Short-term let at Flat 2 1 Allanfield, Hillside, Edinburgh
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Edinburgh Development Management Sub-Committee on 27 May 2026.
What was proposed
The application sought retrospective permission to change a one-bedroom residential flat into a short-term let, without physical alterations.
“Proposal: Change of use from residential flat to short term let (retrospective).”
“The application is for the retrospective change of use of the property from a flatted dwelling to short term let. No internal or external physical changes are proposed. The applicant indicates on the application form that the operation of the property as a short- term let commenced on 15/7/2016.”
Officer report
The site
The flat is on the ground floor of a modern residential block and shares a communal street entrance with other properties.
“The application property is a one-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a contemporary three-storey block at 1 (Flat 2) Allanfield, Leith. The property shares its access to the street via a communal stair with other properties.”
“Allanfield is a modern development of three and four-storey apartment blocks. It is entirely residential and is accessed off Brunswick Road. Public transport links are accessible from the site.”
Officer report
Earlier applications
Two earlier certificate applications were refused, and an appeal against one refusal was dismissed.
“24/04572/CLESTL Flat 2 1 Allanfield Edinburgh EH7 5YG 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 3 April 2025”
“24/04572/CLESTL Flat 2, 1 Allanfield Edinburgh EH7 5YG. Short term let (change of use to short term let took place within the last 10 years but is not a material change of use). Refused 03.04.2025. Subsequently appealed to the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA). DPEA dismissed the appeal 10.09.2025.”
Officer report
What officers recommended
Officers recommended refusal because the short-term let would harm neighbouring amenity and its economic benefits did not outweigh 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 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’ transient activity and additional servicing were considered likely to increase disturbance, while the economic case did not justify losing a home.
“The character of the immediate area is predominantly residential. Although it is noted that the property is a compact flat with one bedroom, its location on the ground floor of a three-storey tenement means guests have to share the ground floor landing and main door with other residential properties.”
“The additional servicing that operating a property as an STL requires compared to that of a residential use is also likely to result in an increase in disturbance, further impacting on neighbouring amenity. However, this would be of lesser impact as it is likely that servicing would be conducted during the daytime.”
Officer report
Consultation and publicity
No consultations were undertaken, while neighbour notification generated 26 representations.
“Date of Neighbour Notification: September 2025 Date of Renotification of Neighbour Notification: Not Applicable Press Publication Date(s): Not Applicable Site Notices Date(s): Not Applicable Number of Contributors: 26”
Officer report
What people said
Twenty-four representations supported the proposal and two objected, raising issues including amenity, housing stock, planning policy and economic benefits.
“A total of 26 representations have been received, 24 in support and two objections.”
“- Negative impact on residential amenity. - Negative impact on housing stock. - Incompatible with the Development Plan. - Loss of residential is not outweighed by local economic benefits.”
Officer report
The committee’s decision
The committee refused planning permission for the reasons set out in the officer report.
“25/04872/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, 27 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 27 May 2026
- 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
247 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 2 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.