Glasgow homeowner ordered to stop using property as short-term let

A Possilpark homeowner must stop using his property as short-stay accommodation after an appeal failed.

Glasgow City Council served an enforcement notice on Gbenga Bibilari’s flat at 161 Auckland Street in May after public complaints.

Officials said the use of the flat as a short-term let was unauthorised and must stop.

Two planning applications had been rejected due to the “unacceptable” impact of the use on other residents in the building.

One refusal letter said there had been “incidents of anti-social behaviour and late-night noise and disturbance from tenants of the unauthorised short-stay flatted dwelling”.

Mr Bibilari appealed to the Scottish Government, but a reporter appointed by ministers upheld the enforcement notice last week. He can choose to appeal the ruling at the Court of Session.

The flat owner said there had been a tenant on a long-term contract since October 2023.

However, he admitted short-stay bookings have been allowed when the tenant is out of the UK.

Mr Bibilari also suggested there had been issues with the council’s handling of his application, and he hadn’t been made aware of the planning refusal.

The appeal continued: “We have operated the property without any negative impact whatsoever on the neighbours of the environment.”.

He said the home does not share an entrance or bins with other properties and there has never been anti-social behaviour.

In response, a council official said the enforcement notice had been served “following various public complaints and subsequent to two planning refusals”.

They added planning policy states proposals for “the reuse of existing buildings for short-term holiday letting will not be supported where the proposal will result in… an unacceptable impact on local amenity”.

“The use of a flat as short-stay accommodation… has the potential to result in conflict with mainstream residential flats in a block through regular influx of temporary residents as well as increased pressure on infrastructure and shared space.”

The council official also said there had been “attempts to contact the owner/occupier of the property in an effort to resolve this breach of planning control informally”.

“This correspondence has been unsuccessful and therefore it is considered that enforcement action is expedient and necessary to cease the use of the property as short-term letting accommodation,” they added.

The reporter, Andrew Fleming, found there had been a breach of planning control over the use of the two-storey ‘four-in-a-block residential building, which he said has its own main door entrance but shares an access path with other homes.

He reported: “The frequent arrival and departure of guests, the associated cleaning and servicing that would be necessary as a result, as well as the more frequent movements and activity, later in the evenings, differ from a typical domestic use.”

Mr Fleming said the applicant does not have “complete control over the behaviour of guests and cannot prevent noise and disturbance from occurring” as he doesn’t live at the property.

He added that Mr Bibilari claimed there had been no complaints about the short-stay use, but the council has received complaints. The reporter found a “significant variation from normal residential activity.”

Mr Fleming also stated the applicant had provided “no indication” as to why he believed the one-month compliance period with the enforcement notice was “not reasonable”.