Short-term let accommodation at 9 Milton Street, Abbeyhill, Edinburgh
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Edinburgh Development Management Sub-Committee on 19 Nov 2025.
What was proposed
The application sought retrospective permission to use a two-bedroom flat as short-term let accommodation, without physical changes.
“The application property is a two-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a four-storey tenement block at 9 Milton Street, Abbeyhill. The property has its own main door entrance and has access to a rear garden area.”
“The application is for the change of use of the property from a flatted dwelling to short term let (sui generis). No internal or external physical changes are proposed. The application form states that the operation of the property as a short term let commenced on 1 July 2017. The application is therefore retrospective.”
Officer report
Earlier applications
An earlier retrospective change-of-use application was refused, while an application for a certificate of lawfulness was withdrawn.
“23/06070/CLESTL 9 Milton Street Edinburgh EH8 8EZ Application for the issue of a certificate of lawfulness confirming its existing use as short-term let visitor accommodation. withdrawn 15 May 2024”
“22/03742/FUL 9 Milton Street Edinburgh EH8 8EZ Change of use from a flat (sui generis) to short-term let (sui generis) (retrospective). Refused 25 October 2022”
Officer report
What officers recommended
Officers recommended refusal because the use would harm neighbouring amenity and the loss of residential accommodation was not justified.
“It is recommended that this application be Refused subject to the details below.”
“The change of use of this property to a short-term let (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
Visitors’ movement, servicing and transient occupation were expected to harm living conditions, while claimed economic benefits did not outweigh losing a home.
“Although the application property has its own main entrance door, the character of the immediate area is predominantly residential. The use of this property as an STL would introduce an increased frequency of movement to the property, the rear garden area, and the public footpath in front of the main tenement block.”
“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.”
Officer report
Consultation and publicity
No consultations were undertaken, and neighbour notification produced 23 contributors.
“Date of Neighbour Notification: March 2025 Date of Renotification of Neighbour Notification: Not Applicable Press Publication Date(s): Not Applicable Site Notices Date(s): Not Applicable Number of Contributors: 23”
Officer report
What people said
Twenty-one comments supported the application, while two objected over amenity, housing and whether economic benefits justified losing a home.
“− Brings economic benefits. − There will be no negative impact on residential amenity. − The STL use will comply with licensing requirements.”
“− Negative impact on residential amenity (including community cohesion). − Negative impact on housing stock. − Not aligned with City Plan 2030. − No evidence that local economic benefits of STL use outweigh loss of housing.”
Officer report
The committee decision
Planning permission was refused for the reasons set out in the report.
“25/01406/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
Reasons for refusal
The proposal was considered harmful to nearby residents’ living conditions and an unacceptable loss of residential accommodation.
“The proposal is contrary to Local Development Plan Policy Hou 6 in respect of Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas, as the use of this property as a short term let will have a materially detrimental effect on the living conditions and amenity of nearby residents.”
“The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policy 30(e) in respect of Local Amenity and Loss of Residential Accommodation, as the use of this property as a short term let will result in an unacceptable impact on local amenity and the loss of a residential property has not been justified.”
Officer report
Sources
- Edinburgh Development Management Sub-Committee minutes, 19 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 19 November 2025
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended refusal
- Committee decided
- Refused
- 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
150 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.