Letter to Housing Minister
Dear Paul, We are in contact with over 300 clients seeking advice on applying for a licence. I would be pleased to share first-hand experiences of the challenges they face. Having heard you on Radio Scotland the other day, I can assure you that matters aren’t progressing as smoothly as you might have been informed. Most clients are just beginning their application processes. A brief conversation with us would provide a candid account of the challenges they’re encountering and why many are turning to consultants for assistance, where they are not getting answers from local councils. This isn’t about scaremongering or over-dramatisation; the current situation is genuinely problematic, primarily due to the confused relationship between planning and licensing at the local authority level.
However accepting this trajectory, there are a few pressing issues that need attention. I would be grateful for a prompt response, preferably before Wednesday 9th August, as one particular concern regarding Glasgow is time-sensitive and may lead to further legal action.
The matters requiring Scottish Government intervention include:
-
Glasgow isn’t processing licence applications for ‘flats’ without a fully determined planning consent. Their online licensing system simply prevents the application from proceeding. This leads to two main issues:
a) This practice contradicts case law and Section 26 of the Planning Act. There’s no overarching reason for a flat to require planning permission; each instance should be judged individually.
b) Even if a flat does need a Certificate of Lawfulness (COL) or planning permission, a licence application shouldn’t be halted under the current transitional arrangement, which permits the suspension of an application, allowing a planning or COL submission within three months.
Could you urgently address this with Glasgow?
Moreover, other councils seem to have a similarly confused stance, advising that flats must need planning permission, which is just not a legal position to take. Hence, a comprehensive guidance note might be promptly necessary.
-
Numerous short term let properties in Scotland belong to expatriates who, although living abroad, consider these properties their primary UK addresses. Those individuals require access to their property when visiting the UK but consider their permanent residence overseas, albeit perhaps temporarily. There’s ambiguity regarding whether this constitutes a ‘home letting’ or ‘secondary letting’ situation and the exact definition of ‘principal residence’. Scottish Government guidelines are unclear, and all councils seem to be grappling with this issue.
-
The guidelines for ‘mid-term’ letting are ambiguous. Simply put, if a corporate client from London wishes to stay for three months, they can’t reside in a flat in Edinburgh or Glasgow. Both cities, our primary business hubs, aren’t approving planning permission for ‘holiday lets in flats’ for such durations, under the misunderstanding that all short term lets are only ‘holiday lets’ for very short stays. This creates complications, as landlords might incorrectly provide PRTs even when the ‘guest’ isn’t using the property as their principal home as required by a PRT. This complication and potentially illegal loophole in the legislation needs addressing at the Scottish Government level as businesses catering solely to these mid-term rental markets are shutting down. Someone staying for three months would not prefer the confines of a hotel or the costs of an aparthotel. These options were long available before Airbnb arrived.
There needs to be a pragmatic and legal route so that mid-term rentals can be offered, meeting all safety conditions, but without the unnecessary planning requirements, as I’m sure you will agree a stay for 3 months from London is not the same as a 2 night holiday let.
Separately, you might be aware of a new judicial review challenging Edinburgh Council’s interpretation of s26B and the mandatory requirement for planning permission for all, even retrospectively. I believe the Scottish Government’s stance aligns with our viewpoint on this issue, that the control area is not retrospective and planning is not an essential requirement for a licence, but may only be required if a material change of use occurred at the time.
We are more than willing to have a pragmatic discussion about these concerns and any other relevant topics. It’s vital, especially regarding the Glasgow issue, as legal challenges may arise if not addressed this week.