A HOLIDAY flat owner has lost her bid to keep operating, despite local support for her "well-run" property, after concerns were raised over future ownership.

The owner of the ground-floor flat in North Berwick appealed after East Lothian Council’s planners refused a change of use for it to be used as a short term let.

And she produced five letters of support from fellow owners of homes next to her property on the town’s Kirk Ports.

However, a meeting of the council’s local review body heard that, while the flat might have been well managed over the last three years, that did not guarantee it would continue in the future.

The review body was told by its adviser to remember that properties changed hands and there was no guarantee of the behaviour of future owners.

East Lothian planners refused to grant a change of use for the flat to be used as a short-term holiday let in September last year, after ruling that a shared communal entrance with long-term residents in the block made it "incompatible" with the amenity of neighbours.

Neighbours back change

In a statement to the review body, the agent for the owner said: “Neighbours in the other properties have clearly stated that the holiday let has had no impact on their residential amenity – they support this retrospective change of use, which of course is no change to them anyway, as it is an existing short‐term let.”

Councillor Jeremy Findlay, review body chair and a local ward member, supported the appeal, saying that local businesses had also backed the use of the flat as a short-term let.

However, Councillor Shona McIntosh, fellow review body member, backed officers’ decision to refuse the change of use.

She told the meeting: “I note other people in the building do not object but we have to remember that properties change hands and others might not feel the same.

“We have a responsibility as planners to safeguard the amenity.”

Fellow review body member Councillor Andy Forrest agreed, adding: “I support the officers' decision. The problem I have is not with the current running of the property, it is what happens if it changes.”

The review body refused the appeal by two votes to one.