Glasgow Airbnb owner has been ordered to STOP having paying guests for short stays

The owner of the Woodlands Terrace apartment has turned the property into a ‘5-star’ getaway after spending ‘a large sum of money’ improving it.

But Glasgow City Council issued an enforcement order following a complaint from a resident.

Planners ruled the renting of the flat near Kelvingrove Park was an “unauthorized use of a traditional residential property as short-term accommodation”.

The Scottish Government upheld the council’s decision last week after landlord Sheraz Ramzan appealed to its planning and environmental appeals division.

In a letter to the department in response to requests for information, Mr Ramzan said: ‘I bought the property last year in poor condition and spent a large sum of money transforming what was a dilapidated apartment into a luxury apartment using high-end products. materials and furnishings.

“The renovation has significantly improved the value of the property and also created a 5 star environment for all visiting clients. I think it also reflects very positively on the whole building and development. »

Apartment 6, which has one bedroom with a double bed, is located in the basement of a building at 22 Woodlands Terrace.

Mr Ramzan told the government reporter who visited the site that there were on average two bookings a week with a guest or couple staying up to three nights.

Explaining why it took action, the council said: ‘The use of traditional residential accommodation in a property which shares access with other properties contributes to the inconvenience of those properties and does not comply with the policy of layout. It is therefore considered to be in the public interest to take enforcement action.

He ordered the “cessation of the use of the property as short-stay accommodation”. Mr Ramzan appealed on the grounds that the items set out in the notice “do not constitute a breach of planning control” and that the order to stop providing short-term accommodation went beyond what was necessary. The Government Reporter concluded that the appeal failed on these grounds.

The rapporteur said: “I believe that the frequency of use and the associated service activity distinguishes the use of premises from the use of an apartment for residential purposes. I also consider that the proximity of the apartment to others in the same building, with shared means of access, means that this additional coming and going is likely to harm the residential amenity to which the neighbors are in right to wait.

To address the council’s concerns, Mr Ramzan offered to avoid using the common main entrance to get to the flat with access granted through the back door instead, which would only see visitors pass through by a single apartment. But the reporter said that “this would not resolve the potential negative impact on the residential equipment of the residents of the apartment mentioned by the caller”.

The reporter added, “Having also concluded that the alternative access terms proposed by the appellant would not remedy the breach of control, I also conclude that only cessation of the unauthorized use would meet the purpose of the notice of execution.”