THE owner of a North Berwick holiday flat refused permission to operate is fighting a bid to shut it down, after claiming that the service it offered had changed.

James Miller-Stirling was refused permission to carry on using the flat on Balfour Street as a short-term holiday let by East Lothian Council planners earlier this year after they ruled that it was not a "lawful" use.

He lost an appeal to Scottish Ministers to overturn the council decision but has lodged a fresh appeal against an enforcement notice issued by the council demanding it is no longer rented out.

In his latest appeal, agents for Mr Miller-Stirling argue that the circumstances of the flat have changed, as it is now only rented for a minimum of  seven days a week  – it was previously stated that stays were for four days or more.

And they say that any suggestion that cleaning the flat between visits was any more intense than cleaners being used by residents was untrue.

They say: “Given that any residential occupier might elect to make use of various cleaning services on a regular basis, it is not held that the servicing of the appeal property results in an intensified pattern of activity or movement when compared to any other residential use.”

The flat owner had applied for a certificate of lawfulness for the property, which would have meant that he did not need to apply for planning permission for a change of use; however, planners rejected the application.

Despite this, East Lothian Council licensing bosses issued a temporary licence to run the short-term let, a decision taken independent of planning.

READ MORE: Holiday let owner wins licence to operate

In the appeal against the enforcement notice, Mr Miller-Stirling’s agents hold up the licence as “a strong indicator that the property’s use does not result in public nuisance, nor generate valid or material complaints from neighbours”.

They argue that the change in the length of stay at the flat, which is only rented out for about 100 days a year, means that there can only be a maximum of 14 resident arrivals per year, which is no more disruptive than if it were used as a residential flat.

They say: "The appellant therefore contends that no material change of use has occurred.”

The case has been allocated to a Reporter for investigation.