Short-term let at 1F3 98 Montgomery Street, Edinburgh
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Edinburgh Development Management Sub-Committee on 30 Sept 2026.
What was proposed
The application sought retrospective permission to change a residential flat into a short-term let, with no physical changes proposed.
“The application is for the retrospective change of use of the property from a flatted dwelling to short term let (STL). No internal or external physical changes are proposed.”
“The applicant indicates on the application form that the operation of the property as an STL commenced in August 2017.”
Officer report
The site
The property is a two-bedroom first-floor flat in a tenement, sharing a communal stair with eight other flats in a predominantly residential street section.
“The application property is a first-floor flatted dwelling within a four storey terraced tenement block on the south side of Montgomery Street. It comprises two bedrooms, a living room, and kitchen and is accessed via a shared communal stair alongside eight other flatted dwellings at 98 Montgomery Street.”
“Below the property is a dental clinic and above and to both sides is flatted dwellings. The wider area comprises mixed use busy locations, however the character of the section of the street that the property is located on is predominantly residential. Public transport links are in close proximity to the property.”
Officer report
Earlier applications
Earlier short-term-let applications were refused, and an appeal against one refusal was dismissed in August 2025.
“23/05562/CLESTL 1F3 98 Montgomery Street Edinburgh EH7 5HE Short term let (change of use to short term let took place with the last 10 years but it is not material change of use). Refused 10 June 2024”
“24/04339/CLESTL 1F3 98 Montgomery Street Edinburgh EH7 5HE Short term let (change of use to short term let took place within the last 10 years but is not material change of use). Refused 7 February 2025”
Officer report
What officers recommended
Officers recommended refusal because the use would harm neighbouring amenity, would lose housing without sufficient justification, and conflicted with development plan policies.
“The change of use of the property to a short term let (STL) would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity, and the loss of the residential accommodation has not been justified. Whilst it is recognised that there is an economic benefit to the City as a whole from the provision of tourist accommodation, in this case it does not outweigh the adverse impact on residential amenity or the loss of residential accommodation.”
“Overall, the proposal does not comply with the Development Plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conclusion. The proposal is unacceptable.”
Officer report
Main planning concerns
The use would increase movement, disturbance and noise through the shared stair, while the economic benefits did not outweigh the loss of residential accommodation.
“To comply with the policy, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the STL use will deliver economic benefits; rather, it must be demonstrated that the economic benefits associated with any individual application are significant enough that they warrant the loss of a home, and the economic and other benefits associated with this.”
“Given the declared housing emergency and pressures on residential accommodation in Edinburgh, in addition to the economic and societal benefits that residential accommodation in the City brings in terms of people being able to live, work and contribute to their community, significant weight has to be given to the retention of existing residential accommodation.”
Officer report
What people said
There were 24 representations: 21 supported the proposal and three objected, including comments about economic benefits, amenity and housing loss.
“The application received 24 representations. This includes 21 support comments and three objection comments. One of the objections is from Leith Central Community Council. Another of the objections makes comments in support of the proposal.”
“- The proposal can have an acceptable impact on neighbouring amenity by being properly managed and following any conditions set by the Council. - STL use of the property will result in economic benefit which outweighs the loss of residential accommodation.”
Officer report
The decision
Planning permission was refused for the reasons set out in the officer report.
“26/02623/FULSTL - Report by the Chief Planning Officer To REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in section C of the report by the Chief Planning Officer. 4.4 – 5 East Werberside, Edinburgh, EH4 1SU.”
Minutes
Councillors at the meeting
- Hal OslerChairLib Dem
- Max MitchellVice-ChairConservative
- Christopher CowdyConservative
- Joan GriffithsLabour
- David KeySNP
- Martha Mattos CoelhoSNP
- Amy McNeese-MechanSNP
- Tim PogsonLabour
- Euan DavidsonSubstitute for LangLib Dem
- Alys MumfordSubstitute for StaniforthGreen
- Ben ParkerSubstitute for BoothGreen
Source: Plota analysis of the council's minutes; parties from the council's list of councillors.
Sources
- Edinburgh Development Management Sub-Committee minutes, 30 September 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Edinburgh's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Council
- Edinburgh
- Date
- Wednesday 30 September 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended refusal
- Committee decided
- Refused
- Councillors
- 11SNP 3Conservative 2Green 2Labour 2Lib Dem 2Show councillors
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- View application →
- All decisions
- Edinburgh committee decisions →
This committee's year
268 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 4 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.