Short-term let flat at Flat 2 9 Gilmore Place, Tollcross, Edinburgh
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Edinburgh Development Management Sub-Committee on 13 May 2026.
What was proposed
The application sought retrospective permission to change a two-bedroom flat from residential use to a short-term let.
“Application for Planning Permission STL Flat 2, 9 Gilmore Place, Tollcross.”
“Proposal: Retrospective change of use of flat to STL.”
Officer report
The site
The property is a 69-square-metre first-floor flat in a traditional tenement, sharing its entrance and stairwell with another flat.
“The application property comprises a two-bedroom, first floor flat within a traditional residential tenement building. The approximate floor area of the property is 69 square metres (sq m). Access is via a ground floor entrance and stairwell which is shared with another residential property (Flat 1, 9 Gilmore Place). It is located on the south side of Gilmore Place, close to its junction with Leven Street.”
“The surrounding area is of a mixed character, with the north side of Gilmore Place featuring various commercial uses at street level with tenement flats above. Nearby Leven Street has a number of bars and restaurants, as well as the King's Theatre and Cameo Cinema, which leads to a high degree of activity throughout the day and into the evening.”
Officer report
Earlier applications
An earlier short-term-let application for the flat was refused in July 2024, while a separate application for another flat remains pending.
“23/05211/FULSTL Flat 2 9 Gilmore Place Edinburgh EH3 9NE Retrospective change of use from flat (Sui Generis) to short-term let (Sui Generis). Refused 2 July 2024”
“25/03308/FULSTL Flat 1, 9 Gilmore Place Tollcross Edinburgh EH3 9NE Proposed change of use of residential flat to STL (sui generis). Pending consideration…”
Officer report
Officers’ recommendation
Officers recommended refusal because the short-term let 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 loss of residential accommodation.”
Officer report
Main planning concerns
The use would increase movement and disturbance in the shared building, while claimed economic benefits did not outweigh losing a home.
“The use of this property as an STL would introduce an increased frequency of movement to the property through the shared stair, enabling 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.”
“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 22 representations were received following neighbour notification, press publication and site notices.
“Date of Neighbour Notification: 27 June 2025 Date of Renotification of Neighbour Notification: Not Applicable Press Publication Date(s): 4 July 2025 Site Notices Date(s): 1 July 2025 Number of Contributors: 22”
Officer report
What people said
Twenty-one comments supported the proposal, citing limited impact and economic benefits; one objection raised amenity and conservation-area concerns.
“- Property is in a mixed use area. - No negative impact on residential amenity. - Proposal complies with national and planning policy. - Proposal will result in an economic benefit. - Property has its main own door entrance. - Property is modest in scale.”
“- Negative impact on the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area. - Negative impact on residential amenity.”
Officer report
The committee’s decision
Planning permission was refused for the reasons set out in the refusal reasons: harm to local amenity and unjustified loss of a home.
“25/03305/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 DemFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
- Max MitchellVice-ChairConservativeFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
- Joan GriffithsLabourFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
- David KeySNPFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
- Martha Mattos CoelhoSNPFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
- Joanna MowatConservativeFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
- Alys MumfordGreenFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
- Chas BoothSubstitute for ParkerGreenFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
- Neil RossSubstitute for LangLib DemFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
The minutes record this decision with no vote against, so each member present for this item is shown as voting for it.
Source: Plota analysis of the council's minutes; parties from the council's list of councillors.
Sources
- Edinburgh Development Management Sub-Committee minutes, 13 May 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 13 May 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended refusal
- Committee decided
- Refused
- Councillors
- 9Conservative 2Green 2Lib Dem 2SNP 2Labour 1Show votes
- 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
228 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 5 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.