Short-term let accommodation at PF1 9 Marchmont Street, Marchmont, Edinburgh
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Edinburgh Development Management Sub-Committee on 5 Nov 2025.
What was proposed
Retrospective permission was sought to change a residential flat into short-term let accommodation, with no external or internal alterations.
“Planning permission is sought for a retrospective change of use from residential flatted dwelling to a short term let (sui generis). No external or internal alterations are proposed.”
“The application form details that the use of the property as a short term let started in July 2020.”
Officer report
The site
The property is a two-bedroom ground-floor flat in a listed tenement, sharing an entrance and garden with other dwellings.
“The application property is a ground-floor flatted dwelling within a 4-storey, 4-bay tenement. It comprises two bedrooms, a living room, dining room, utility room, kitchen, and bathroom. Access is via a communal main door shared with seven other flatted dwellings and the property has direct access from its kitchen at the rear to the communal garden for the tenement.”
“The property forms part of a category B listed building (reference: LB30573, date of listing: 19/03/1993) and is in the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area.”
Officer report
Earlier application
An earlier application for a certificate confirming short-term let use was refused in October 2024.
“23/05544/CLESTL PF1 9 Marchmont Street Edinburgh EH9 1EL Application for the issue of a certificate of lawfulness confirming its existing use and a short-term let visitor accommodation. Refused 22 October 2024”
Officer report
Officers’ recommendation
Officers recommended refusal because the use would harm neighbouring amenity and the loss of residential accommodation was not justified by economic benefits.
“Conclusion in relation to the Development Plan…”
“The change of use of the property to an STL will have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity. 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.”
Officer report
Main planning concerns
Frequent visitors, shared access, garden use and servicing could disturb residents, while a 21-night minimum stay would not remove the amenity impact.
“The two bedroomed STL use would introduce an increased frequency of movement to the property and communal tenement hallway. It would enable visitors to arrive and stay at the property for a short period of time on a regular basis in a manner dissimilar to that of permanent residents.”
“Notwithstanding this, it remains that there would be a change of occupancy on a more regular basis than typical residential use. Given the property is in a tenement within a residential street and it has direct private access to a communal rear garden the proposed 21-night minimum stay would still result in the potential of an occupancy pattern that has a materially negative impact on neighbouring amenity.”
Officer report
Public comments
Twenty-two comments and a petition supported the proposal, while five objections raised amenity, security, community cohesion, parking and loss of housing concerns.
“− Negative impact on listed building status. − Negative impact on conservation area regarding the preservation of its residential character. − Residential area. − Detrimental effects on local amenity from noise and disturbance and negative impact on sense of security and community cohesion within the tenement block. − The shared garden further amplifies concerns regarding noise.”
Officer report
The committee’s decision
Planning permission was refused for the reasons set out in the officer recommendation.
“25/01104/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.”
Minutes
Councillors at the meeting
- Hal OslerChairLib Dem
- Joan GriffithsLabour
- David KeySNP
- Martha Mattos CoelhoSNP
- Max MitchellConservative
- Joanna MowatConservative
- Chas BoothSubstitute for MumfordGreen
- Margaret Arma GrahamSubstitute for PogsonLab Co-op
- Alex StaniforthSubstitute for ParkerGreen
- Edward ThornleySubstitute for LangLib Dem
Source: Plota analysis of the council's minutes; parties from the council's list of councillors.
Sources
- Edinburgh Development Management Sub-Committee minutes, 5 November 2025
- 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 5 November 2025
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended refusal
- Committee decided
- Refused
- Councillors
- 10Conservative 2Green 2Lib Dem 2SNP 2Labour 1Lab Co-op 1Show councillors
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Edinburgh committee decisions →
This committee's year
126 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 3 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.