Thread by @CllrChasBooth

I’ve had some time to reflect on today’s decision of Edinburgh’s development management sub-committee (DM Sub) to grant a short term let (STL) application in Blair Street, central Edinburgh.

The application was approved by 6 votes to 5.

🧵 1/

I moved refusal: contrary to NPF4 policy 30e)ii)
“Devt proposals for reuse of existing bldgs for short term holiday letting will not be supported where proposal will result in […] loss of residential accom where such loss not outweighed by demonstrable local econ benefits.” 2/n

Sometimes planning policies can be worded in vague language: “having regard to…”, “should accord with…”, “on suitable sites…”, “complies with guidance…” etc.

The wording of this policy is absolutely clear: “will not be supported”

3/n

It’s also important to note that NPF4, since its adoption by the Scottish Government last month, forms part of our development plan. It is *not* merely guidance, as one committee member suggested today.

4/n

The report made clear this application did not comply with NPF 4 policy 30.

No “demonstrable economic benefits” were proven.

This flat was previously residential. Granting this application has resulted in the loss of a home.

5/n

We should remember this policy, and policy Hou 7 in the forthcoming City Plan, were *specifically* put in place to address the impact STLs are having on spiralling rents in Edinburgh.

If we want to relieve pressure on rents, we have to reduce the number of STLs.

6/n

So given we *finally* have the tools to address STLs through the planning system, and today’s application was the first case to come to committee since NPF4 was approved, why did the majority of committee not use the tools we have to refuse?
🤷‍♂️
You’d need to ask them.
6/n