Residents launch court action against 'super hostel' in Edinburgh's New Town

The proposal to convert the four Category A-listed townhouses at 14-17 Atholl Crescent, into a hotel with “capsule pods” was approved on appeal by a Scottish Government planning reporter in July.

But now residents who fought the plans have lodged a Statutory Appeal at the Court of Session, seeking to quash the reporter's decision.

There were more than 280 objections to the plans for the Category A-listed building which was previously the headquarters of law firm Brodies.

The campaigners argued the development represented inappropriate, high-density tourist accommodation in an important part of the city's World Heritage Site.

And they believe the reporter’s decision could set an unwelcome precedent and risks opening the door for developers to force controversial tourist accommodation into some of Edinburgh’s most sensitive heritage sites.

Applicants Atholl Crescent Propco Ltd appealed to the Scottish Government after the council’s deadline for reaching a decision had passed, before it had reached Edinburgh’s Development Management Sub-Committee. As a result, councillors never had the opportunity to vote on the proposals.

The Statutory Appeal asks the Court of Session to consider a series of questions of law, including whether the reporter erred in law, failed to have regard to material considerations, failed to interpret development plan policy properly and whether the decision should be quashed.

It argues that the reporter considered the expired 2017-2022 World Heritage Site Management Plan rather than the current 2025-2035 plan, which the residents say contains material differences.

And it raises questions over the scale of the development. Although the proposals have consistently been presented as providing approximately 544 beds, the appeal argues that the planning permission contains no restriction on the number of beds or pod units which could ultimately be provided.

The reporter concluded that the number of beds within a Class 7 hotel could not be controlled through the planning process, but the appeal argues that conditions restricting the number of beds, pods and rooms containing pods could have been imposed and that without them there is no restriction on the development’s overall bed capacity.

The appeal also raises questions about the assessment of the impact on nearby residents and refers to previous decisions involving much smaller short-term visitor accommodation proposals in the surrounding area.

Philip Flockhart, conservation architect and spokesperson for the residents, said: “The decision to pursue a Court of Session challenge has not been taken lightly and the legal arguments will now be considered through that process.

“The wider issue, which goes beyond one development, is that this was an exceptionally large and complex proposal and Edinburgh’s elected Development Management Sub Committee never had the opportunity to consider it.

“We have sympathy with planning officers working under enormous pressure. The question is whether the current system gives councils and communities sufficient protection when major applications reach a statutory deadline before local democratic scrutiny has taken place.

“Edinburgh needs investment and it needs places for visitors to stay. This is not about opposing appropriate development or tourism. It is about making sure people can have confidence in how major planning decisions are made.”

Councillor Hal Osler, convener of the sub-committee, said she was “deeply disappointed” that they had not been given the chance to determine the application.

She said: “This was an extremely complicated application that required both planning permission and listed building consent. The statutory decision-making timescale for both applications is set at two months.

“Prior to the agent exercising their right to appeal non-determination, the officer sought to agree an extension of time with the agent to allow submission of additional information to support the assessment.”

Edinburgh South West Labour MP Scott Arthur said he was deeply disappointed by the decision to approve the application.

He said: “The scale and 24-hour nature of the proposal raises legitimate concerns around residential amenity, noise, safety and the impact on the surrounding area. I respect the planning process and the role of the reporter, but I continue to stand with residents who have raised serious and reasonable concerns about this development.”