About this case

Case name

Saqib Deen T/A Apex Services v The Scottish Ministers

Case reference number

XA54/23

Date of hearing

Wednesday 2 October 2024

Time of hearing

10:30 until conclusion

Division

Extra Division

Judges

• Lord Pentland
• Lord Doherty
• Lord Armstrong

Agents and Counsel

For the Appellant (Saqib Deen)

• Agents: Drummond Miller LLP for Campbell & McCartney, Glasgow
• Counsel: Kristian Whitaker

For the Respondents (The Scottish Ministers)

• Agents: The Scottish Government Legal Directorate
• Counsel: Niall McLean, Solicitor Advocate

Case description

The appellant is the sole director and shareholder of Edinburgh Leith Guesthouse Limited. The company is the tenant of 11 Pilrig Street. The City of Edinburgh Council served two enforcement notices on the appellant, both dated 22 June 2023:

• Planning Enforcement Notice: unauthorised change of use from residential dwelling to guest house; requirement to cease using the property as a guest house; and
• Listed Building Enforcement Notice: without listed building consent partition walls were erected in the southernmost rooms at ground and first floor level; requirement to remove partition walls and restore rooms to previous condition and repair damage to cornice work.

The appellant appealed against both Notices to the respondents’ reporter under section 58 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 and section 239 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The reporter dismissed the appeals and directed the planning Enforcement Notice be upheld and refused to grant listed building consent. The appellant now appeals against the respondents’ decisions.

For the appellant, it is submitted that the reporter erred in law by failing to undertake an internal site visit before issuing his decision on the listed building appeal, and by wrongly categorising one of the subdivided rooms as a “principal room” when it was in fact a bedroom. With respect to the planning appeal, the appellant submits that the reporter erred in failing to conclude that the property could continue to operate as a guesthouse albeit with a smaller capacity.

The respondents maintain that the reporter’s decisions were exercises of planning judgement and do not amount to errors of law.