Short-term let accommodation at Flat 14 2 North Pilrig Heights, Pilrig, Edinburgh

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Edinburgh Development Management Sub-Committee on 19 Nov 2025.

25/01570/FULSTLRefused

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission to change a two-bedroom flat from residential use to short-term let accommodation, without physical changes.

“The application property is second floor flat within an eight-storey modern residential block. It comprises two bedrooms a living room, kitchen, two bathrooms and a balcony. Access is via a communal entrance and stairwell/elevator shared with other residential properties.”

“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 application form states that the short stay use commenced on 02/10/2021.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The flat is in an eight-storey residential block with shared access, in an area mainly characterised by residential development and low night-time activity.

“The immediate surrounding area of Pilrig Heights North and Pilrig Heights is residential in nature and is characterised by low levels of on-street activity which reduces at night. Pilrig Heights is bordered by Rosebank Cemetery to the north east, while a former railway line separates the site from further flatted development and a church to the south west. The wider surrounding area is also predominately residential.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and enforcement

An earlier lawfulness application was refused, an appeal was dismissed, and two alleged-use cases were closed with different outcomes.

“23/05025/CLESTL Flat 14 2 North Pilrig Heights Edinburgh EH6 5FE Application for a certificate of lawfulness for a short-term let. Refused 5 June 2024”

“CLUD-230-2134 Flat 14 2 North Pilrig Heights Edinburgh EH6 5FE Appeal against decision issued under certificate of lawfulness application 23/05025/CLESTL”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the use would harm residential character and neighbouring amenity, while economic benefits did not justify losing residential accommodation.

“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 the residential character of the area and 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

Officers’ main assessment

Short-term visitors would increase movement and potentially noise, and management arrangements could not fully control guest behaviour in the shared residential setting.

“The STL use would result in an increased frequency of movement to and from the building's shared entrance, stairwell/elevator, and vicinity. The use would enable visitors to arrive and stay at the premises for a short period of time on a regular basis throughout the year in a manner dissimilar to that of permanent residents.”

“Details surrounding the management of the property as an STL have been provided, however, only limited regard can be given to this. The operator is unable to have complete control over the behaviour of guests as there is no full-time on-site management presence.”

Officer report

Public views

Thirty-seven representations were received: 25 supported the proposal and 12 objected to it.

“A total of 37 representations have been received, 25 in support and 12 objections. A summary of the representations is provided below.”

“− Impact on amenity, safety, and security concerns. − Impact on local community. − Impact on parking. − Impact on housing stock.”

Officer report

Reasons people gave

Objectors cited amenity, safety, security, community, parking and housing concerns; supporters cited economic and tourism benefits and limited amenity impact.

“− Economic benefit of STL use. − Positive impact on tourism. − Well-located. − No amenity impact. − STLs provide alternative accommodation to hotels.”

Officer report

The committee’s decision

Planning permission was refused for the reasons set out in the officer report.

“25/01570/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

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)

This committee's year

150 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →