Strange goings-on in Marshall's Court
It may be a cock-up. It may be a conspiracy. Or it may just be the perfectly normal processes of local government seen through a glass darkly.
Nothing is ever entirely obvious when it comes to Edinburgh’s Licensing.
We’ll try and clarify what is a complex story, but be warned: as dark glasses go, this one is pure Guinness.
Prepare to be bemused
The detached 3-storey, 4-bdrm dwelling at 11 Marshall’s Court in Greenside was built in 2018. It was run from the outset as a short-term let (where loud parties caused considerable disturbance to neighbours for the next 2 years).
When the owner applied for retrospective planning permission for this change of use in 2023 (23/00927/FULST), they were refused. Officials said such a change would have a material and detrimental effect on the living conditions and amenity of nearby residents. The loss of residential property, they added, had not been justified.
The owner then turned to the Scottish Government but their appeal was refused in June 2023.
Still following?
As reported in September (Issue 343), the owner next applied for planning consent to demolish the structure and erect in its place a new (unspecified) 4-storey block of serviced apartments. The New Town and Broughton Community Council, the Cockburn Association and local residents were united in their opposition to this proposal; not least because the current structure is under 10 years old.
A planning decision on the matter has yet to be reached.
Lost the will to live?
Now, more recently still, the owner has successfully applied to the Licensing Board for a licence to run 11 Marshall’s Court as a short-term let (application 523318). This was granted last month.
As Spurtle understands it, if the applicant referred to the existing building, they would have struggled to prove (as required by STL Licensing Policy):
They had applied for planning permission (yes they did, but for retrospective planning permission for a change of use which was then refused).
They already had planning permission (planning permission was refused).
Planning permission is not required (but in this case it is).
If, however, the applicant was referring to the structure they propose to build, they have so far applied only for permission to demolish the existing structure. No detailed planning permission has been sought or granted for any replacement structure.
[Image: Car Spy, Wikipedia Creative Commons.]
Muddle and Maseratis
At least one official (involved with civic cases for the Licensing Subcommittee) in email correspondence seen by the Spurtle, has argued that it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure they comply with licence conditions during operation, and ‘with any other relevant statutory or regulatory regimes which may be applicable, including planning’.
In essence, enforcement would only follow unauthorised operation under an authorised licence. But then, why grant a licence for a business which can’t be authorised? Would you put a child in a Maserati and tell them not to touch the accelerator until they’ve passed their driving test?
It’s all rather baffling, and NTBCC members at their latest meeting, and elected representatives attending, were all suitably baffled.
They’re combining now to establish whether the STL licence was lawfully granted.
We'll report back if and when the fog lifts.
[Spurtle thanks Annick Gaillard of NTBCC for background information. All opinions in this article are those of the Editor alone.]
[Image top-right: Koolgiy at Wikimedia.]
*****
.jpg){kind=link}
