The Planning Local Review Body (Panel 1) of City of Edinburgh Council met on 10 September 2025 to consider requests for review of planning decisions. Councillor David Key, Councillor Joanna Mowat, Councillor Alys Mumford, Councillor Hal Osler and Councillor Tim Pogson were scheduled to attend the meeting. The panel was expected to discuss requests to review planning decisions relating to a change of use for a flat on Barony Street and the construction of a garage and garden store on Promenade, Edinburgh.

31 Barony Street, Edinburgh

The panel was scheduled to consider a request to review a planning application for a change of use from a residential flat to short-term let at 31 Barony Street in Edinburgh. The applicant, Mr Kolyo Dimov Nunkov, submitted the review due to the planning authority's failure to determine application 25/02588/FULSTL within the statutory 8-week period. Mr Nunkov stated that the proposal complies with all relevant short-term let policies and regulations, and that the flat is not a principal residence, is on the first floor with a separate main door entrance, and has been prepared for compliant short-term let use with minimal impact on neighbours or the conservation area.

Supporting documents included a planning statement for short-term let use, a noise impact statement, a short-term let management plan, an access and safety statement, and an energy report. The noise impact statement noted that the property is a ground floor flat with its own private entrance, and that the majority of surrounding ground floor properties are already in business or commercial use, reducing the risk of disruption to residential neighbours. The management plan stated that guests will be required to respect neighbours and keep noise to a minimum, especially during quiet hours (10pm to 8am), and that a responsible person will be available 24/7 to respond to any issues that may arise.

77 Promenade, Edinburgh

The panel was scheduled to consider a request for review regarding the construction of a free standing garage and garden store at 77 Promenade. The original application, 25/00437/FUL, was refused, and this decision was under review.

The applicant, Mr David Harcourt, stated that the initial application (24/02967/FUL) for a similar structure was previously refused on two grounds: that the proposed increase in the width of the vehicle access was contrary to NPF4 Policy 7¹ and non-compliant with Section 59 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997², and that the proposed roof form would adversely affect the setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of the conservation area, contrary to NPF4 Policy 7 and non-compliant with Sections 59 and 64 of the above Act.

Mr Harcourt stated that these concerns were addressed in the subsequent application (25/00437/FUL) as follows: no increase to the width of the existing vehicle opening was proposed, and the roof design was amended to ensure it would not be visible above the existing stone boundary wall. Despite these revisions, application 25/00437/FUL was refused again, this time on the basis of design and setting issues that were not raised during the assessment of the initial application.

Mr Harcourt stated that the handling report said:

The proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the listed building and its setting. The design, form, and positioning of the proposed garage would result in an incongruous addition within the grounds. The relationship between the main house and the former hall would be disrupted by the large modern garage, which would obscure views of the former hall—a listed element—due to its proximity and mass. Although the roof would only slightly project above the boundary wall to the east, it would rise towards the main building to the west, obstructing views of and from the listed building, particularly the stained glass window on the north elevation of the former hall.

Mr Harcourt argued that these comments do not acknowledge that, prior to recent works, the former hall and its stained glass window were not visible from the Promenade, being concealed by an earlier extension, and that views of the hall were only possible when the gates were open. Furthermore, future views will be altered by the creation of a new vehicle gate and the glasshouse extension approved under application 23/06611/FUL. He also noted that the scale of the proposed building has not changed significantly from the previous application, and yet these concerns were not raised at that time.

Other items

The agenda also included:

• Appointment of a Convener for the meeting.
• Order of business.
• Declaration of interests.
• Approval of the minute of the Local Review Body (Panel 1) of 13 August 2025.
• A note of the outline procedure for consideration of all Requests for Review.
• Extracts of relevant policies from the Edinburgh Local Development Plan.
• Non-statutory guidance.