Councillor McNeese, making a relation to your comment. We don't have information which corroborates where that view is taken from, whether it's taken from the flat or looking at the flat with the stairs. Okay. It could just be representative. This is what Edinburgh looks like photo that they just submitted. And we don't have any further information about where that's taken from. I'm purely speculating here, but I wonder whether that might be either taken from the common stair, which has access to the outside, and what we can see there is actually the front door of a neighbouring flat, or else it's a view out of the window of the flat, showing, you know, the proximity to a neighbouring property. I mean, I would suggest that the floor plan, which is on page 23 of the presentation, seems to suggest that there isn't a balcony or any sort of external area. And certainly that is supported in the statement that they submitted, isn't it? Councillor MATT. I think, equally, if we're discussing the floor plan, it does say common hall. So it may be that that door that is shown goes into a common hall and there are a number of flats that come off that, although there aren't other doors shown off that. I think the reality is they say there's no amenity space that's there, but they've provided the floor plan that says common hall. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Councillor. I would just add one further comment that the image of the external is titled outside landing on the planning portal, but it doesn't see which outside landing that is. Any further questions? Comments? Councillor Bion? Well, again, I can't really see strong grounds for overturning this application. It's in the common stairs, at least eight flats in the stair. In terms of the loss of residential accommodation, part 30E, again, I don't see the evidence to overturn that, in terms of economic benefits. So I don't see, again, no matter how it's managed it, because with the planning permission, that's irrelevant. Unfortunately, so I don't see any reason to overturn this decision. Thanks for coming up. Councilor Monique speaking? Yes, I'm in agreement with Councillor Beall, and my first flat Neddenberg was in the adjacent close. So I'm not persuaded by the argument that, well, it's a largely tourist area anyway, so we're not losing residential amenity. It's a great area to live in. So I wasn't persuaded by that argument. Councillor, I mean, I think this is interesting. We've got three objections, one from a resident, one from a close-by resident, two from amenity associations in the area. So this is an area. There are absolutely residents. And again, although some people might say, oh, this is a very small flat, actually, you might want a tiny flat when you've got quite a lot of amenity around you. And also, it will mean that there's constant implications about what you can let this floor. But, you know, there would be no problem letting this on a long term let, because there are actually a lot of residents that live around and about that square. So I think, you know, it's noticeable that they say in the papers, there's, you know, the applicant says there aren't other residents, but we've got, there's one other short-term left in the stairs. So presumably the other, you know, there's eight other flats in this, there's one of eight flats in the area, at least. So, you know, this is a malleable accommodation right in the heart of the city. So I would be certainly supporting the, supporting that we, we uphold the officer's recommendation because I can't see that they've earned their decision. Thanks, Roger. Did. So I would just note that we, because the application is retrospective and the use started before the control area came to force, we just do need to confirm whether or not a material change of use has occurred. I would suggest on the basis of comments that we're in agreement that it has just checking that that's the case. Yeah, they see nods. And personally, I'm not in disagreement with colleagues. I don't see any strong reasons to overturn the officer's decision. I note that in terms of the economic arguments used to justify the loss of housing, that these are generic arguments, you know, they refer to the generic research that was done by the council, and they refer to the generic research produced by the ASSC. They don't provide any specific, you know, arguments for economic benefit for this particular reason. I would also note it's a common stare, and therefore I don't see any reason to overturn the officer's decision. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you. Application refused. Next item, 7.73 old-charts lane, short term property, which has been operated as a short term letter since June 2018, application number 23 of leak 04364 of leak FULSTL. Decision notice of support of handling and letters of representation, notice of reviews where documents have been circulated, that they can have requested that you proceed in the basis of assessment of the document and further written submissions on specific matters. Please give me that. Okay, so our next item is at 3 old-church lane. The property is a full bedroom house located on the southern side of old-church lane. The property has its own access to the street via a private drive. Old-church lane in the surrounding area is a predominantly in residential character with the exception of Doddingston Road West from where the application property is primarily accessed. It has a comparatively high traffic volume and bus links are moderately accessible from the site. The site lies within the Doddingston conservation area. We've got no relevant history, and the description of the proposal is for a retrospective change of use of the property from residential to short term let and the use commenced in June 2018, and the supporting information was links to the advertisements for this as a short term let. So here we have the property. I am with old-church lane running around this side and Doddingston Road West on this side. I'll just take you through the drawings. So once we're inside the gates which are accessed off of Doddingston Road West, I'm into the courtyard area obviously with a private access. So just in terms of its positioning on the street in terms of its location, and then the layout of the entrance coming in, and then the property running linear along old-church lane. So the relevant policies are MPF 4, policy 1, MPF 4, policy 7, MPF 4, policy 30, local development plan, house 7 and local development plan, TRATU and TRAT3. We've also got listed building and conservation area guidance, and the report of handling notes of the guidance for businesses 2023 is also relevant. However, following the judicial review against the Council on 1 December, this guidance should now be reduced and therefore disregarded in consideration of this review and an updated guidance for businesses which was approved in January 2024 should be considered as part of this review. We have one letter of representation and the key issues in the report of handling are the four-bedroom size of the property and the outdoor amenity areas surrounding the property may intensify the amenity issues resulting from a short-term let use. 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. However, whilst there are residential properties across on old-church lane that may be impacted by the proposed use, the distance to these properties, the degree of activity along Doddingston Road West and old-church lane and the built form of the area featuring high-stone walls, dense foliage and front-guard areas sufficiently mitigates the impacts of the proposed use such that there would not be a significant amenity impact from the proposal to neighbouring residents. 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 and therefore it is important to retain the existing supply where appropriate. It is also important to recognise that having a property within residential use 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 economy. In this instance, it has 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 430E Part 2. There are no transport issues. A notice of request for review was received on 18 January 2024 and a statement of grounds of review states. The property is operated as a short-term let since June 2018 with no issues. The property comprises a detached single-storey four-bedroom cottage with private garden and car park. The property has its own pedestrian and vehicular access gates. Both entrance doors open onto our private garden. Some of our windows open towards our private garden and some open onto the public road. The statement that there will result in a loss of residential accommodation is not justified. No further letters of representation have been received and the procedural options available to the local review body are. In a judicial review decision issued on 1 December 2023, the court revoked the guidance for businesses 2023 on the basis of CEC's interpretation of the law section 26(b) of the 1997 Act being flawed and applying the Edinburgh short-term let control area to secondary short-term let that had 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. The more versus secretary of state communities and local government court case identifies that relevant factors include frequency of arrivals and departures, the character of the property and area, the number of people staying and the likelihood of disturbance the 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 June 2018 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 to this, it is possible 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 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 conservation area. Thank you. That is right indeed. So, the first question, do we have sufficient information to proceed? I see nods. Any questions? Councillor Beel. Yeah, I wonder if you could, I mean, I don't know if it is a detached house, but I mean, does it not clear whether it is actually got any gardens that might be next to other people's houses, just kind of wondering what is in the vicinity? Thanks. Just bear with me and I will share the site plan again. So, here we have got the property here. So, we have got the church hall next to it. This is the grounds of the church, sat below it. So, it has its own obviously courtyard with its own gardens and then on the other side is directly onto old church lane. This strip here, I'm not entirely sure what that is. I'll go take you back to the photos of the street to see if that clarifies at all. No, that's as much information as I have, I'm afraid. Councillor McNeese-Meakin. Thank you. Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong, but there were no objections from Studdingston Kirk. Is that correct? That is, they are the adjacent neighbour. Bear with me, there was one letter of representation. I'll just find out who that was from again. Councillor interjecting. Okay, from number five, church lanes are not the immediate neighbour. Councillor interjecting. Any further questions? Councillor. No. No. Okay, comments? Councillor McNeese-Meakin. Thank you. My feeling again on this one was that there's less of an argument for impact on amenity given that it's detached and it's got its own entrance driveway and so on. However, the objection by another church lane resident implies to me that there is an impact which I imagine is probably vehicular because there's you can see if you have a look, you can see that it's got a large parking area. I assume it accommodates large parties of people all arriving by car. So I think it will be having an impact on residents because of that factor. Councillor MARTe-Yes, I think if you read the objection closely actually, it was very much a letter of representation in that someone wanted to know what was going on and then wrote again and asked someone could someone tell him what was going on and what the planning applications were because there are new changes. So I don't think we have any evidence that this existing use has caused any impact on amenity and when you look at the site plan and you look at the photographs, it does seem to be located well away from any properties. However, so I don't think there's an amenity issue with this at all. What I think there is is an issue with lack of residential and MPF4. It's clear there's material change of use because the applicant says there's material change of use, so this is a short term that. But as absolutely, unfortunately, he's asked the question in his submission, what could I do? Well, read the documentation and read the policies and the policy is very clear. In the case of an economic argument, we can consider whether we could permit the use as a short term that but there has been no attempt to justify why this, there might be any economic benefit that would outweigh this being a residential property and it's obviously more than adequate as a residential property situated, you know, make a perfectly good family home. So therefore, we have nothing with which to assess that against MPF4. So I think we have to say that the officers have determined this in accordance with the legislation. I would tend to agree with that. Any other colleagues? Nope. Okay. So I would just note that this application is retrospective and the use started before the control area came into force. So the first question we need to ask ourselves is whether a material change of use has occurred. I think it's clear to me that it has. Yep, I see nods. And the next question is whether or not we uphold the officer decision to refuse it. And I would tend to agree with Councillor Mowatt for the reasons that she's set out that we should do so. Is anybody of a contrary view? Nope. Okay. We are agreeing to uphold the officer's decision. Thank you. Application refused. Final item at 7.8. Nine Williams to Edinburgh. Cheese, the use of the property from a long-term letter shot inlet for a secondary home application number. Twenty-three a book, zero-three, nine-three, two, a big FU-L-S-T-L. Decision note of support of handling and letter of representation. And notice of the view as my documents have been circulated. I think I was requested that if you proceed in the basis of an assessment of the view document sort of it. Thanks, given up. Thank you, convener. The application property is a two-bedroom flat located on the second floor of a tenement on Williams Street. The property comprises a lounge, kitchen, two bedrooms and a bathroom and is accessed via a communal main door entrance in shared stairway. The property forms part of a category B-list to building and is located within the new time conservation area and the world heritage site. The surrounding area comprises a mixed use character with commercial and residential uses. There's no relevant site history and the description of the proposal, the application seeks permission to change the residential use to short term let. There's no internal or external physical changes proposed. The flat has been used as a long term let since 2002 and it's currently empty and has been so since July 2023, the applicant advises. Supporting information includes an NPF4 planning statement and drawings and also a statement in support of review. And I'll just take you through the presentation. Here we have the doorway to the property indicated with the red star and it's the ground floor doorway to the property on Williams Street. This is looking south west along Williams Street towards Walker Street and then the opposite, I'm sorry we've maybe missed that. And you can see here in context on the OS plan which shows where it is located on Williams Street. So you can see we've got lounge, kitchen and two separate bedrooms. Thank you. The relevant policies in the report of handling are NPF4 policy one, NPF4 policy seven and NPF4 policy 30, local development plan policies. 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. The application received two objections and the key issues in the report of handling are the application property is located in a mixed use commercial and residential area in Williams Street. The application property forms part of a three story and basement building that is commercial uses along its ground floor. The commercial uses in the surrounding area include cafes, shops, pubs and a bar. There is a fairly high ambient noise level and the introduction of a short term let used in this location will not have a detrimental impact on the immunity of the surrounding area. The application property is located in a tenement, sharing access to 9 Williams Street with three other neighbouring residential properties via a communal main door entrance and shared staircase. The use of the property as a short term let would introduce an increased frequency of movement to the property. The proposed short term let would enable visitors to arrive and state the prominent premises for a short period of time on a regular basis throughout the year and a manner dissimilar to that of permanent residents and transient visitors who may have less regard for neighbours immunity than individuals using the property as a principal home. MPF4 policy 30E part two requires that where there is a loss of residential accommodation this will only be supported where the loss is outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits. The applicant's supporting planning statement provides information to address MPF4 policy 30E part two. The statement expresses that the proposal will have a positive impact on the economy and would support local shops. The current lawful use of the properties 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 to appropriate. The applicant asserts that the short term let use of the property provides employment for local businesses to ensure it's appropriate to maintain for guests. Additionally guests are encouraged to support the businesses in the local area. The residential occupation of the property also contributes to the local economy. There are no issues with regard to transport matters and the notice of a request for review was received on 19th January 2024. The statement of grounds of review states the property is now going to be used regularly by myself and immediate family as our second home and only home in Scotland. Since July 2023 the property has been used regularly for visits for a short period of time. I am a native Scot and currently live in Spain but now you wish to retain the property for my own use with my husband and family to be able to visit relatives who live in and around Edinburgh. It is our plan to live permanently in the property when my husband retires within five to eight years. It is not the plan to return to long term letting even a plan in permission for a change of use to a short term let is not granted. With regard to the property being located in a tenement building with three other residential neighbours it is relevant to note that this entrance and staircase is also shared by two cafes directly on the ground floor of the building which use the entrance to access which use the entrance to access the basement. Out of the three other residential neighbours one is a second home and is really there. There is currently there for a maximum of two residential neighbours living in permanently in the building. If this application is not successful the applicant intends to allow friends and family to use the property as non-paying guess when they are not in attendance. It will essentially be a short term use property until the time that the applicant returns to living there a longer term. Therefore in light of the current use of the property since July 2023 and the applicant's decision to retain the property for their own use as their own home in Scotland has been illustrated that the property is now being used regularly for short term visits. The applicant and their family will be coming and going with suitcases not similar to that of a short term let and if this will cause harmful impact to immediate neighbours living conditions and immunity there is no evidence to say that this impact would be dissimilar should the property be able to offer short term lets. Rather than the property being empty whether it is not being used it would be mutually beneficial to be able to offer short term lets to recover some of the running costs will simultaneously offering an added economic benefit for the local area as well as to the tourist industry. It should also be noted that the applicant will be using the property regularly and would be able to react quickly to any potential problems caused and find solutions. Grounding planning permission for the change of use to short term let in this instance would not therefore not result in a loss of residential accommodation. There were no further letters of representation and the procedural options available to the local review body as this is an application for a change of use from residential to short term let and the use is not yet commenced section 26b2 of the town and country planning Scotland Act 1997 is applicable. This states that in a short term let control area the use of a dwelling house for the purpose of providing short term lets 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 of 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 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's determination must be made in accordance with the development plan and less material considerations indicate otherwise in particular you must consider if the proposals will have a detrimental impact on the character and pedans of the listed building or the conservation area. Thanks for that indeed so first question do we have sufficient information to proceed. I see nods largely perhaps some during questioning perhaps we will clarify whether we have sufficient information so questions. Councillor MAT. I suppose the only question is to put it out there is that there is no special category of short term let that covers this situation of someone having a second you know a property that they then live in sometimes and short term let it's just the same as any other short term let and were the property to be sold it would be sold with that planning permission as a short term that. That is correct Councillor you write the planning permission runs with the property so if it was to be sold on it would remain as a short term in perpetuity. Can I just clarify we've had it previously but I don't think we've had it today just to clarify that a personal permission would not be appropriate in these circumstances and can you just clarify why not. Thank you Councillor the circular on conditions is quite specific in relation to personal permissions and it's really only in unusual circumstances such as on compassionate grounds that a personal permission is advisable. I mean I wouldn't note that the applicant has said that part of the reason that they need to be in Edinburgh is in order to be close to relatives whose health is not great does that come into the category of compassionate grounds or is it compassionate specifically in terms of the applicant rather than their family. Thank you Councillor my understanding of the circular is that it is in relation to the applicant themselves. Any other questions? Comments? Councillor Biel. I think given what the question has been I think also I do have a lot of sympathy with this situation and sort of make some good arguments but again in terms of the use because this sits with the building the dwelling it doesn't matter who's actually living there in terms of climate issues that apply so I think we have to apply that. Taking a dispassionate view of it and again it's in a common state with other flats the same stairwell and it's also going to be a loss of residential accommodation so again I don't really see the arguments against those two policies so I don't see any reason to overturn this application unfortunately. Thanks. Thank you Councillor Niese speaking. Thank you. This seems to me actually fairly straightforward the applicant has argued that in eight years time they're going to retire and obviously clearly they could let it out to the housing market for eight years but it sounds as if they don't intend to do that they're not under any sort of financial duress and they're just going to let family and friends stay there for free which to me implies that the economic benefits that were argued for as a grounds for granting permission as a short to let those academic benefits will be in place anyway because they and their friends and family are all going to come and stay there and obviously I would assume be patronizing the local shops so I would be happy to be upholding the officer's recommendation. Councillor MART. Yeah I suppose on the surface we look at this and we say oh there's some unique circumstances here that we should take into consideration and I have I went through this one very carefully because these ones I think where is this someone being used as a second home by someone some of the time and they want to short term let it for other parts of the time actually to me makes very sensible use of a property however it's because she wants to come back and live in it and retire to this property that I think you know firstly you know we have the appear you know we have the review the officers with the information they had in front of them I think took the correct decision on the application as it came in so what we now need to consider if there's anything overwhelming that changes that in what's been submitted but actually I think that the case that they want to live in it means that we'd actually turn this into if we grant this application today we turn it into a short term let they would actually need to reapply for planning permission to turn it back into a property for a short term let if they wish to use it now there is there are came licensing arguments in here which I could bore you with so but because I'm aware of them I'm actually reasonably relaxed about saying I don't think we should overturn the officer's decision in this in this instance because with the information they had I think they took the decision the appropriate decision and actually can't submit these make makes the same point I was going to make that if you are going to have friends and visitors and you know we don't control the way people use their properties and I appreciate that can stick in the throat for someone who wants a short term let application because people could be having visitors to stay they could have big families to stay they could be coming and going because they split their time between Edinburgh and somewhere else and so they could be coming and going with suitcases but we don't control that and we can't control that so as long as this is their property and and they're you know using it and using it either for themselves or for their families and visiting to come over and provide that care for relatives on a flexible basis I think it the nature of what we grant when we grant a short-term let would be inappropriate in in this in this situation. Thank you council I would integrate what Colleagues have said I mean I do note that the applicant has stated that in the stair there are two existing short-term let's and the other one is a and the remaining property is a second home and therefore the impact on the immunity of neighbours would be minimal but we as far as I'm aware we don't have any evidence to support that claim and you know our guidance clearly says that common stairs we should you know the impact on neighbours is likely to be more or so yeah and you know I would just agree with Colleagues that the arguments being put forward to overturn the office decision are not are not strong in this case in particular I think the economic case has has really not been made in terms of the in terms of the loss of residential accommodation and so I think I'm in agreement with Colleagues that we should hold the officer's decision to refuse this I note that this is not a retrospective application therefore will therefore we don't need to consider whether a material change of use has occurred it is deemed to have occurred so our only question is whether or not we uphold the officer's decision and I think the consensus of it seems to be that we should do so is anybody of a contrary view no officers decision are held thank you application refused and that concludes the business thank you thank you. a very important question. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.