Development Management Sub Committee

Notice of meeting and agenda

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee

10.00 am Wednesday 17 August 2016

Dean of Guild Court Room, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh

This is a public meeting and members of the public are welcome to attend.

Contacts:

Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Tel: 0131 529 4261/0131 529 4085

1. Order of business

1.1 Including any notices of motion, hearing requests from ward councillors and any other items of business submitted as urgent for consideration at the meeting.

2. Declaration of interests

2.1 Members should declare any financial and non-financial interests they have in the items of business for consideration, identifying the relevant agenda item and the nature of their interest.

3. Minutes

3.1 Development Management Sub-Committee of 3 August 2016 (to follow) - submitted for approval as a correct record

4. General applications and miscellaneous business

The recommendations by the Head of Planning and Transport or other Chief Officers detailed in their reports will be approved without debate unless the Clerk to the meeting indicates otherwise during “Order of Business” at item 1 above. 4.1 18 Cambridge Avenue, Edinburgh – New house extension to the garden with external steps – application no 16/02622/FUL – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. 4.2(a) 62 Corstorphine High Street, Edinburgh (Corstorphine Primary School) – New build stand-alone nursery within the grounds of Corstorphine Primary School and the removal of existing stand-alone "prefabricated" buildings within the same grounds (as amended) – application no 16/02158/FUL - report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. 4.2(b) 62 Corstorphine High Street, Edinburgh (Corstorphine Primary School) – Removal of two temporary prefabricated building units currently sitting on the site – application no 16/02419/CON – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 7

4.3(a) Craighouse Road, Edinburgh (Napier University Craighouse Campus) – Reduction of the height of an existing chimney to the rear of the New Craig building which is leaning off the vertical and unsafe. Also to remove a set of gates and a gate pillar to allow construction traffic egress from the site on to Craighouse Road and to reinstate the original gates and gate pillar back in the original location – application no 16/02163/FUL – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. 4.3(b) Craighouse Road, Edinburgh (Napier University Craighouse Campus) – Reduction of the Chimney to the rear of the New Craig Building and temporary removal/reinstatement of the gates and gate pillar at the South entrance – application no 16/02164/LBC – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. 4.4 198 Lanark Road West, Edinburgh – Remove existing front decking and replace with clear glass extension on existing footprint (re-submission of 15/03419/FUL) – application no 16/02581/FUL – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be REFUSED. 4.5 5 New Street, Edinburgh – Conversion of former school house to 20 room hotel, including demolition of extension, and construction of glazed restaurant and external terrace – application no 16/01952/LBC – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. 4.6 3A Redhall Grove, Edinburgh (Longstone Primary School) – Erect a new build stand-alone nursery school building within the grounds of Longstone Primary School (as amended) – application no 16/1454/FUL) – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. 4.7(a) 8 (3F) Scotland Street, Edinburgh – Subdivide property from 3 bedroom 3rd floor residence to two 2 bedroom residences. – application no 16/02229/FUL) – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. 4.7(b) 8 (3F) Scotland Street, Edinburgh – Subdivide property from 3 bedroom 3rd floor residence to two 2 bedroom residences (as amended). – application no 16/02230/LBC – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 7

4.8(a) 19 St Leonard's Lane, Edinburgh – Change of use to distillery and extension to north end including ancillary uses, including exhibition and tasting areas, and associated retail sales area. Use of external yard for distillery related servicing, storage, community amenity space and occasional open air market or other events (as amended) – application no 16/01742/FUL) – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. 4.8(b) 19 St Leonard's Lane, Edinburgh – Conversion, alteration, and extension to existing building. Removal (outbuilding) of roof and pitched sections of gables, erect new entrance canopy – application no 16/01743/LBC) – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

5. Returning Applications These applications have been discussed previously by the Sub- Committee. The recommendations by the Head of Planning and Transport or other Chief Officers detailed in their reports will be approved without debate unless the Clerk to the meeting indicates otherwise during “Order of Business” at item 1 above.

None

6. Applications for Hearing

The Head of Planning and Transport has identified the following applications as meeting the criteria for Hearings. The protocol note by the Head of Interim Head of Strategy and Insight sets out the procedure. 6.1(a) Protocol Note – report by the Interim Head of Strategy and Insight (circulated) 6.1(b) 18 Whitehouse Road, Edinburgh – Proposed demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new care home and associated car parking (as amended) – application no 15/05434/FUL – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. 6.1(c) 18 Whitehouse Road, Edinburgh – Demolition of dwelling in a conservation area – application no 15/05435/CON – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 7

7. Application for Detailed Presentation The Head of Planning and Transport has identified the following applications for detailed presentation to the Sub-Committee. A decision to grant, refuse or continue consideration will be made following the presentation and discussion on each item. 7.1(a) 5 - 7 Regent Road (New Parliament House) – Project proposes conservation of Thomas Hamilton designed former Royal High School building to form new premises for St Mary's Music School. Combined with demolition of later ancillary buildings, space to the East is created for new residential, teaching/practice facility. Proposed new landscaped public garden to West. New basement created under Main Hall to provide new foyer giving access to public performance spaces above – application no 15/05662/FUL – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. 7.1(b) 5 - 7 Regent Road (New Parliament House) – Project proposes conservation of Thomas Hamilton designed former Royal High School building to form new premises for St Mary's Music School. Combined with demolition of later ancillary buildings, space to East is created for new residential, teaching + practice facility. To West, a new landscaped public garden is proposed. A new basement created located under the Main Hall to provide new foyer giving access to the public performance spaces above (as amended). – application no 15/05665/LBC – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. 7.2 65 West Harbour Road, Edinburgh – Approval of matters specified in condition 2 of outline application 01/00802/OUT covering siting and height of development, design and configuration of public and open spaces, access, road layouts, footpaths and cycle routes (Scheme 5) – application no 14/05305/AMC – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be APPROVED. 7.3 62 West Harbour Road, 11 Granton Square, Edinburgh – Application for approval of matters specified in condition 2 of outline application 01/00802/OUT covering siting and height of development, design and configuration of public and open spaces, access, road layouts, footpaths and cycle routes: Granton local shopping centre Masterplan – application no 16/01273/AMC – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 7 8. Returning Applications Following Site Visit

These applications have been discussed at a previous meeting of the Sub- Committee and were continued to allow members to visit the sites. None

9. Pre-Application Reports

No decisions will be taken on these applications at this meeting. Following a presentation by the Head of Planning and Transport, members will have the opportunity to ask questions and indicate key issues they would like the applicants to consider in their eventual application/s. Members will not express a view on the merits of the proposal/s. 9.1 1 Craigpark, Ratho (Craigpark Quarry) – Forthcoming application by Alex Brewster And Sons for restoration of former Craigpark Quarry for outdoor countryside and water related leisure and recreation, waterside development, visitor accommodation, access infrastructure and ancillary facilities – application no 16/03170/PAN – report by the Head of Planning and Transport (circulated)

Kirsty-Louise Campbell Interim Head of Strategy and Insight

Committee Members Councillors Perry (Convener), Lunn (Vice-Convener), Bagshaw, Balfour, Blacklock, Cairns, Cardownie, Child, Gardner, Heslop, Keil, McVey, Milligan, Mowat and Ritchie. Information about the Development Management Sub-Committee

The Development Management Sub-Committee consists of 15 Councillors and usually meets twice a month. The Sub-Committee usually meets in the Dean of Guild Room in the City Chambers on the High Street in Edinburgh. There is a seated public gallery and the meeting is open to all members of the public.

Further information A summary of the recommendations on each planning application is shown on the agenda. Please refer to the circulated reports by the Head of Planning and Transport or other Chief Officers for full details. Online Services - planning applications can be viewed online by going to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning - this includes letters of comments received. The items shown in part 6 on this agenda are to be considered as a hearing. The list of Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 7 organisations invited to speak at this meeting are detailed in the relevant Protocol Note. The Development Management Sub-Committee does not hear deputations. The Sub-Committee will only make recommendations to the full Council on these applications as they are major applications which are significantly contrary to the Development Plan.

If you have any questions about the agenda or meeting arrangements, please contact Committee Services, City of Edinburgh Council, Business Centre 2:1, Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG, 0131 529 4210 email [email protected] A copy of the agenda and papers for this meeting will be available for inspection prior to the meeting at the main reception office, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh. The agenda, minutes and public reports for this meeting and all the main Council committees can be viewed online by going to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings .

Webcasting of Council Meetings

Please note this meeting may be filmed for live and subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site, at the start of the meeting the Convener or the Clerk will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed.

You should be aware that the Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act 1998. Data collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council’s published policy including, but not limited to, for the purpose of keeping historical records and making those records available via the Council’s internet site.

Generally the public seating areas will not be filmed. However, by entering the Dean of Guild Court Room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the use and storage of those images and sound recordings and any information pertaining to you contained in them for web casting and training purposes and for the purpose of keeping historical records and making those records available to the public.

Any information presented by you at a meeting, in a deputation or otherwise, in addition to forming part of a webcast that will be held as a historical record, will also be held and used by the Council in connection with the relevant matter until that matter is decided or otherwise resolved (including any potential appeals and other connected processes). Thereafter, that information will continue to be held as part of the historical record in accordance with the paragraphs above.

If you have any queries regarding this, and, in particular, if you believe that use and/or storage of any particular information would cause, or be likely to cause, substantial damage or distress to any individual, please contact Committee Services on 0131 529 4210 or [email protected]

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 7 Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Application for Planning Permission 16/02622/FUL At 18 Cambridge Avenue, Edinburgh, EH6 5AP New House Extension to the Garden with external steps.

Item number Report number

Wards A12 - Leith Walk

Summary

The proposal is in accordance with the Edinburgh City Local Plan policies Des 11 (Alterations and Extensions) and Env 6 (Conservation Areas). It represents a minor departure from the non-statutory Guidance for Householders which is acceptable in this instance. The proposal is of an acceptable scale, form and design and will preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal will not result in an unacceptable loss of neighbouring amenity and no impact on equalities or human rights were identified. There are no material considerations that justify refusal.

Links Policies and guidance for LPC, CITD11, CITE6, NSG, NSHOU, NSLBCA,

this application CRPPIL,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 1 of 12 16/02622/FUL

Report

Application for Planning Permission 16/02622/FUL At 18 Cambridge Avenue, Edinburgh, EH6 5AP New House Extension to the Garden with external steps.

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below. Background

2.1 Site description

The application site is a two storey, mid terraced dwelling located on the north side of Cambridge Avenue. There is an existing single storey, flat roof outshot, attached to the rear elevation of the main house. The outshot is shared with the neighbouring property at 16 Cambridge Avenue. There is a small garden to the front and rear of the property. The surrounding area is predominantly residential.

This application site is located within the Pilrig Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

13 May 2016 - Planning permission refused for new house extension to the garden with external steps and boundary wall/fence (application reference: 16/01420/FUL).

Reasons for refusal:

1. The application is contrary to the non-statutory Guidance for Householders. The proposal by way of its disjointed relationship with the adjoining outshot extension would have an adverse impact on the character of the original house, introducing an incongruous addition to the original terraced property.

2. The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Env 6 in respect of Conservation Areas - Development, as it would introduce a feature that would disrupt the architectural cohesion and rhythm of the terrace. This proposal would not be in keeping with the spatial pattern of the area and if granted would result in the erosion to the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area. Main report

3.1 Description of the Proposal

The application proposes to construct a single storey extension and steps to the rear elevation of the dwellinghouse.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 12 16/02622/FUL

The flat roofed extension will measure approximately 3.50 metres in height. The extension is to be finished in smooth white render and will include two hardwood timber windows in the rear elevation and one hardwood timber glazed door in the side (east) elevation. The flat roof incorporates one projecting rooflight. The steps will be formed with paving stones.

This application includes a supporting statement. The supporting statement is available to view on the Planning and Building Standards online services. The statement refers to: - The key differences between this application and the previously refused planning application; and - An example of a similar extension in close proximity to the application site.

3.2 Determining Issues

Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states - Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of permission.

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?

If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:

a) The proposal is of an acceptable scale, form and design and will preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area; b) The proposal will result in an unacceptable loss to neighbouring amenity; c) Any impacts on equalities and human rights are acceptable; and d) Any comments raised have been addressed. a) Scale, form and design and conservation area

The Pilrig Conservation Area Character Appraisal states that the area is characterised by its varied street pattern and terraced properties, contrasted with the green space of Pilrig Park and Rosebank Cemetery. The scale is set by two storey housing. The character appraisal emphasises the similarity of proportions and terraced forms providing a unity of character to the area. The view down the private gardens between Cambridge Avenue and Cambridge Gardens is identified as a locally important key view.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 12 16/02622/FUL

Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Env 6 highlights the importance of preserving the character and appearance of the conservation area and that the materials used are appropriate to the historic environment.

The proposed extension will cover an additional 4 square metres of the rear garden and represents a modest addition to the dwellinghouse. The proposal, designed to tie in with the existing outshot, will be subservient to the main house and will not overwhelm the outshot. The proposal utilises a simple palette of materials that will be compatible with the host building and this part of the Pilrig Conservation Area. The character and appearance of the dwellinghouse will not be adversely changed as a result.

The non-statutory Guidance for Householders advises that there should be enough private garden space left after extensions - normally at least 9 metres depth, or 30 square metres. The proposed extension will not comply with this guidance as only 27.2 square metres of private amenity space will remain after development. The existing garden space has a depth of between 3.2 metres and 5.2 metres. The proposed extension is to the side of the existing outshot and the distance to the rear boundary will be 3.2 metres, the same as the existing outshot. Although this represents a relatively minor infringement of the non-statutory guidance, the proposal only results in the loss of 3.7 square metres of rear garden area.

There is a traditional development pattern along Cambridge Avenue and Cambridge Gardens, with a uniform rhythm of single storey outshot extensions. The proposal, by way of its modest and subservient scale, would not disrupt the architectural cohesion and rhythm of the terrace. A number of the existing outshots along the north side of Cambridge Avenue have been altered and extended in the past. In addition, there are many examples of similar extensions in the surrounding area, and the layout and scale of this proposal is in keeping with the spatial pattern of the area. The proposal will not result in unacceptable damage to local character, environmental quality or residential amenity and is in compliance with Edinburgh City Local Plan policies Des 11 and Env 6.

Policy Hou 4 relates to development on a more strategic basis or where proposals would change the density of housing within an area. In these circumstances it is not relevant.

The Pilrig Conservation Area Character Appraisal identifies the view down the private gardens between Cambridge Avenue and Gardens as a locally important key view. The modest extension will not be readily visible from this view point and as such will not dominate or detract from this vista. The proposed development will not result in the erosion of the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area.

The proposal is of an acceptable scale, form and design and will preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. b) Neighbouring amenity

The development satisfies the criterion in the non-statutory Guidance for Householders in respect to daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 12 16/02622/FUL

The proposal would not comply with the privacy requirements set out in the non- statutory Guidance for Householders, as it would introduce new windows that would be within nine metres of the common boundary. However, neighbouring gardens and windows are already overlooked by windows that fail that criterion. In these circumstances, the proposal will not result in an unreasonable loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.

The application site is within a residential area and the proposed development will not result in any noise, other than that which would be created by activities that are incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house.

The proposal will not result in an unacceptable loss to neighbouring amenity. c) Equalities and human rights

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. No impact was identified. An Equalities and Human Rights Impact Assessment has been completed. d) Public comments

Material Representations - Objection:

- The proposed development is contrary to local plan policies Env 6, Des 11 and Hou 4 - addressed in section 3.3 (a); - The proposed development is contrary to the non-statutory Guidance for Householders - addressed in section 3.3 (a); - The proposed development is contrary to the Pilrig Conservation Area Character Appraisal - addressed in section 3.3 (a); - The proposed development will result in the erosion of the character and appearance of this part of the Pilrig Conservation Area - addressed in section 3.3 (a); - The proposed development constitutes overdevelopment - addressed in section 3.3 (a); - The proposed development would not provide the recommended amount of private amenity space - addressed in section 3.3 (a); - The proposed development will disrupt the established pattern of development within the surrounding area - addressed in section 3.3 (a); - The proposed development would introduce an incongruous addition to the original terraced property - addressed in section 3.3 (a); - The architectural style and materials are out of character with this part of the conservation area - addressed in section 3.3 (a); - The proposed development is of an inappropriate scale - higher than the existing extension - addressed in section 3.3 (a); - The proposed development would not be within the recommended distance from the boundary - addressed in section 3.3 (b); - The proposed development will compromise the privacy and outlook of neighbouring properties - addressed in section 3.3 (b); - The proposed development will result in increased levels of noise - addressed in section 3.3 (b); - The proposed development will result in a loss of daylight - addressed in section 3.3 (b);

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 12 16/02622/FUL

- The proposed development will result in a loss of sunlight - addressed in section 3.3 (b).

Non-Material Representations:

- The application states that the extension at 12 Cambridge Avenue is similar. This is not a material planning consideration. Each planning application is assessed on its own merits.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposal is in accordance with the Edinburgh City Local Plan policies Des 11 (Alterations and Extensions) and Env 6 (Conservation Areas). It represents a minor departure from the non-statutory Guidance for Householders which is acceptable in this instance. The proposal is of an acceptable scale, form and design and will preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal will not result in an unacceptable loss of neighbouring amenity and no impact on equalities or human rights were identified. There are no material considerations that justify refusal.

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Informatives:-

It should be noted that:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

2. No development shall take place on the site until a 'Notice of Initiation of Development' has been submitted to the Council stating the intended date on which the development is to commence. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of planning control, under Section 123(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

3. As soon as practicable upon the completion of the development of the site, as authorised in the associated grant of permission, a 'Notice of Completion of Development' must be given, in writing to the Council. Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

There are no financial implications to the Council. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 12 16/02622/FUL

Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights. Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 07 June 2016 and nine letters of representation were received, all objecting to the planning application. These included comments from two local Councillors and Leith Central Community Council.

A full assessment of the representations can be found in the main report in the Assessment section.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 12 16/02622/FUL

Background reading/external references

To view details of the application go to;  Planning and Building Standards online services

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 8 of 12 16/02622/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision Edinburgh City Local Plan - Urban Area.

Date registered 24 May 2016

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01-07,

Scheme 1

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Peter Martin, Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 469 3664

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 9 of 12 16/02622/FUL

Links-Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Policy Des 11 (Alterations and Extensions) sets criteria for assessing alterations and extensions to existing buildings.

Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines.

Non-statutory guidelines ‘GUIDANCE FOR HOUSEHOLDERS' provides guidance for proposals to alter or extend houses or flats.

Non-statutory guidelines ‘LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS' provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

The Pilrig Conservation Area is characterised by its varied street pattern and terraced properties, contrasted with the green space of Pilrig Park and Rosebank Cemetery. The scale is set by two storey housing.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 10 of 12 16/02622/FUL

Appendix 1

Application for Planning Permission 16/02622/FUL At 18 Cambridge Avenue, Edinburgh, EH6 5AP New House Extension to the Garden with external steps.

Consultations

No Consultations received.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 11 of 12 16/02622/FUL

Location Plan

END.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 12 of 12 16/02622/FUL

Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Application for Planning Permission 16/02158/FUL At Corstorphine Primary School, 62 Corstorphine High Street, Edinburgh. New build stand-alone nursery within the grounds of Corstorphine Primary School and the removal of existing stand-alone "prefabricated" buildings within the same grounds (as amended).

Item number Report number

Wards A06 - Corstorphine/Murrayfield

Summary

The proposal is acceptable in principle, is of suitable quality in terms of design and form, choice of materials and positioning, and will not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal will not result in any unreasonable loss of amenity to neighbouring properties, and will not have any detrimental impact on road safety. No impact on equalities and human rights was identified.

The proposal complies with the Development Plan and the Council's non-statutory guidelines and is acceptable. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion. Links

Policies and guidance for CITCO3, CITD3, CITE12, CITE6, CITT4, CITT5,

this application NSGD02, NSP, CRPCOR,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 1 of 14 16/02158/FUL

Report

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below. Background

2.1 Site description

The site is Corstorphine Primary School and relates specifically to land in the eastern section of the school grounds, to the east of the main school building.

The school grounds extend to approximately 0.6 hectares and are relatively level. The existing school building is between two and three storeys in height and of a traditional pitched roof design. Two existing single storey buildings are located to the north western corner of the school grounds which are currently in use as a nursery.

The land specifically relating to the proposal comprises two single storey flat roof prefabricated building units which are not listed. These units are currently in use as a school canteen.

The school is currently accessed via Corstorphine High Street and Manse Street. The school's boundaries comprise a combination of walling, fencing, railings and vegetation.

The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, comprising a mix of one to three storey properties.

This application site is located within the Corstorphine Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

12 June 2012 - Planning permission granted for proposed 2 storey 857m2 extension to the rear of the existing school comprising 3 new classrooms, dining & kitchen facilities (as amended) (application number 11/03043/FUL).

16 November 2011 - Application withdrawn for a 2 storey extension to the rear of the existing school comprising 3 new classrooms, dining & kitchen facilities (application number 11/03078/FUL).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 14 16/02158/FUL

28 July 2009 - Enforcement investigation closed regarding erection of Portacabin style canteen building following assessment which concluded building is permitted development (case number 09/00550/EOPDEV).

Decision pending for conservation area consent for removal of two temporary prefabricated building units currently sitting on the site (application number 16/02419/CON). Main report

3.1 Description of the Proposal

The application is for the erection of a single storey stand-alone nursery building. As a result of this proposal, the existing prefabricated building units on the site will be removed.

The nursery will accommodate 50 children and will replace the existing nursery on the school site. The proposed nursery will accommodate the same number of children as the existing nursery.

The proposed building will have a footprint of approximately 338 square metres. It measures approximately 26 metres long by 13 metres wide with an eaves height of 3 metres and a ridge height of 6.8 metres. The building will be accessed via level entrances on the east and west facing elevations.

No trees require to be removed to accommodate the new building.

The proposed nursery building will be of a contemporary design with a pitched roof. External materials comprise cement cladding in various textures and a cement slate roof.

There will be no loss of parking as a result of the proposal and no new vehicular or cycle parking spaces are proposed.

The nursery shall be heated via an air source heat pump system.

Scheme 1

The original scheme proposed a window to the kitchen on the south facing elevation. The window has been replaced with a sunpipe.

Supporting Documents

The Applicant has submitted a Design Statement which is available to view via the Planning and Building Standards online services.

3.2 Determining Issues

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 14 16/02158/FUL

Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of permission.

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?

If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:

a) the proposal is acceptable in principle; b) the proposal will be of a suitable quality in terms of design; c) the proposal will have an adverse impact on the character of the conservation area; d) the proposal will result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to neighbouring properties; e) the proposal will adversely affect road safety, traffic and parking; f) the proposal will have any detrimental impact on equalities and human rights; and g) comments raised have been addressed. a) Principle

The site lies within the defined urban area and will continue to provide accommodation for the school within the existing site. The site is in a sustainable location accessible from the surrounding area by foot, bicycle and public transport.

Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP) Policy Com 3 (School Development) supports the provision of new school development on existing school sites where the site is easily and safely accessible on foot, by cycle and public transport.

The proposal is therefore acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other relevant ECLP policies. b) Design, Form, Materials and Positioning

The proposed nursery building is well located in relation to the main school buildings and will be accessible by foot through the school grounds from Manse Street and Corstorphine High Street. The spatial character of the surrounding area is varied, and the proposal will be in keeping with this character.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 14 16/02158/FUL

The proposal is of a contemporary and functional single storey design, is of a scale which will be subservient to the existing traditional school building, and will not detract from its character. The materials proposed reflect the contemporary nature of the proposal and will create interest within this part of the school grounds. A condition will be added for the submission of samples of the external materials prior to the commencement of the development to ensure a suitable finish.

No concerns are raised with regard to archaeology or flooding.

The proposal complies with ECLP polices Des 1 (Design Quality and Context), Des 3 (Development Design), Env 9 (Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance) and Env 17 (Flood Protection). c) Impact on Conservation Area

The Corstorphine Conservation Area Character Appraisal states:

Development in the historic core still demonstrates frequent changes in the building line and depths, steps in storey height and in ridge/eaves heights (even for properties with the same number of storeys), narrow separation over and along streets, pends and external staircases, low door and window heights giving a scale and mix of property more typically rural in character.

The removal of the existing flat roofed prefabricated building units represents a conservation gain.

Whilst the new nursery will not be readily visible from the historic core, its position, scale and design will not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area which is characterised by buildings of varying scales and types.

The proposal complies with ECLP Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas - Development). d) Amenity

The proposed building will not have any adverse impact on the daylight or sunlight experienced by surrounding properties as it is set at a sufficient distance away to meet the requirements set out in the Council's non-statutory guidance.

The closest residential property to the south has windows facing directly into the site. Concerns regarding the privacy experienced by this property in relation to the kitchen window on the south elevation of the nursery were raised with the Agent. The kitchen window was subsequently replaced with a roof level sun pipe, which removes privacy concerns. Window to window distances on the remaining boundaries are acceptable and in some cases, existing boundary vegetation restricts direct views towards neighbouring properties. The proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on privacy.

The proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the existing outlook of neighbouring properties, particularly given that existing pre-fabricated units are sited in a similar location to the proposed nursery.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 14 16/02158/FUL

No objections have been received from Environmental Assessment with respect to noise and disturbance or land contamination. Given the juxtaposition of the existing residential properties to the school, it is not considered that their amenity will be affected in any greater a degree from the building than the existing site.

The proposal complies with ECLP polices Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) and Des 3 (Development Design). e) Road Safety, Traffic and Parking

There will be no additional children or staff as a result of the proposal because it replaces an existing nursery on the site.

The Roads Authority raises no objections to the proposal with regard to road safety, traffic impact or parking.

The proposal complies with ECLP policies Tra 4 (Private Car Parking) and Tra 5 (Private Cycle Parking). f) Equalities and Human Rights Impacts

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. No impact was identified. g) Public Comments

Three representations have been received which raise objections to the proposal.

The objections are summarised as follows:

Material Representations - Objections

- Design inappropriate - this has been addressed in section 3.3(b) of the assessment; - Detrimental impact on daylight - this has been addressed in section 3.3(d) of the assessment; and - Noise - this has been addressed in section 3.3(d) of the assessment.

Non-Material Representations

- De-value property; - Noise and dust from construction process; and - No consultation with neighbours about erection of the existing pre-fabricated building units - the units were determined as permitted development under enforcement investigation 09/00550/EOPDEV.

Community Council

No comments were received.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 14 16/02158/FUL

Conclusion

The proposal complies with the Development Plan and the Council's non-statutory guidelines, and is acceptable. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Conditions:-

1. A detailed specification, including trade names where appropriate, of all the proposed external materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before work is commenced on site; Note: samples of the materials may be required.

Reasons:-

1. In order to enable the planning authority to consider this/these matter/s in detail.

Informatives:-

It should be noted that:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

4. Corstorphine Primary School has a Travel Plan dated 2011 highlighted, parking, congested roads, and school crossing patrol issues. The Plan should be updated to take account of the various changes on site.

5. The school is not part of the school streets pilot.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 14 16/02158/FUL

6. Current Council car parking standards for schools within this area (Zone 3a) permit a minimum of 0 spaces and a maximum of 1 space per 3 staff. The proposed application does not change parking provision on site and is considered to be acceptable. Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

All financial implications of this Council project are matters for consideration by Education, Children and Families Committee. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low. Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights. Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

Three representations have been received. These are summarised in section 3.1 of this report.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 8 of 14 16/02158/FUL

Background reading/external references

To view details of the application go to;  Planning and Building Standards online services

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 9 of 14 16/02158/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision The site is located within the Corstorphine Conservation Area.

Date registered 4 May 2016

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01 - 03, 04a, 05, 06a, 07 - 08,

Scheme 2

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Ruth King, Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 6475

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 10 of 14 16/02158/FUL

Links-Policies

Relevant Policies:

Policy Com 3 (School Development) sets criteria for assessing sites for new school development.

Policy Des 3 (Development Design) sets criteria for assessing development design.

Policy Env 12 (Trees) sets out tree protection requirements for new development.

Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas.

Policy Tra 4 (Private Car Parking) requires private car parking provision to comply with the parking levels set out in supplementary planning guidance, and sets criteria for assessing lower provision.

Policy Tra 5 (Private Cycle Parking) requires cycle parking provision in accordance with levels set out in supplementary guidance.

Non-Statutory guidelines Edinburgh Design Guidance supports development of the highest design quality and that integrates well with the existing city. It sets out the Council's expectations for the design of new development, including buildings and landscape, in Edinburgh.

Non-statutory guidelines on 'PARKING STANDARDS' set the requirements for parking provision in developments.

The Corstorphine Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the retention of the village character and vernacular architecture, the varied grain of the area, the retention of the informal street layout and footpath network, the consistency in the use of traditional materials, and the prevalence of residential uses.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 11 of 14 16/02158/FUL

Appendix 1

Consultations

Environmental Assessment

The applicant proposes the erection of a stand-alone nursery building within the grounds of Corstorphine Primary School, with the removal of an existing structure.

Residential dwellings border the school grounds, however, existing amenity is unlikely to be affected by this proposal, therefore, Environmental Assessment has no objection this proposed development.

Roads Authority

No objections to the application.

Note: - Corstorphine Primary School has a Travel Plan dated 2011 highlighted, parking, congested roads, and school crossing patrol issues. The Plan should be updated to take account of the various changes on site; - The school is not part of the school streets pilot; - Current Council car parking standards for schools within this area (Zone 3a) permit a minimum of 0 spaces and a maximum of 1 space per 3 staff. The proposed application does not change parking provision on site and is considered to be acceptable.

Archaeology

Further to your consultation request I would like to make the following comments and recommendations in respect to this application for a new build stand alone nursery within the grounds of Corstorphine Primary School and the removal of existing stand alone 'prefab' buildings within the same grounds.

The Victorian Corstorphine Primary School is located across the north-western limits of the historic medieval village of Corstorphine. Excavations undertaken by CFA Archaeology in 2012 as part of a school extension revealed a series of undated though probably 19th/20th lines of post holes and truncation as a result of the schools development of this part of the site.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 12 of 14 16/02158/FUL

This site is regarded as occurring within an area of archaeological potential in terms of late-medieval and later development of the village of Corstorphine. As such this application must be considered therefore under terms the Scottish Government Historic Environment Policy (SHEP), Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), PAN 02/2011 and also Edinburgh City Local Plan ENV9. The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.

Buried Archaeology

As stated the work will require extensive ground breaking works which could disturb significant remains relating to the development Corstorphine from the late-medieval period onwards. Accordingly it is recommended that a programme of archaeological work is carried out prior to development in order to excavate and record any significant remains that may be disturbed.

Accordingly is it is essential that the following condition is attached to this consent to ensure that undertaking of the above elements of archaeological work are undertaken.

'No demolition/development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured and implemented a programme of archaeological work (excavation, reporting and analysis and publication) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.'

The work must be carried out by a professional archaeological organisation, either working to a brief prepared by CECAS or through a written scheme of investigation submitted to and agreed by CECAS for the site. Responsibility for the execution and resourcing of the programme of archaeological works and for the archiving and appropriate level of publication of the results lies with the applicant.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 13 of 14 16/02158/FUL

Location Plan

END

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 14 of 14 16/02158/FUL

Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Application for Conservation Area Consent 16/02419/CON At Corstorphine Primary School, 62 Corstorphine High Street, Edinburgh. Removal of two temporary prefabricated building units currently sitting on the site.

Item number Report number

Wards A06 - Corstorphine/Murrayfield

Summary

The removal of the existing prefabricated buildings is acceptable on the basis that it will not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal complies with Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP) Policy Env 5 (Conservation Areas - Demolition of Buildings) and Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement (HESPS).

The proposal is acceptable and there are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

Links

Policies and guidance for CITE5, NSLBCA, CRPCOR,

this application

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 1 of 10 16/02419/CON

Report

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below. Background

2.1 Site description

The site is Corstorphine Primary School and relates specifically to land in the eastern section of the school grounds, to the east of the main school building.

The land specifically relating to the proposal comprises two single storey flat roof prefabricated building units which are not listed. These units are currently in use as a school canteen.

The school is currently accessed via Corstorphine High Street and Manse Street. The school's boundaries comprise a combination of walling, fencing, railings and vegetation.

The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, comprising a mix of one to three storey properties.

This application site is located within the Corstorphine Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

16 November 2011 - Application withdrawn for a 2 storey extension to the rear of the existing school comprising 3 new classrooms, dining & kitchen facilities (application number 11/03078/FUL).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 10 16/02419/CON

Decision pending for planning permission for a new build stand-alone nursery within the grounds of Corstorphine Primary School and the removal of existing stand-alone "prefabricated" buildings within the same grounds (as amended) (application number 16/02158/FUL). Main report

3.1 Description of the Proposal

The application seeks conservation area consent for the removal of two prefabricated buildings.

The removal of the prefabricated buildings is proposed to facilitate the erection of a new single storey nursery building.

The redevelopment of the site is considered in full under the associated application for planning permission (application number 16/02158/FUL).

3.2 Determining Issues

Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of consent.

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:

a) the removal of the existing building units is acceptable; b) any impacts on equalities or human rights are acceptable; and c) comments raised have been addressed. a) Removal of Existing Building Units

When considering the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area, it is appropriate to assess the application against ECLP Policy Env 5 (Conservation Areas - Demolition of Buildings) and the Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement (HESPS), which replaced the Scottish Government's Historic Environment Policy 2011 (SHEP) in June 2016.

ECLP Policy Env 5 sets out the circumstances against which the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area will be considered. Policy Env 5 initially requires an assessment of whether the building proposed for demolition makes a positive contribution to the character of the area. If the proposal does not make a positive contribution, its removal is considered acceptable in principle so long as the replacement building either preserves or enhances the character of the area.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 10 16/02419/CON

Policy Env 5 indicates that proposals for the total or substantial demolition of a building of merit will only be supported in exceptional circumstances. These circumstances take into account the condition / cost of repairing the building in relation to its importance, the adequacy of efforts to retain the building, the merits of alternative proposals for the site, and whether the public benefits to be derived from allowing demolition outweigh the loss.

The HESPS requires that when assessing the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area, local authorities should take into account the importance of the building to the conservation area, and the future proposals for the site. If the building is considered to be of any architectural or historic value, a positive attempt should be made to achieve its retention and re-use before any demolition proposals are seriously investigated. In some instances demolition may be considered appropriate, for instance where the building is of little or no townscape value, or where repair costs are unreasonable, or where the existing form or location makes any re-use extremely difficult.

The prefabricated buildings are temporary by nature and have no architectural merit or townscape value. They do not make a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area and their removal is therefore acceptable.

Having concluded that the buildings have no special merit, the requirements of ECLP Policy Env 5 and HESPS are not applicable with regard to the need to consider the condition / cost of repairing the building units, the adequacy of efforts to retain the buildings, the merits of alternative proposals for the site, and whether the public benefits to be derived from allowing demolition outweigh the loss.

The proposal complies with ECLP Policy Env 5 and HESPS.

An assessment of the proposal's impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area is considered under application 16/02158/FUL. b) Equalities and Human Rights

The proposal does not raise concern with regard to equalities and human rights. c) Public Comments

No representations have been received.

Community Council

No representations have been received.

Conclusion

The removal of the existing buildings is acceptable on the basis that it will not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal complies with Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP) Policy Env 5 (Conservation Areas - Demolition of Buildings) and Scottish Government's Historic Environment Policy 2011 (SHEP).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 10 16/02419/CON

The proposal is acceptable and there are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below. Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

All financial implications of this Council project are matters for consideration by Education, Children and Families Committee. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low. Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights. Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

No representations have been received.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 10 16/02419/CON

Background reading/external references

To view details of the application go to;  Planning and Building Standards online services

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 10 16/02419/CON

Statutory Development Plan Provision The site is located within the Corstorphine Conservation Area.

Date registered 5 July 2016

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01 - 03, 04A, 05, 06A,

Scheme 2

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Ruth King, Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 6475

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 10 16/02419/CON

Links-Policies

Relevant Policies:

Policy Env 5 (Conservation Areas – Demolition of Buildings) sets outs criteria for assessing proposals involving demolition of buildings in conservation areas.

Non-statutory guidelines ‘LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS' provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 8 of 10 16/02419/CON

Appendix 1

Consultations

Historic Environment Scotland

Historic Environment Scotland does not object to this application and we do not have any comments to make on the proposals.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 9 of 10 16/02419/CON

Location Plan

END

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 10 of 10 16/02419/CON Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Application for Planning Permission 16/02163/FUL At Napier University Craighouse Campus, Craighouse Road, Edinburgh Reduction of the height of an existing chimney to the rear of the New Craig building which is leaning off the vertical and unsafe. Also to remove a set of gates and a gate pillar to allow construction traffic egress from the site on to Craighouse Road and to reinstate the original gates and gate pillar back in the original location.

Item number Report number

Wards A09 - Fountainbridge/Craiglockhart

Summary

The proposal complies with the development plan and non-statutory guidance. The proposal will preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and will have no detrimental impact on the character of the listed buildings, or traffic and road safety. There are no other considerations which outweigh this conclusion and approval is recommended.

Links Policies and guidance for LPC, CITE4, CITE6, NSG, NSLBCA, OTH, CRPCHI,

this application

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 1 of 14 16/02163/FUL

Report

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below. Background

2.1 Site description

The site is located on the north and east slopes of Craiglockhart Hill and covers an area of approximately 20.6 hectares. It is enclosed by the old walls of the former estate. Merchants of Edinburgh Golf Course lies to the south, it adjoins the Easter Craiglockhart Hill Local Nature Reserve to the west and to the north is a small housing development known as Meadowspot. Craighouse Road runs along the eastern boundary.

The site was formerly an extension to the Royal Edinburgh Asylum. It was bought by Napier University in the late 1990s and adapted for educational use. On the site are a series of individual listed buildings. The existing listed buildings which are on the site include Old Craig which is A listed (reference number 28046, listed on 14 December, 1970) and a series of Victorian A listed buildings listed separately (reference number 27736, listed on 28 August 1979). All the buildings have most recently been used by Napier University.

The buildings that relate to the current application are the main hospital block which is New Craig and the gate and gate piers attached to a small lodge house on Craighouse Road.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 14 16/02163/FUL

The Boiler House was not specifically mentioned in the list description but was listed by virtue of being a historic structure that was within the curtilage of the listed buildings. It was built to provide heat to New Craig via services under the rear road that runs north of New Craig.

There are three points of vehicular access. The historic principal access is by the lodge house on Craighouse Road opposite its junction to Morningside Gardens. There are gates at the top of Craiglea Place to the south, although this is used primarily for pedestrian access. The third access point is to the north of the gates at the lodge house and formed the principal vehicular and bus access to Napier University.

The lodge house is on the Buildings at Risk Register.

This application site is located within the Craiglockhart Hills Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

There were several applications in the 1990s for the conversion to Napier University.

13 September 2001 - an application for the development of a new arts facility building and minor works to existing 'A' listed building was withdrawn (application reference: 01/01435/FUL).

24 September 2001 - an application for the development of a new arts faculty building and minor works to existing 'A' listed building was withdrawn (application reference: 01/01435/LBC).

24 May 2002 - listed building consent was granted for minor works to basement area of New Craig in conjunction with development of new arts facility building (application reference: 01/04599/LBC).

26 June 2007 - planning permission was granted for the development of a new arts facility building, new surface car park and minor works to existing 'A' listed building (application reference: 01/04599/FUL).

19 September 2012 - an application for the modification of clause (fourth) and clause (seventh) of the legal agreement relating to application no. 01/04599/FUL was withdrawn (application reference: 12/02261/OBL).

22 November 2012 - permission was granted for the modification of clause (fourth) and clause (seventh) of the legal agreement relating to application no. 01/04599/FUL (application reference: 12/03397/OBL).

26 September 2014 - Conservation area consent for the demolition of Learning Resource Centre (LRC) Building (application reference: 12/04007/CON).

26 September 2014 - Consent granted for proposed conversion of existing listed buildings at New Craig , Queen's Craig, East Craig, Bevan Villa, South Craig, Craighouse Lodge, Old Craighouse to form residential properties, including extension at South Craig and demolition of Boiler House (as amended) (application reference: 12/04007/LBC) .

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 14 16/02163/FUL

18 November 2014 - Permission granted for proposed change of use and conversion of existing buildings from university campus to residential, construction of new build residential with ancillary development, public realm, utilities infrastructure, access roads, car parking, landscaping (application reference: 12/04007/SCH3).

08 May 2015 - Application varied for non-material variation for conditions: 2, 3, 4, 5, 12 and 15 for planning application 12/04007/ SCH3 (application reference: 12/04007/VARY).

14 May 2015 - Application not varied for non-material variation for condition 14 for planning application 12/04007/ SCH3 (application reference: 12/04007/VAR2).

There have also been several applications for minor works relating to the operation of the university estate.

Parallel applications

27 April 2016 - Application lodged for the reduction of the chimney to the rear of the New Craig Building and temporary removal/reinstatement of the gates and gate pillar at the south entrance (application reference: 16/02164/LBC). Main report

3.1 Description of the Proposal

The application is for:

- At the gate lodge entrance, the temporary removal of the most southerly gate pier and the gates to facilitate construction traffic and to reinstate these in their original location when the development is complete; and - The reduction in the height of the chimney on the north elevation of New Craig but to reinstate the chimney copes and details at a lower level.

As part of this application, the following documents have been submitted which are available to view on Planning and Building Standard's online services:

- Supporting statement with respect to temporary removal of gate pier; - Supporting statement showing archival drawings of New Craig; and - Method statement for the removal and reinstatement of gate pier and lowering of chimney.

3.2 Determining Issues

Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of consent.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 14 16/02163/FUL

In considering whether to grant consent, special regard must be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. For the purposes of this issue, preserve, in relation to the building, means preserve it either in its existing state or subject only to such alterations or extensions as can be carried out without serious detriment to its character.

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?

If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:

- the proposals will preserve or enhance the conservation area: - the proposals will impact on the character of the listed buildings; - the proposals will have any traffic or road safety issues; - any impacts of equalities and human rights have been addressed; and - any comments raised have been addressed.

a) The Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

The Craiglockhart Hills Conservation Area Character Appraisal notes that:

The views to the Hills from Arthurs Seat, Calton Hill, Blackford Hill and Edinburgh Castle are also spectacular, in particular to Easter Craiglockhart Hill on which high quality Victorian buildings are set against a predominantly wooded hill.

And that:

The Craighouse complex has a strong unity of composition derived from the inter- relationship of buildings, woodlands, open spaces and views over the city. Areas of woodland to the south west provide an important backcloth to the buildings, the setting of which is further enhanced by varied specimen trees which provide a sense of scale. The buildings form a homogeneous group round the old mansion, as they are closely related in design, layout and materials. This character has remained largely unchanged since the late 19th century. The conversion of the site by Napier University has maintained the essential historic and architectural character, and conserved and enhanced the surrounding landscape.

And states that: listed buildings and ancient monuments will be protected, as will their setting and surroundings.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 14 16/02163/FUL

The applicant has submitted information in the form of archival drawings that indicates that the chimney was not its current height in the original design. The chimney appears to have been extended up to service the Boiler House which was built later. This application proposes that the chimney be brought back down to its originally designed height. The reason for this is because the chimney is leaning and is unsafe. The lowered chimney will not disrupt the architectural composition of Craighouse and the character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved.

The applicant has also submitted a method statement for how both the gate pier and the gates are to be removed, stored and then reinstated upon the completion of the works. The temporary removal of these elements is to facilitate on site traffic management during the process of construction. A condition is added to this consent, should it be granted, to ensure that the gate pier and the gates will be reinstated within three months of completion of the overall development.

The character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved.

b) The Impact on the Character of the Listed Buildings

The applicant has supplied archival evidence that the chimney not originally designed to be at its current height, and that by lowering it, it will returned to its original design. This is acceptable and will not adversely impact on the character of the listed building.

The temporary removal of the pier and gates is acceptable as the method statement stipulates how they will be dismantled, stored and reinstated. A condition added to this consent will ensure that this is done within three months of completion of the development.

There will be no adverse impact on the character of the listed structures.

c) Traffic or Road Safety Issues

A number of objectors have raised issues of road safety. The Roads Authority has been consulted and does not consider that the proposals raise any issues of road safety. However an informative is added to recommend that the contractor agree details, as a site management plan or Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders may be required to ensure that sight lines can be retained.

Objectors have raised the fact that there is already a wide entrance to what was Napier's main entrance area, and that the developer should be using that. The applicant has submitted a statement confirming that this will remain as the principal entrance during construction, however due to the fact that all the main services run beneath this road, there will be times that they will need to use the entrance by the lodge house.

Continued pedestrian and public access to the hill will be maintained from Craiglea Place and through the woodland to the north of the site.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 14 16/02163/FUL

d) Equalities and Human Rights Issues

The application has been assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. No adverse impacts were identified. An Equalities and Rights Impact Assessment Summary is available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services

e) Public Comments

Material objections

- Objections have been made to the effect that the applications 12/04007/SCH3 and 12/04007/LBC were granted in order to preserve the listed buildings and that these demolitions/alterations are not doing that. The impact of the works on the listed buildings is assessed in section 3.3 (b) and found that there would be no detrimental impact on the character of the listed building; - Concerns about the loss of historic features are addressed in section 3.3.a) and 3.3.b) and found that the features concerned are not part of the original design; - Concerns about road safety are addressed in section 3.3 (c) and found that there will be no detrimental impact on road safety; - Objectors query why the developers could not use the existing main gates for access. This is assessed in section 3.3 (c) and found that the main gate will still be the primary access; - Objectors have stated that the plans are misleading as they show an out of date map which pre-dates the wide entrance area created by Napier. However, the main location plan (Drawing 01) clearly shows the modern road configuration with the main gates to the campus; - Concerns have been raised made about public access to the hill. This is addressed in section 3.3 (c) and found that the pedestrian access to the hill will still be available; and - Concerns have been raised about loss of trees. However no trees are proposed for removal.

Community Council objections

The Community Council objects to this application on the following grounds:

- The applications 12/04007/SCH3 and 12/04007/LBC were granted in order to preserve the listed buildings and that these demolitions/alterations are not doing that. The impact of the works on the listed buildings is assessed in section 3.3 (b) and found that there would be no detrimental impact on the character of the listed building; - The loss of historic features is addressed in section 3.3 (a) and 3.3 (b) and found that the features concerned are not part of the original design; - Why could the developers not use the existing main gates for access? This is assessed in section 3.3 (c) and found that the main gate will still be the primary access; and - Public access to the hill should be retained. This is addressed in section 3.3 (c) and found that the pedestrian access to the hill will still be available.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 14 16/02163/FUL

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the proposal complies with the development plan and non-statutory guidance. The proposal will preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and will have no detrimental impact on the character of the listed buildings, or traffic and road safety. There are no other considerations which outweigh this conclusion and approval is recommended.

The recommendation is subject to conditions on the reinstatement of the gates and gate pier after the completion of the development.

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Conditions:-

1. The gates and gate pier that are to be temporarily taken down are to be reinstated as per the method statement within three months of the date of completion of the development authorised in application no. 12/04007/SCH3.

Reasons:-

1. In order to safeguard the character of the conservation area.

Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

4. The contractor is recommended to contact the Council's South Neighbourhood Roads team to agree details, as a site management plan or Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders may be required to ensure that sight lines can be retained. The contractor should contact Derek Roden on 0131 529 3238 or [email protected].

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 8 of 14 16/02163/FUL

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

There are no financial implications to the Council. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low. Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. The impacts are identified in the Assessment section of the main report. Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 13 May 2016. In all there have been 132 letters of objection, including a member of parliament, the Community Council, a local Resident's Association and the Friends of Craighouse.

There have been no letters of comment or support.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 9 of 14 16/02163/FUL

Background reading/external references

To view details of the application go to;  Planning and Building Standards online services

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 10 of 14 16/02163/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision Edinburgh City Local Plan, Craiglockhart Hills Conservation Area, Open Space, Area of Great Landscape Value. Part of the site is within a Local Nature Reserve and part is within a Local Nature Conservation Site.

Date registered 27 April 2016

Drawing numbers/Scheme 1-3,

Scheme 1

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Barbara Stuart, Senior Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 3927

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 11 of 14 16/02163/FUL

Links-Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Policy Env 4 (Listed Buildings – Alterations & Extensions) identifies the circumstances in which alterations and extensions to listed buildings will be permitted.

Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines.

Non-statutory guidelines ‘LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS' provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

Other Relevant policy guidance.

The Craiglockhart Hills Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the outstanding quality of the natural topography and its visual relationship with the city, the high quality buildings set within a mixture of wooded and open slopes, the use of natural stone and slate as the traditional building materials.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 12 of 14 16/02163/FUL

Appendix 1

Consultations

Transport

No objections to the application subject to the following being included as conditions or informatives as appropriate:

Note: The contractor is recommended to contact the Council's South Neighbourhood Roads team to agree details, as a site management plan or Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders may be required to ensure that sight lines can be retained. The contractor should contact Derek Roden on 0131 529 3238 or [email protected]

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 13 of 14 16/02163/FUL

Location Plan

END

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 14 of 14 16/02163/FUL Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Application for Listed Building Consent 16/02164/LBC At Napier University Craighouse Campus, Craighouse Road, Edinburgh Reduction of the Chimney to the rear of the New Craig Building and temporary removal/reinstatement of the gates and gate pillar at the South entrance.

Item number Report number

Wards A09 - Fountainbridge/Craiglockhart

Summary

The proposal complies with the development plan and non-statutory guidance. The proposal will preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and will have no detrimental impact on the character of the listed buildings. There are no other considerations which outweigh this conclusion and approval is recommended.

Links Policies and guidance for LPC, CITE4, CITE6, NSG, NSLBCA, OTH, CRPCHI,

this application

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 1 of 14 16/02164/LBC

Report

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below. Background

2.1 Site description

The buildings that relate to the current application are the main hospital block which is New Craig and the gates and gate piers attached to a small lodge house on Craighouse Road.

New Craig is a massive, towered and gabled picturesque building with a steeply pitched roof that steps down a sloping site, dominating the site and other buildings. It is predominantly three storey with dormerheads, chimneys and towers and can be seen from both near and distant views. On its northern elevation, at the level of the rear service lane, the Boiler House Annex (now demolished under consent reference number 12/04007/LBC) was an extension that was historic, but not original to the initial building of New Craig. The Boiler House was not specifically mentioned in the list description but was listed by virtue of being a historic structure that was within the curtilage of the listed buildings. It was built to provide heat to New Craig via services under the rear road that runs north of New Craig.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 14 16/02164/LBC

The lodge house is on the Buildings at Risk Register.

This application site is located within the Craiglockhart Hills Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

There were several applications in the 1990s for the conversion to the Napier University.

13 September 2001 - an application for the development of a new arts facility building and minor works to existing 'A' listed building was withdrawn (application reference: 01/01435/FUL).

24 September 2001 - an application for the development of a new arts faculty building and minor works to existing 'A' listed building was withdrawn (application reference: 01/01435/LBC).

24 May 2002 - listed building consent was granted for minor works to basement area of New Craig in conjunction with development of new arts facility building (application reference: 01/04599/LBC).

26 September 2014 - Conservation area consent for the demolition of Learning Resource Centre (LRC) Building (application reference: 12/04007/CON).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 14 16/02164/LBC

08 May 2015 - Application varied for non-material variation for conditions: 2, 3, 4 ,5, 12 and 15 for planning application 12/04007/ SCH3 (application reference: 12/04007/VARY).

14 May 2015 - Application not varied for non-material variation for condition 14 for planning application 12/04007/ SCH3 (application reference: 12/04007/VAR2).

There have also been several applications for minor works relating to the operation of the university estate.

Parallel applications

27 April 2016 - Application lodged for the reduction of the height of an existing chimney to the rear of the New Craig building which is leaning off the vertical and unsafe. Also to remove a set of gates and a gate pillar to allow construction traffic egress from the site on to Craighouse Road and to reinstate the original gates and gate pillar back in the original location (application reference: 16/02163/FUL). Main report

3.1 Description of the Proposal

The application is for:

a) At the gate lodge entrance, the temporary removal of the most southerly gate pier and the gates to facilitate construction traffic and to reinstate these in their original location when the development is complete; and b) The reduction in the height of the chimney on the north elevation of New Craig but to reinstate the chimney copes and details at a lower level.

As part of this application, the following documents have been submitted which are available to view on Planning and Building Standard's online services:

3.2 Determining Issues

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 14 16/02164/LBC

Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of permission.

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether: - the proposals will preserve or enhance the conservation area: - the proposals will impact on the character of the listed buildings; - the proposals will have any traffic or road safety issues; - any impacts of equalities and human rights have been addressed; and - any comments raised have been addressed.

a) The Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

The Craiglockhart Hills Conservation Area Character Appraisal notes that:

And that:

And states that: listed buildings and ancient monuments will be protected, as will their setting and surroundings.

The character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 14 16/02164/LBC

b) The Impact on the Character of the Listed Buildings

There will be no adverse impact on the character of the listed structures.

c) Traffic or Road Safety Issues

Continued pedestrian and public access to the hill will be maintained from Craiglea Place and through the woodland to the north of the site.

d) Equalities and Human Rights Issues

e) Public Comments

Material objections

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 14 16/02164/LBC

- Objectors query why the developers could not use the existing main gates for access. This is assessed in section 3.3 (c) and found that the main gate will still be the primary access; - Objectors have stated that the plans are misleading as they show an out of date map which pre-dates the wide entrance area created by Napier. However the main location plan (Drawing 01) clearly shows the modern road configuration with the main gates to the campus; - Concerns have been raised made about public access to the hill. This is addressed in section 3.3 (c) and found that the pedestrian access to the hill will still be available; and - Concerns have been raised about loss of trees. However no trees are proposed for removal.

Community Council objections

The Community Council objects to this application on the following grounds:

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendation is subject to conditions on the reinstatement of the gates and gate pier after the completion of the development.

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Conditions:-

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 14 16/02164/LBC

Reasons:-

1. In order to safeguard the character of the statutorily listed building.

Informatives:-

It should be noted that:

1. The works hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent. Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

There are no financial implications to the Council. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low. Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. The impacts are identified in the Assessment section of the main report. Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 13 May 2016. In all there have been 123 letters of objection, including the Community Council, the Cockburn Association and the Friends of Craighouse.

There have been no letters of comment or support.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 8 of 14 16/02164/LBC

Background reading/external references

To view details of the application go to;  Planning and Building Standards online services

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 9 of 14 16/02164/LBC

Date registered 27 April 2016

Drawing numbers/Scheme 1, 2, 3,

Scheme 1

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Barbara Stuart, Senior Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 3927

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 10 of 14 16/02164/LBC

Links-Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Policy Env 4 (Listed Buildings – Alterations & Extensions) identifies the circumstances in which alterations and extensions to listed buildings will be permitted.

Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines.

Non-statutory guidelines ‘LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS' provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

Other Relevant policy guidance.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 11 of 14 16/02164/LBC

Appendix 1

Consultations

Historic Environment Scotland

Historic Environment Scotland has reviewed your consultation, and we consider the proposals do not raise issues of national significance, so we can confirm that we do not object.

While we do not object, we do, however, have the following comments which your Council should take into account in your decision:

We welcomed the opportunity to visit Craighouse with yourselves and the agent on Monday 13 June to have a look at the Gatepier and Chimney Stack.

Gatepier The proposal to dismantle and remove one of the gatepiers during the construction phase at Craighouse is a conservation strategy that is regularly employed on sites where vulnerable heritage assets have been identified to be at risk by site vehicles and ongoing development work. Gate piers can be particularly at risk due to the size of modern site machinery passing through openings designed for a horse and carriage. We would therefore recommend that your Council is satisfied that there are adequate measures put in place to oversee the appropriate down taking, storage, and re- assembling of the gatepier when works have been completed. Chimney Stack

The site visit allowed us to see that the stack is significantly leaning and remedial attention is required. Furthermore the applicant has provided detailed information including the architect's original drawings and sketches to demonstrate that the boiler house chimney, and in turn the associated adjacent boiler house, were not conceived, or built, as part of the original design for New Craig. The sketch interestingly shows a considerably shorter chimney stack which it is assumed was significantly enlarged when the boiler house was located to this area of the site.

Therefore given the potential dangerous condition, the historical evidence in regard to its original appearance, and its disassociation from the demolished boiler house, the proposed course of action is reasonable and can be justified.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 12 of 14 16/02164/LBC

It is our view that the appearance, massing, and scale of the reduced stack will still maintain its contribution to the character and overall architectural composition / language of New Craig.

We would however recommend that your Council is satisfied that there are adequate measures put in place to oversee the appropriate reconfiguration of the stack, particularly in terms of ensuring important stone elements are not damaged during building works.

Note Historic Environment Scotland, HES, has a national remit for the Historic Environment, and as such does not provide detailed comments on every application. We consider consultations in national terms, and will decide whether to provide detailed advice depending on the scale, nature or complexity of the proposals. A decision not to provide detailed comments or not to object should not be taken as support for the proposals by HES, and the application should be assessed as normal by your Council against local and national policy and guidance on the Historic Environment.

Detailed guidance on the application of National policy is set out in our 'Managing Change in the Historic Environment' series available online at https://www.historicenvironment.scot/advice-and-support/planning-and- guidance/legislation-and-guidance/managing-change-in-the-historic-environment- guidance-notes/ . Technical advice is available through our Technical Conservation website at http://conservation.historic-scotland.gov.uk.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 13 of 14 16/02164/LBC

Location Plan

END

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 14 of 14 16/02164/LBC Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Application for Planning Permission 16/02581/FUL At 198 Lanark Road West, Edinburgh, EH14 5NX Remove existing front decking and replace with clear glass extension on existing footprint (re-submission of 15/03419/FUL).

Item number Report number

Wards A02 - Pentland Hills

Summary

The proposed extension would adversely impact the form of the locally significant building, visually dominate the building line and would not reflect the traditional built form of the area. The proposal would not protect or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, and would adversely impact the setting of adjacent listed building. The proposal is contrary to RWELP Policies E32, E36, E38 and E43, and non-statutory guidance Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas.

Links

Policies and guidance for RWE32, RWE35, RWE36, RWE38, RWE41, CECD4,

this application RWE43, RWED3, RWH11, RWH6, NSG, NSLBCA, CRPCUR,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 1 of 13 16/02581/FUL

Report

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below. Background

2.1 Site description

The application site is a public house, situated on the northern side of Lanark Road West, Currie. It is a two storey stone built building, with single storey cottage adjoining the west gable. The building has a pitched slate roof and white rendered finish. It has been significantly altered and extended to the rear. A raised timber decking has been formed to the front of the property.

The surrounding area is a mixture of residential and commercial uses.

A row of three cottages adjoin the application site to the west, which are C Listed Buildings: 200, 202 and 204 Lanark Road West (Listed 22 January 1971: Reference: LB6120).

This application site is located within the Currie Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

19 October 2012 - Planning permission granted to form external decking to public house (application number: 12/02848/FUL).

16 September 2015 - Planning permission withdrawn to extend existing licensed premises (application number: 15/03419/FUL). Main report

3.1 Description of the Proposal

It is proposed to extend the floor area of the public house by forming a single storey extension to the front of the building. The extension would have a floor area of approximately 40 sqm and occupy the location of the existing raised timber decking. The extension would be 3.8 m deep (east), 2.65 m deep (west), 12.5 m wide and terminate at the bottom of the first floor level.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 13 16/02581/FUL

The extension would be of a flat roof design, with glazed elevations and supporting metal frame. The existing steps to the terrace from the east would be removed and the wall made good.

Supporting Documents The following documents have been submitted in support of the application and are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards online services:

- Design Statement; and - Heritage Statement.

3.2 Determining Issues

Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of permission.

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?

If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:

a) the proposal is acceptable in principle; b) the proposal would be appropriately designed and would protect and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, and protect the setting of adjacent listed buildings; c) the proposal will result in an unreasonable loss of amenity; d) any other considerations have been addressed; e) any impacts on equalities or human rights are acceptable; and f) any public comments raised have been addressed. a) Principle

The Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan (RWELP) supports the expansion of existing businesses within built-up areas, where appropriately designed and not having a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity. The proposal is acceptable in principle under Policy ED3 of the RWELP, subject to further consideration of design and amenity in sections 3.3(b) and 3.3(c).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 13 16/02581/FUL b) Design, Conservation Area and Listed Buildings

The Currie Conservation Area Character Appraisal defines the essential characteristics of the area as follows:

- Continuous linear pattern along Lanark Road West reinforced by the river valley and former railway line below, with views out to and in from the Green Belt; - Vernacular development within conservation area, reflecting Currie's history as a rural settlement; - Village core with cottages right to the heel of the pavement and a small central space with open views to south and north; and - Traditional farm house and cottages in vernacular style and traditional materials.

The Riccarton Arms is not a listed building, but is identified as being of local architectural and historic merit in the Currie Conservation Area Character Appraisal. The building historically was the farm house to Wester Currie Farm and its traditional vernacular design reflects the built character of the conservation area. The principal elevation has only been subject to minor alterations, in comparison to the significantly altered rear of the building.

The design of the extension would be modern and contrasting, which is often an appropriate approach to extending traditional buildings. The siting of the extension is however not in keeping with the traditional built form of the conservation area, given there are no obvious examples of such extensions along Lanark Road West on principal elevations.

The extension would result in an inability to read the traditional form of the building, by obscuring a large part of the principal elevation and all ground floor openings. While the existing decking is incongruous, it does not obscure the form of the principal elevation. The design would incorporate large areas of glazing to reduce the visual impact of the extension on the frontage. The glazing would however not significantly mitigate the visual impact of the structure when taking into account the obstruction which would be caused by the metal frame and objects placed internally. The extension would also be significantly higher than the decking and continue to incorporate a solid basecourse to the approximate floor level of the existing decking. When viewed directly from the street, the visual intrusiveness of the extension would be exaggerated by the fact that the established ground floor is elevated above the street level.

The extension would exaggerate the already incongruous building line, established by the decking, by introducing a significantly higher structure when viewed from the east and west. The extension would be visually more dominant than the low building line of the decking and have a greater impact on the established linear rhythm of the building group and wider street.

The extension would be situated within the building line and to the east of a row of three traditional C listed single storey cottages. The traditional vernacular form and rural design of the building group, including the application site, form part of the listed buildings setting. The extensions impact on the form of the building would therefore have a resultant impact on the setting of the building group. When viewed in conjunction with the listed buildings from the west, the extension would appear visually dominant and exaggerate the established incongruous building line of the decking. The

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 13 16/02581/FUL dominance of the extension would detract from the traditional and simplistic rural character of the listed buildings.

The proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. The positioning of the extension would also adversely impact the setting of the three C listed cottages to the west. The proposal is contrary to RWELP Policies E32, E36, E38 and E43, and non-statutory guidance Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. c) Amenity

The proposed extension would be situated so that it does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties, including daylight, sunlight, noise and privacy. The proposal accords with RWELP Policy H6. d) Other Considerations

Community Benefit A number of representations have been received in support of the application on the grounds that it would benefit the existing and future local community by increasing the capacity of the currently constrained premises. Public houses play an important role in communities and RWLEP Policy H11 supports the retention of important community services. No justification has been provided with the application to demonstrate that more sensitive design solutions, such as internal reconfigurement or development to the rear of the property, have been fully investigated. While the public interest in the proposal is noted, it does not outweigh the adverse impact of the extension on statutory historic environment designations. e) Equalities and human rights

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights. f) Public comments

One letter of objection has been received on the following grounds:

Material Considerations

- Not in keeping with the conservation area and adjacent listed buildings: addressed in 3.3 (b).

Sixteen Letters of support have been received on the following grounds:

Material Considerations - Community benefit: addressed in 3.3 (d); and - Sympathetic design and improvement on existing decking: addressed in 3.3 (b).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 13 16/02581/FUL

Conclusion

It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Reasons:-

1. The proposal would not protect or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, and would adversely impact the setting of adjacent listed building. The proposal is contrary to RWELP Policies E32, E36, E38 and E43, and non-statutory guidance Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

There are no financial implications to the Council. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low. Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights. Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 13 16/02581/FUL

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 31 May 2016 and neighbour notification letters sent on 30 May 2016. Notification letters were resent following a delivery error and the period for public representations was extended to take account of recent network issues. One letter of objection and 16 letters of support were received regarding this application.

A full assessment of the representations can be found in the main report in the assessment section.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 13 16/02581/FUL

Background reading/external references

To view details of the application go to;  Planning and Building Standards online services

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 8 of 13 16/02581/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan: Currie Conservation Area.

Date registered 23 May 2016

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01-03,

Scheme 1

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Andrew Marshall, Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 3594

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 9 of 13 16/02581/FUL

Links-Policies

Relevant Policies:

Policy E32 seeks to ensure that proposals affecting a listed building will be considered for their effect on the character of the building. The restoration of architectural character will be an overriding consideration. Alterations will only be permitted where they respect the architectural integrity of the building.

Policy E35 states that developments in Conservation Areas will only be permitted where all features which contribute to the special character and appearance of the areas are retained.

Policy E36 states that Development proposals in a conservation area should take into account the area’s special interest and how its character and appearance may be preserved or enhanced

Policy E38 supports the preparation of conservation character appraisal statements for all conservation areas to assist in the on-going management of conservation areas.

Policy E41 encourages high standards of design for all development and its careful integration with its surroundings in terms of scale, form, siting, alignment and materials. New development should improve energy efficiency and reduce noise pollution.

Policy CD4 (CONSERVATION AREAS) requires that developments in a conservation area retain all features which contribute to the area's character and appearance.

Policy E43 says that alterations and extensions to existing buildings, where acceptable in principle, should be subservient and relate carefully to the original building.

Policy ED3 supports the expansion of existing business provided they are located in a built up area, there would be no detrimental impact on neighbouring uses and local residential amenity and the scale of the development would be appropriate in terms of the site and its surroundings.

Policy H11 states that the Council will support the retention of existing community facilities where there is a proven need and no suitable replacement facilities are available

Policy H6 says that development which would significantly damage residential amenity will not be permitted in residential areas within the defined settlement boundary.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

Non-statutory guidelines ‘LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS' provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 10 of 13 16/02581/FUL

The Currie Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the vernacular form of development, the natural setting of The Water of Leith and the predominant residential use.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 11 of 13 16/02581/FUL

Appendix 1

Consultations

No consultations undertaken.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 12 of 13 16/02581/FUL

Location Plan

END

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 13 of 13 16/02581/FUL Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Application for Listed Building Consent 16/01952/LBC At 5 New Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BH Conversion of former school house to 20 room hotel, including demolition of extension, and construction of glazed restaurant and external terrace.

Item number Report number

Wards A11 - City Centre

Summary

The proposals comply with the development plan and non-statutory guidance, have no adverse effect on the character of the listed building or character or appearance of the conservation area and do not harm the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site or significant archaeological remains. There are no identified impacts on equalities or human rights and no material considerations that outweigh this conclusion.

It is recommended that the Committee approves this application.

Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITE4, CITE6, CITE1, NSG, NSLBCA,

this application CRPOLD,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 1 of 15 16/01952/LBC

Report

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below. Background

2.1 Site description

This application refers to a two-storey, vacant former school dating from 1900-1. The building is constructed in grey sandstone with red sandstone margins and has a grey slate pitched roof with stone skews and Queen Anne detailing on shaped gables.

The building is surrounded by high stone boundary walls with plain iron railings and gatepiers to the New Street entrance.

Internally, the building has rooms off a central galleried hall with a glazed rooflight which is supported by timber arched brace and tie beams.

The building is category C listed (listed on 13 August 1987, ref. 29393) and located within the World Heritage Site.

The former North Canongate Infant School became offices in 1968 and the Canongate Venture in 1981, housing a variety of small businesses and workshops.

Two new contemporary style hotels have been erected adjacent to the building in East Market Street.

This application site is located within the Old Town Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

10 July 2008 - listed building consent granted for the demolition of the building, boundary walls and gatepiers (application number 07/01208/LBC).

31 January 2014 - listed building consent granted for alterations to the building, boundary walls and gatepiers including removal of the existing plinth and new additions to the building (application number 13/03399/LBC).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 15 16/01952/LBC

27 March 2014 - planning permission granted for redevelopment/demolition/erection of buildings for mixed use development comprising class 7 hotels, class 1, 2, 3 commercial, class 4 business, community uses (class 8 & 10), leisure (class 11), other associated uses, landscaping/public realm and other associated works (application number 13/03407/FUL). Main report

3.1 Description of the Proposal

The proposed development is similar to the scheme granted listed building consent under application ref. 13/03399/LBC.

The building will be retained with repairs and refurbishment of the structure for use as a 20 room hotel with a new glazed restaurant extension and external terrace.

The scheme which was granted planning permission in 2014 proposes the demolition of the existing sandstone plinth to the north of the building on East Market Street and replacement with a glazed metal-framed, flat-roofed structure with a terrace above. The terrace will be linked directly to the main building through the conversion of two windows on the northern elevation into metal-framed double doors. A new entrance will be formed at the East Market Street level leading to a new internal lift and new external stairs will adjoin this entrance giving direct access from East Market Street to the existing main entrance on New Street. A further access stair onto the terrace is proposed to the west of the new restaurant space.

This current scheme proposes the same alterations as above, with the addition of an advanced metal-clad, glazed structure to create a new entrance at New Street level. The previously approved entrance comprised glazed doors in a new large opening. The new structure is set back from the proposed restaurant structure projecting approximately one third of the latter's distance outwards.

The proposed glazed extension on the south elevation has been deleted in the current scheme and this elevation will remain intact, with the addition of two cast iron soil pipes symmetrically placed at either side of the elevation.

Four new ventilation extract terminals are proposed at either side of the inner roof slopes of the north and south elevations.

Internally, the proposed downtakings are similar to the approved scheme involving the removal of the existing dividing walls between the former classrooms and erection of new dividing walls. The new lift will be positioned in the north east corner of the building as previously approved.

The key change in the current scheme is the insertion of mezzanine levels at ground floor (New Street) level and at first floor level. The ground floor mezzanine will be on the south side of the building only and the new floors will be set back from the external walls by over a third of the room depth.

Elsewhere, a lounge bar will replace the approved public room at ground floor (New Street) level on the north side of the building and the proposed public room, kitchen and toilets at this level will be replaced with split-level bedrooms.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 15 16/01952/LBC

The main central galleried hall and atrium will remain unaltered, except for the addition of service ducts below the existing downstands under the gallery.

3.2 Determining Issues

Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of permission.

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:

a) the proposals adversely affect the character of the listed building; b) the proposals adversely affect the character or appearance of the conservation area; c) the proposals harm the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site; d) the proposed works have any detrimental impact on significant archaeological remains; e) any impacts on equalities or human rights are acceptable; and f) comments raised have been addressed. a) Character of Listed Building

The proposed retention of this building is welcomed given its recognised architectural and historic interest and the previously consented scheme approving its demolition. The proposed alterations are very similar to those approved under listed building consent ref. 13/03399/LBC and will assure the reuse of the building without causing any unnecessary damage to the historic structure or diminishing the historic or architectural significance of the listed building.

The proposed external alterations are largely confined to the north and east sides of the building. The proposed extension on the south elevation has been deleted in the current scheme. The principal elevations of the building above plinth (East Market Street) level will remain practically unaltered with the exception of the glazed double doors replacing mullioned windows in the north elevation and the addition of two cast iron soil pipes on the south elevation. The detailing of the new doors is the same as previously approved and these doors will not be highly conspicuous from street views given that they are to the rear of the new restaurant/terrace extension. The soil pipes will match the existing rainwater/soil goods and are positioned sensitively on blank areas of stonework.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 15 16/01952/LBC

The removal of the existing plinth and boundary wall to East Market Street will change this element of the listed building. However, this is a relatively impenetrable, utilitarian structure and its replacement with a glazed lightweight structure, including a new entrance on the East Market Street level and new external stairs to access the New Street level, will link the building more with its surroundings. This will create an interactive frontage to East Market Street and New Street. The proposed contemporary lightweight style of the extension will be a complementary contrast to the historic sandstone architecture and the construction materials will be high quality. A condition has been applied to ensure that the details of these materials, including framing sections, are appropriate in this sensitive context.

The new entrance surround at the east end of the restaurant extension is a modest- scale addition to the previously approved glazed extension. This structure will match the contemporary style and construction materials of the restaurant extension and will therefore have no adverse impact on the character of the listed building.

The proposed ventilation terminals on the inner roof slopes will not be visible from public viewpoints and are acceptable minor additions related to the functioning of the new hotel.

Internally, the building's architectural interest is principally derived from the central atrium. The majority of the proposed internal alterations are confined to areas of lesser architectural importance and will not prejudice any architectural features or spaces of merit. The proposed service ducts below the gallery will enclose existing service pipes running the length of the building and will sit neatly below the existing downstands beneath the gallery. These will have no detrimental impact on this important atrium space.

The insertion of mezzanine levels will have no adverse effect on historic or architectural character as these are confined to the plainly detailed former school rooms off the central atrium and will sit well back from the windows to avoid physical and visual disruption, including to external views of the building. These original windows will be retained and refurbished.

General repair and restoration work is also proposed for the building and includes the specific repair and restoration of the existing bellcot and cockerel weathervane. These features have been removed to enable these works and they will be reinstated on completion of repair.

The proposals will therefore have no adverse effect on the character of the listed building in compliance with policy Env 4 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Character and Appearance of Conservation Area

The character of the Old Town Conservation Area is summarised in the Character Appraisal as follows:

The plan of the Old Town has retained much of its ancient pattern and distinctive character. It is an environment of enclosed streets and dramatic changes of level with numerous framed distant views. The skilful use of land contours, the careful siting and design of individual buildings and groups of buildings, and the use of local stone,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 15 16/01952/LBC combine to create an intricate and varied spatial structure. The compactness and fine grained pattern also allows many forms of activity to function in close proximity.

The spatial structure of the Old Town is a microcosm of urban development, reflecting the multiple layering of built heritage and responding to the drama of the site's topography and setting.

Building lines and heights respond to natural features and contours to create a sculptural appearance as streets wind up and down hill, reinforcing the organic character of the Old Town.

The hard edged nature of the main streets and spaces within the area formed by the continuous frontages of tall buildings built directly up to the back pavements.

The importance in providing consistent and high quality natural materials, street furniture and lighting in the public realm to unite and set off the built heritage.

The consistent and harmonious height and mass of buildings: usually four or five storeys high on street frontages.

The quality and robustness and durability of the materials of construction. The importance of stone as a construction material for both buildings and the public realm. The limited palette of materials, mainly stone and slate, provide a unity of character. The importance of archaeological record.

The numerous important institutional and public service uses that contribute to its character and the nation's capital. The strong and continuing presence of a residential community. Mixed uses at ground floor level are important in securing active streets and street life.

The Old Town Conservation Area has evolved over time and experienced periods of growth and renewal, subsequently showcasing a variety of building styles and materials.

While the removal of the original plinth and boundary wall to East Market Street and erection of a new glazed extension is a significant alteration, this will not change the essential character and appearance of this mixed commercial/residential part of the Old Town which comprises a range of historic and modern buildings of varying age, scale and type. The proposed contemporary style extension will be of high quality, using a limited palette of materials, in keeping with the recently constructed hotels adjacent to the site on East Market Street. The nearest hotel is clad in metal panels in a range of grey and red/orange shades.

The activation of the East Market Street frontage will enhance the vitality of the street and make a positive contribution to the mixed use character of the Old Town Conservation Area of which an active street life is an important part.

The proposals will therefore have no adverse effect on the character or appearance of the conservation area in compliance with policy Env 6 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 15 16/01952/LBC c) Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage Site

The Outstanding Universal Value of the Edinburgh World Heritage Site is defined as the remarkable juxtaposition of two clearly articulated urban planning phenomena: the contrast between the organic medieval Old Town and the planned Georgian New Town which provides a clarity of urban structure unrivalled in Europe.

This site is a sensitive location within the World Heritage Site, being a short distance from the Royal Mile. However, neither the building nor its site are typical of the organic medieval form which characterises much of the Old Town, given that the building sits on an elevated plinth which is at odds with the levels of the natural contours of the land running down each side of the Royal Mile.

The proposals will retain and reuse this listed building which is a heritage asset of local importance that contributes to the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site and will cause no harm to the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site in compliance with policy Env 1 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. d) Significant Archaeological Remains

The site has been identified as occurring within an area of potentially high archaeological significance. Accordingly, a condition has been applied requiring an archaeological investigation prior to works commencing. e) Equalities and Human Rights

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights and no impact has been identified. f) Comments

Old Town Community Council

- the proposed glass box is cheap-looking and is not in keeping with this fine building and values of the World Heritage Site building - this has been addressed in sections 3.3 (a) and (c) of the assessment. - listed building consent should not be granted without the removed bellcot being reinstated - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (a) of the assessment. The repair and restoration of the bellcott was agreed at the time of the previous application for listed building consent. The removal of architectural features for specialist repair/restoration is normal practice.

Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland

- the proposals are contrary to policy Env 4 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (a) of the assessment; - the new doors for the front (north) elevation are clumsy - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (a) of the assessment; - the charcoal cladding panels are a poor quality invention - this has been addressed in sections 3.3 (a) and (b) of the assessment;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 15 16/01952/LBC

- no plans have been provided for the ground and first floor levels, only mezzanine plans. These plans show both the proposed mezzanine levels and the ground and first floor levels as the new mezzanine levels are set back from the external walls.

Conclusion

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Conditions:-

1. A detailed specification, including trade names and/or samples where appropriate, of all the proposed external materials and detailed sections of the glazed extension hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before work is commenced on site.

2. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, having first been agreed by the City Archaeologist.

Reasons:-

1. In order to enable the planning authority to consider this/these matter/s in detail.

2. In order to safeguard the interests of archaeological heritage.

Informatives:-

It should be noted that:

1. The works hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent. Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

There are no financial implications to the Council.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 8 of 15 16/01952/LBC

Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low. Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights. Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

There is no pre-application process history.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 3 June 2016. Two representations were received, including one from the Old Town Community Council and one from the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 9 of 15 16/01952/LBC

Background reading/external references

To view details of the application go to;  Planning and Building Standards online services

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 10 of 15 16/01952/LBC

Statutory Development Plan Provision The site is located with the Edinburgh City Local Plan in the Central Area.

Date registered 25 May 2016

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01 - 23,

Scheme 1

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Clare Macdonald, Senior Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 6121

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 11 of 15 16/01952/LBC

Links-Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Policy Env 4 (Listed Buildings – Alterations & Extensions) identifies the circumstances in which alterations and extensions to listed buildings will be permitted.

Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas.

Policy Env 1 (World Heritage Site) protects the quality of the World Heritage Site and its settings.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines.

Non-statutory guidelines ‘LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS' provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

The Old Town Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the survival of the original medieval street pattern; the wealth of important landmark buildings; the survival of an outstanding collection of archaeological remains, medieval buildings, and 17th-century town houses; the consistent and harmonious height and mass of buildings; the importance of stone as a construction material for both buildings and the public realm; the vitality and variety of different uses; and the continuing presence of a residential community

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 12 of 15 16/01952/LBC

Appendix 1

Consultations

CECAS (Archaeology)

The site is occupied by the listed Victorian former North Canongate Infant School (Canongate Venture) and lies at the central of Edinburgh's Old town, within the medieval burgh of the Canongate. In addition to the important upstanding heritage of this former school thee site is likely to contain significant archaeological remains from its medieval 12th century origins through to the early 20th century. This potential was demonstrated by the discovery in 2014/15 of an hitherto unknown, large, 15-16th century defensive town ditch or quarry on its western boundary.

Accordingly this application must be considered under terms Scottish Government's Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), the 2016 Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement (HESPS) and also CEC's Edinburgh City Local Plan Policies ENV4, ENV9. The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.

Buried Archaeology As stated the development site as a whole is regarded as being of archaeological significance primarily in terms of its medieval and post-medieval archaeology relating to the development of the Old Town and burgh of the Canongate. The proposed development will require excavations in terms of construction of demolitions, utilities, landscaping etc. Such works are regarded as having on the whole a moderate impact upon the buried archaeological resource. Accordingly it is recommended that a programme of archaeological works is undertaken prior to/ during development/demolition to ensure the appropriate protection and/or full excavation, recording and analysis of any surviving archaeological remains is undertaken.

Historic Buildings As stated in my response to the associated Masterplan application 13/03407/FUL which covers this site, it is to be welcomed that the Victorian former North Canongate Infant School (Canongate Venture) is to be retained and reused. As part of the conditions attached to this scheme it was essential that prior to/conversion of this historic building a programme of historic building survey (level 2-3) was to be undertaken.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 13 of 15 16/01952/LBC

To date neither the historic building recording, nor associated ground investigations have taken place. Accordingly it recommended that following a condition be applied to ensure that this work is carried out;

'No development/demolition shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (Historic Building Recording, excavation, analysis & reporting, publication) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.'

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 14 of 15 16/01952/LBC

Location Plan

END

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 15 of 15 16/01952/LBC

Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Application for Planning Permission 16/01454/FUL At Longstone Primary School, 3A Redhall Grove, Edinburgh. Erect a new build stand-alone nursery school building within the grounds of Longstone Primary School (as amended).

Item number Report number

Wards A07 - Sighthill/Gorgie

Summary

The amended proposal is acceptable in principle, and is of suitable quality in terms of design and form, choice of materials and positioning. The proposal will not result in any unreasonable loss of amenity to neighbouring properties, and will not have a detrimental impact on traffic, parking, road safety or archaeology. No impact on equalities and human rights was identified.

The proposal complies with the Development Plan and the Council's non-statutory guidelines, and is acceptable. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

Links

Policies and guidance for CITCO3, CITD1, CITD3, CITE12, CITT4, NSGD02,

this application

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 1 of 14 16/01454/FUL

Report

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below. Background

2.1 Site description

The site is Longstone Primary School and relates specifically to land in the north eastern corner of the school grounds, to the north east of the main school building.

The school grounds extend to approximately 2.6 hectares and slope down gradually from south to north. The existing school building is between one and two storeys in height and of relatively modern, flat roof design. Two single storey standalone buildings of a temporary nature are located to the north eastern corner of the school grounds; one of which is used as a nursery and one as an after school club.

The land specifically relating to the proposal comprises the existing single storey nursery building, informal grassed amenity space and hardstanding.

The school is currently accessed via Redhall Grove. The southern boundary and part of the eastern boundary of the grounds are well landscaped, and a railway line and canal exist further south.

The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, comprising a mix of detached, semi-detached, terraces and flatted properties. Buildings in the vicinity vary generally from one to three storeys in height and are set back at varying distances from the pavement edge.

2.2 Site History

15 December 2006 - Planning permission granted for primary school for children with moderate learning difficulties, joint gym building, multicourt and associated access road/parking (application number 06/03749/CEC).

15 July 2015 - Planning permission granted for roof-mounted solar PV installation (application number 15/02722/FUL).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 14 16/01454/FUL

Main report

3.1 Description of the Proposal

The application is for the erection of a single storey stand-alone nursery building and associated amenity space. As a result of this proposal, the existing nursery and after school club buildings will be demolished.

The nursery will accommodate 50 children and will replace the existing nursery on the school site. The proposed nursery will accommodate the same number of children as the existing nursery.

The proposed building will have a footprint of approximately 470 square metres. It measures approximately 33 metres long by 14 metres wide with an eaves height of 2.9 metres and a ridge height of 7.1 metres. The building will be accessed via level entrances on the east and west facing elevations.

One tree requires to be removed to accommodate the new building. A low level retaining wall will be positioned around the north facing elevation along with a small grassed area between the nursery and the pavement edge.

The proposed nursery building will be of a contemporary design with a pitched roof. External materials comprise cement cladding in various textures (buff/brown) and a cement slate roof (grey).

There will be no loss of parking as a result of the proposal and no new vehicular or cycle parking spaces are proposed.

The nursery shall be heated via an air source heat pump system.

Scheme 1

The original scheme proposed to locate the nursery on the playground directly opposite the school building, with its long elevation parallel with and close to the pavement edge. The colour of the cladding was originally a mix of grey blue/grey.

Supporting Documents

The Applicant has submitted a Design Statement which is available to view via the Planning and Building Standards online services.

3.2 Determining Issues

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 14 16/01454/FUL

If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?

If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:

a) the proposal is acceptable in principle; b) the proposal will be of a suitable quality in terms of design; c) the proposal will result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to neighbouring properties; d) the proposal will adversely affect road safety, traffic and parking; e) the proposal will have any detrimental impact on equalities and human rights; and f) comments raised have been addressed. a) Principle

The site lies within the defined urban area and will continue to provide nursery accommodation within the existing school site. The site is in a sustainable location accessible from the surrounding area by foot, bicycle and public transport.

The proposal is therefore acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other relevant ECLP policies. b) Design, Form, Materials and Positioning

The proposed nursery will replace the existing temporary nursery building. It will be well located in relation to the main school buildings and will be accessible by foot through the school grounds from Redhall Grove. No playground space will be lost as a result of the proposal.

The spatial character of the surrounding area is varied in relation to built footprints, with buildings generally set back from the pavement edge. Whilst there is no established building line along the south side of this part of Redhall Grove, the proposed nursery will be positioned comparatively closer to the pavement edge than surrounding residential buildings. Notwithstanding this, the school site has a different spatial character to the surrounding residential streets and the nursery has been positioned as far back as possible to satisfy emergency access requirements. The position of the nursery building is justifiable in this case and will not have a detrimental impact on the street scene or spatial character of the area.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 14 16/01454/FUL

The proposal is of a contemporary and functional single storey design with a pitched roof, and is of a style and scale which will complement the character of the existing modern flat roofed school building and surrounding pitched roofed residential properties. The materials proposed reflect the contemporary character of the building and will create interest within this part of the school grounds and along the street. The colour of the facing cladding has been amended from the original grey/blue to buff/brown to reflect the surrounding area.

A condition has been added requiring the submission of samples of the external materials prior to the commencement of the development to ensure a suitable finish. In addition, a condition has been added requiring details of the new low level brick retaining wall to be erected around the north elevation. No existing walls or railings are proposed to be removed as part of this proposal.

One tree will be removed as part of the proposal. A condition has been added requiring that a new tree is to be planted in mitigation.

The majority of the site for the proposed nursery already houses the existing nursery building. No concerns are raised with regard to archaeology or flooding.

Windows in the closest residential property are approximately 18 metres to the north of the proposed nursery building. The proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on privacy.

The proposal complies with ECLP polices Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) and Des 3 (Development Design). d) Road Safety, Traffic and Parking

There will be no additional children or staff as a result of the proposal because it replaces an existing nursery on the site.

The Roads Authority raises no objections to the proposal with regard to road safety, traffic impact or parking.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 14 16/01454/FUL

The proposal complies with ECLP policies Tra 4 (Private Car Parking) and Tra 5 (Private Cycle Parking). e) Equalities and Human Rights Impacts

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. No impact was identified. f) Public Comments

SCHEME 1

Five representations were received in relation to the original proposal, which raised objections as follows:

Material Representations - Objections

- Design inappropriate; - Siting not in keeping with area; - Loss of trees; and - Loss of playground.

Community Council

Longstone Community Council objected to the original proposal on the following grounds:

- Design inappropriate; - Siting not in keeping with area; - Loss of trees, wall and fence; and - Loss of playground.

The proposal was subsequently amended to 'Scheme 2' as detailed in section 3.1 of this report. Further neighbour notification letters were issued and a period for comments was provided.

SCHEME 2

Three representations were received in relation to the current proposal, which raised objections as follows:

Material Representations - Objections

- Design inappropriate - this has been addressed in section 3.3(b) of the assessment; - Siting not in keeping with area - this has been addressed in section 3.3(b) of the assessment; - Loss of tree - this has been addressed in section 3.3(b) of the assessment; - Flood risk - this has been addressed in section 3.3(b) of the assessment; - Detrimental to neighbouring amenity in terms of privacy, daylight and sunlight - this has been addressed in section 3.3(c) of the assessment; and

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 14 16/01454/FUL

- Impact on traffic, congestion and parking - this has been addressed in section 3.3(c) of the assessment.

Community Council

Longstone Community Council confirmed its support for the repositioning of the nursery to the site of the existing nursery and after-school club, however objected on the following grounds:

- Orientation of nursery inappropriate - this has been addressed in section 3.3(b) of the assessment; - Loss of tree, wall and railings - this has been addressed in section 3.3(b) of the assessment; and - Design inappropriate - this has been addressed in section 3.3(b) of the assessment.

Non-Material Representations

- Alternative sites more appropriate such as where the existing nursery and after- school club buildings are to be demolished; - Loss of view; and - Disruption from construction process.

Conclusion

The proposal is acceptable in principle, and is of suitable quality in terms of design and form, choice of materials and positioning. The proposal will not result in any unreasonable loss of amenity to neighbouring properties, and will not have a detrimental impact on traffic, parking, road safety or archaeology. No impact on equalities and human rights was identified.

The proposal complies with the Development Plan and the Council's non-statutory guidelines, and is acceptable. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Conditions:-

1. Full details of the low level brick retaining wall around the new landscaped area adjacent to the north facing elevation of the nursery hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development on site.

2. One tree shall be planted in mitigation for the loss of the existing tree to be removed. Details of the location and type of this replacement tree shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before work is commenced on site. The approved replacement tree shall be planted within the next available planting season following the completion of the development.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 14 16/01454/FUL

3. A detailed specification, including trade names where appropriate, of all the proposed external materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before work is commenced on site; Note: samples of the materials may be required.

Reasons:-

1. In order to enable the planning authority to consider this/these matter/s in detail.

2. In order to retain and/or protect important elements of the existing character and amenity of the site.

3. In order to enable the planning authority to consider this/these matter/s in detail.

Informatives:-

It should be noted that:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

4. The removal or management of vegetation should be undertaken out with the bird breeding season (March-August inclusive). If this is not possible then a suitable qualified individual should check all vegetation for nesting or breeding birds prior to removal. Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

All financial implications of this Council project are matters for consideration by Education, Children and Families Committee. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 8 of 14 16/01454/FUL

Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights. Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

Six objections were received in relation to the original proposal including one from Longstone Community Council (Scheme 1). Four objections were received in relation to the current proposal, including one from Longstone Community Council (Scheme 2).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 9 of 14 16/01454/FUL

Background reading/external references

To view details of the application go to;  Planning and Building Standards online services

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 10 of 14 16/01454/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision The site is located within the Urban Area, and the southern, western and eastern edges of the school grounds are designated as protected Open Space.

Date registered 17 March 2016

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01b, 02a, 03b, 04a, 05a, 07 - 10,

Scheme 2

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Ruth King, Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 6475

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 11 of 14 16/01454/FUL

Links-Policies

Relevant Policies:

Policy Com 3 (School Development) sets criteria for assessing sites for new school development.

Policy Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) sets general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated.

Policy Des 3 (Development Design) sets criteria for assessing development design.

Policy Env 12 (Trees) sets out tree protection requirements for new development.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 12 of 14 16/01454/FUL

Appendix 1

Consultations

Environmental Assessment

Environmental Assessment offers no objections.

Roads Authority

No objections to the application.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 13 of 14 16/01454/FUL

Location Plan

END

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 14 of 14 16/01454/FUL Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Application for Planning Permission 16/02229/FUL at 3F, 8 Scotland Street, Edinburgh. Subdivide property from 3 bedroom 3rd floor residence to two 2 bedroom residences.

Item number Report number

Wards A11 - City Centre

Summary

The proposals comply with the development plan, have no adverse effect on the character or appearance of the conservation area or the character of the listed building and do not harm the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site.

The subdivision of a listed flat in residential use does not comply with the non-statutory guidance. However, a departure is justified in this case as the proposed subdivision will benefit the building longer term without having a detrimental impact on historic or architectural character.

The development has no detrimental impact on the amenity of future occupiers and neighbouring residents or parking. There are no identified impacts on equalities or human rights and no material considerations that outweigh this conclusion.

Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITH1, CITE6, CITE4, CITE1, CITT4, NSG,

this application NSLBCA, NSGD02, NSP, CRPNEW,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 1 of 13 16/02229/FUL

Report

Application for Planning Permission 16/02229/FUL at 3F, 8 Scotland Street, Edinburgh. Subdivide property from 3 bedroom 3rd floor residence to two 2 bedroom residences.

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below. Background

2.1 Site description

The application refers to a third floor flat within a four storey and basement, sandstone constructed tenement by Robert Reid and William Sibbald, dating from 1801-4. The building is category B listed (ref. 29780, listed on 14.12.1970) and is situated within the World Heritage Site.

The property is situated on the west side of Scotland Street within a predominantly residential area.

This application site is located within the New Town Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

There is no relevant planning history for this site. Main report

3.1 Description of the Proposal

The application is to subdivide a 3-bedroom residence to form two 2-bedroom residences: one with an area of 101.4sqm and the other with an area of 89sqm.

No external alterations are proposed that required planning permission.

The associated internal alterations form part of the associated application for listed building consent (application number: 16/02230/LBC).

3.2 Determining Issues

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 13 16/02229/FUL

Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of consent.

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?

If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:

a) the proposal is acceptable in principle; b) the proposals adversely affect the character or appearance of the conservation area or character of the listed building; c) the proposals harm the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site; d) the proposals provide an adequate level of amenity for future occupiers; e) the proposals have a detrimental impact on neighbouring residential amenity or parking; f) the proposals have any detrimental impact on equalities and human rights; and g) comments raised have been addressed. a) Principle

The site is located within the urban area as defined in the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Policy H1 supports housing development on suitable sites within the urban area.

The flats meet the minimal floor area requirements as set out in the Edinburgh Design Guidance and the development is acceptable in principle. b) Character and Appearance of Conservation Area and Character of Listed Building

The character of the New Town Conservation Area is summarised in the Character Appraisal as follows:

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 13 16/02229/FUL

to the rear are lanes with mews buildings, many of which are now in housing use. The importance of the area therefore lies in the formal plan layout of buildings, streets, mews and gardens and in the quality of the buildings themselves. Many of the New Town's buildings are listed category 'A' of national importance and the area contains some of the city's finest interiors".

Scotland Street comprises tenemental properties and the proposed subdivision to form two flats, involving no external alterations, will have no adverse effect on the character or appearance of the conservation area.

However, the relevant guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas states that there will be a presumption against the subdivision of complete houses and flats currently in residential use.

The purpose of the above guidance is to protect listed buildings against unsympathetic alterations which are often associated with subdivision. However, there will be cases where subdivision is acceptable if the associated alterations have no detrimental impact on the special historic and architectural character of the building and the subdivision is beneficial to the condition of the building. The application property is a category B listed building which is in a poor state of repair with significant cracks across walls, particularly in the entrance hall. This is a sign of underlying problems caused by lack of adequate maintenance. Comprehensive repair works would be undertaken as part of the subdivision project which would benefit the building in the short and longer term. Although the property has undergone relatively little alteration and includes significant internal spaces and architectural detailing, the proposed alterations have been sensitively designed to preserve the character of the listed building.

The subdivision will provide more options for the residential use of this large listed flat which has three bedrooms at present but could operate as a five-bedroom property if one of the two living rooms and boxroom were used as bedrooms. The plan form of the property with two large front rooms on either side of the entrance hall makes subdivision into two two-bedroom flats relatively straightforward. Although a five- bedroom flat could attract a family, the lack of a lift and easily accessible external amenity space will limit its potential whereas two flats of the proposed scale in this top floor location will attract a wider range of buyers. A listed property is most likely to benefit from continuous use without prolonged periods of vacancy in terms of maintenance and upkeep.

The proposed subdivision is therefore justified and will not cause any unnecessary damage to the historic structure or diminish the historic or architectural significance of the listed building. No external alterations are proposed and a full assessment of the proposed internal alterations has been carried out in the associated application for listed building consent (application number: 16/02230/LBC). Each application has to be assessed on its own merits and therefore does not set a precedent for similar proposals.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 13 16/02229/FUL c) Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage Site

The proposed subdivision will have no impact on the external appearance of the building and will therefore have no detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the medieval Old Town, nor its relationship with the Georgian New Town.

The proposed works will therefore cause no harm to the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site. d) Amenity of Future Occupiers

The new flats will be within an existing tenement in a relatively high density, residential area and are generous in scale with dual aspect and ample daylighting. There are no impacts in terms of privacy.

The properties will have access to the communal rear green and are in proximity to Calton Hill and Princes Street Gardens.

The development will therefore provide an adequate level of amenity for future occupiers. e) Residential Amenity and Parking

The proposed residential use is within a predominantly residential area and will therefore have no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours.

No off-street parking spaces are required for new residences of the proposed scale in this location and each property will be eligible for one residential parking permit. Permits would not be given out if there was insufficient space to accommodate any additional vehicles.

The development will therefore have no detrimental impact on neighbouring residential amenity or parking. f) Impact on Equalities and Human Rights

The application has been assessed and has no apparent impact in terms of equalities or human rights.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 13 16/02229/FUL g) Comments

Material Objections

- the subdivision is contrary to the Council's guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (b) of the assessment; - the development would set an undesirable precedent - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (b) of the assessment; - there will be increased parking - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (e) of the assessment; - the site plan is incorrect as 8 Scotland Street is on the corner with West Scotland Street Lane - the site plan shows the ground level of 8 Scotland Street in the correct location. This level comprises the common stair only. It is correctly noted that the flats above stretch to the boundary with West Scotland Street Lane. However, this omission is acceptable given that the site plan would incorporate the ground floor flat at no. 10 Scotland Street otherwise.

New Town and Broughton Community Council

- the development is contrary to Council guidance as the subdivision proposes more than one flat per floor - this has been addressed in section 3.3(b) of the assessment.

The comments concerning the proposed internal alterations relate to the associated application for listed building consent (application number: 16/02230/LBC).

Conclusion

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 13 16/02229/FUL

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Informatives:-

It should be noted that:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

4. The applicant will be eligible for one residential parking permit for each new property in accordance with Transport and Environment Committee decision of 4 June 2013. See http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/39382/item_7_7 (Category B - Newly Converted or Subdivided). Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

There are no financial implications to the Council. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low. Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights. Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 13 16/02229/FUL

Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

There is no pre-application process history.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 3 July 2015. Twelve representations were received, including a letter from New Town and Broughton Community Council.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 8 of 13 16/02229/FUL

Background reading/external references

To view details of the application go to;  Planning and Building Standards online services

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 9 of 13 16/02229/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision The site is located with the Edinburgh City Local Plan in an urban area.

Date registered 2 May 2016

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01, 02 + 03a,

Scheme 2

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Clare Macdonald, Senior Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 6121

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 10 of 13 16/02229/FUL

Links-Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development) supports housing on appropriate sites in the urban area, and on specific sites identified in the Plan.

Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas.

Policy Env 4 (Listed Buildings – Alterations & Extensions) identifies the circumstances in which alterations and extensions to listed buildings will be permitted.

Policy Env 1 (World Heritage Site) protects the quality of the World Heritage Site and its settings.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines.

Non-statutory guidelines ‘LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS' provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

Non-statutory guidelines on 'PARKING STANDARDS' set the requirements for parking provision in developments.

The New Town Conservation Area Character Appraisal states that the area is typified by the formal plan layout, spacious stone built terraces, broad streets and an overall classical elegance. The buildings are of a generally consistent three storey and basement scale, with some four storey corner and central pavilions.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 11 of 13 16/02229/FUL

Appendix 1

Application for Planning Permission 16/02229/FUL at 3F, 8 Scotland Street, Edinburgh. Subdivide property from 3 bedroom 3rd floor residence to two 2 bedroom residences.

Consultations

Roads Authority Issues

No objections to the application subject to the following being included as conditions or informatives as appropriate:

1. The applicant should be advised that they will be eligible for one residential parking permit for each new property in accordance with Transport and Environment Committee decision of 4 June 2013. See http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/39382/item_7_7 (Category B - Newly Converted or Subdivided).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 12 of 13 16/02229/FUL

Location Plan

END

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 13 of 13 16/02229/FUL Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Application for Listed Building Consent 16/02230/LBC At 3F 8 Scotland Street, Edinburgh, EH3 6PS. Subdivide property from 3 bedroom 3rd floor residence to two 2 bedroom residences (as amended).

Item number Report number

Wards A11 - City Centre

Summary

The proposals comply with the development plan and have no adverse effect on the character of the listed building or character or appearance of the conservation area.

The subdivision of a listed flat in residential use and installation of a kitchen in a principal front room does not comply with the non-statutory guidance. However, a departure is justified in this case as the proposed subdivision will benefit the building longer term without having a detrimental impact on historic or architectural character and the proposed minimalist style kitchen will have no adverse impact on the layout or architectural detailing of the principal room.

There are no identified impacts on equalities or human rights and no material considerations that outweigh this conclusion.

It is recommended that the Committee approves this application.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 1 of 14 16/02230/LBC Links

Policies and guidance for CITE4, LPC, CITE6, NSG, NSLBCA, CRPNEW,

this application

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 14 16/02230/LBC

Report

Application for Listed Building Consent 16/02230/LBC At 3F 8 Scotland Street, Edinburgh, EH3 6PS. Subdivide property from 3 bedroom 3rd floor residence to two 2 bedroom residences (as amended).

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below. Background

2.1 Site description

The property is situated on the west side of Scotland Street within a predominantly residential area.

This application site is located within the New Town Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

There is no relevant planning history for this site. Main report

3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The application is to subdivide a 3-bedroom residence to form two 2-bedroom residences. This involves the following internal alterations:

- remove existing window to common stair and install new panelled entrance door to match materials and detailing of existing entrance door (without side lights); - erect partition across entrance hall and form presses on either side with panelled doors to match existing doors in hall; - erect kitchen island unit and run of units along rear wall in front principal room on south side; - form en-suite shower room in rear bedroom on south side; - convert existing kitchen to bedroom; - install kitchen in front box room; - block up doorway between rear bedroom and bathroom (retaining door on bedroom side) and form WC in existing store on north side; and

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 14 16/02230/LBC

- remove existing skylight in entrance hall and install similar skylight in central location in reconfigured hallway.

The amended scheme omits the proposed slapping between the front rooms on the north side and includes presses on either side of the hall partition.

3.2 Determining Issues

Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of permission.

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:

a) the proposals adversely affect the character of the listed building; b) the proposals adversely affect the character or appearance of the conservation area; c) any impacts on equalities or human rights are acceptable; and d) comments raised have been addressed. a) Character of Listed Building

Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Env 4 permits alterations to listed buildings where these are justified and will not cause damage or diminish its historic interest.

The non-statutory guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas states that there will be a presumption against the subdivision of complete houses and flats currently in residential use.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 14 16/02230/LBC

In order to form two separate flats, a new entrance door is proposed at right angles to the original entrance door at the top of the common stairs. This close is virtually unaltered, although it is utilitarian in character. No alterations are proposed to the original door or its flanking glazed panels and the new door will not obstruct or interfere with views of the original doorpiece on approach. The proposed door and fanlight will match the original design (without side lights) and will not be an incongruous feature in this relatively inconspicuous part of the common stair. The small fixed pane window to be removed is not a particularly significant feature nor necessarily original.

The existing entrance hall is typical of this age and type of building with several panelled doors leading off to the various rooms of the flat. These are not in a formal or symmetrical arrangement and the cornice is relatively plain. The main feature of the hall is its original flagstone floor. The proposed partition will reduce the scale of the hall, but not to an extent that will detrimentally affect its character. The partition wall will be positioned to the north side of the entrance door and will not cut across the glazed panel on this side leaving a generous hall space. Twin press doors to match the original design will be incorporated on either side of the new wall to maintain the characteristic feature of doors on each hall elevation. The only detrimental impact will be the loss of a strip of flagstones. However, there is a narrower line of flagstones where the partition will sit and the loss of these is acceptable given that the majority and best of the flagstones will remain.

Elsewhere, there will be no significant disruption to principal rooms. The relevant planning guidelines presume against kitchens in principal rooms. However, there are cases where this is acceptable, depending on the quality of the room, extent and location of fixed units proposed and visibility of any units from the exterior. The proposed kitchen units in the front room on the south side are confined to a modest- scale island unit located towards the rear of the room away from the fireplace and a short run of units along the rear wall. There is no dado panelling in this room.

The proposed slapping between the principal front room and dressing room on the north side has been deleted in the revised scheme and the principal room will remain unaltered. The former dressing room is plainly detailed and therefore the new kitchen units will have no adverse impact on its character.

The existing rear bedroom on the south side is not what would be classed as a principal room given its relatively small scale and simple detailing. The proposed en- suite shower room within this room is therefore acceptable.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 14 16/02230/LBC

There are no flagstones in the existing kitchen and no alterations are proposed to the original range and over surrounds.

The other proposed alterations affect minor areas of the flat and will have no detrimental impact on character. The majority of original doors will be retained and a condition has been applied to ensure that all new partitions are scribed round original cornicing and skirting.

The proposed subdivision and alterations are therefore justified and will not cause any unnecessary damage to the historic structure or diminish the historic or architectural significance of the listed building, in compliance with Policy Env 4 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Each application has to be assessed on its own merits and therefore does not set a precedent for similar proposals.

Character and Appearance of Conservation Area

The character of the New Town Conservation Area is summarised in the Character Appraisal as follows:

"A planned urban concept of European significance, the New Town has an overriding character of Georgian formality. The First New Town, built to James Craig's 1767 plan, has experienced significant redevelopment, while the Second, Third and Fourth New Towns, which were laid out on estates to the north, east and west retain most of their original buildings. Stone built terrace houses and tenements, built to the highest standards, overlook communal private gardens; to the rear are lanes with mews buildings, many of which are now in housing use. The importance of the area therefore lies in the formal plan layout of buildings, streets, mews and gardens and in the quality of the buildings themselves. Many of the New Town's buildings are listed category 'A' of national importance and the area contains some of the city's finest interiors".

Scotland Street comprises tenemental properties and the proposed subdivision to form two flats, involving no external alterations and no detrimental impact on the quality of the listed building, will have no adverse effect on the character or appearance of the conservation area, in compliance with Policy Env 6 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. b) Equalities and Human Rights

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights and no impact has been identified. c) Comments

Material Objections

- the proposals are contrary to policy Env4 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan and the relevant supplementary guidance - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (a) of the assessment; - the works do not preserve or enhance the character of the listed building - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (a) of the assessment;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 14 16/02230/LBC

- the proposed works are damaging and not necessary or justified - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (a) of the assessment; - the formation of new doorway in the common stair would result in loss of the existing window to the main stairwell - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (a) of the assessment; - the subdivision of the entrance hall with its original flagstones and panelled doors would harm the building's character and special interest - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (a) of the assessment; - the kitchen in the principal room is contrary to the guidelines - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (a) of the assessment; - the large slapping in the front principal room and en-suite bathroom in the principal room does not respect the original plan - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (a) of the assessment; - there is potential for the removal of the flagstone floor and range/oven surrounds from the original kitchen - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (a) of the assessment; - the loss of original features including doors, architraves, skirting and cornices is detrimental - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (a) of the assessment; - the superficial repair issues do not justify proposed the works which are harmful - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (a) of the assessment; - the subdivision would set an undesirable precedent - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (a) of the assessment; and - the site plan is incorrect as 8 Scotland Street is on the corner with West Scotland Street Lane - the site plan shows the ground level of 8 Scotland Street in the correct location. This level comprises the common stair only. It is correctly noted that the flats above stretch to the boundary with West Scotland Street Lane. However, this omission is acceptable given that the site plan would incorporate the ground floor flat at no. 10 Scotland Street otherwise.

New Town and Broughton Community Council

- the development is contrary to Council guidance as the subdivision proposes more than one flat per floor - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (a) of the assessment; - the subdivision does not respect the original plan form, compromises the layout and form of the principal rooms and entrance hall, results in the loss of original features and the geometry of the stairwell and fundamentally alters the character of listed building - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (a) of the assessment; and - the renewal of architectural elements which are in poor condition does not justify the major changes proposed - this has been addressed in section 3.3 (a) of the assessment. The proposed repairs will address underlying issues affecting the fabric of the building.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 14 16/02230/LBC

Conclusion

The proposals comply with the development plan and have no adverse effect on the character of the listed building or character or appearance of the conservation area.

There are no identified impacts on equalities or human rights and no material considerations that outweigh this conclusion.

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Conditions:-

1. The new partitions and kitchen units hereby approved shall be scribed round the existing cornices and skirting.

Reasons:-

1. In order to safeguard the character of the statutorily listed building.

Informatives:-

It should be noted that:

1. The works hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

There are no financial implications to the Council. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low. Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 8 of 14 16/02230/LBC

Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

There is no pre-application process history.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 3 July 2015. Seven representations were received, including letters from New Town and Broughton Community Council and the AHSS.

A full assessment of the representations can be found in the main report in the Assessment section.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 9 of 14 16/02230/LBC

Background reading/external references

To view details of the application go to;  Planning and Building Standards online services

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 10 of 14 16/02230/LBC

Statutory Development Plan Provision The site is located with the Edinburgh City Local Plan in an urban area.

Date registered 2 May 2016

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01, 02 + 03a,

Scheme 2

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Clare Macdonald, Senior Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 6121

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 11 of 14 16/02230/LBC

Links-Policies

Relevant Policies:

Policy Env 4 (Listed Buildings – Alterations & Extensions) identifies the circumstances in which alterations and extensions to listed buildings will be permitted.

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines.

Non-statutory guidelines 'LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS' provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 12 of 14 16/02230/LBC

Appendix 1

Application for Listed Building Consent 16/02230/LBC At 3F 8 Scotland Street, Edinburgh, EH3 6PS. Subdivide property from 3 bedroom 3rd floor residence to two 2 bedroom residences (as amended).

Consultations

Historic Environment Scotland

Historic Environment Scotland has reviewed your consultation, and we consider the proposals do not raise issues of national significance, so we can confirm that we do not object.

While we do not object, we do, however, have the following comments which your Council should take into account in your decision:

The main issue, which we haven't encountered often before, is the proposed subdivision of this large New Town flat, designed around 1800 by Reid & Sibbald. The works would involve inserting a partition through the centre of the flat's stone-flagged and top-lit central hall. A central hall accessed directly from the stair with all rooms radiating off it (all retaining four panelled doors) is an important part of the character of this B listed tenement flat. We would suggest the character and special interest of the building would be harmed by these works.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 13 of 14 16/02230/LBC

Location Plan

END

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 14 of 14 16/02230/LBC

Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Application for Planning Permission 16/01742/FUL At 19 St Leonard's Lane, Edinburgh, EH8 9SH Change of use to distillery and extension to north end including ancillary uses, including exhibition and tasting areas, and associated retail sales area. Use of external yard for distillery related servicing, storage, community amenity space and occasional open air market or other events (as amended).

Item number Report number

Wards A15 - Southside/Newington

Summary

The proposal is acceptable in principle and represents sustainable development as defined by the Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP) and Scottish Planning Policy.

The proposal is acceptable with respect to use, layout, design and materials and will not have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed buildings or the character of the South Side Conservation Area. No concerns are raised with regard to the proposal's impact on traffic, road safety, parking, flooding, drainage, contaminated land, trees, protected species, archaeology or neighbouring amenity. The proposal complies with relevant policies in the Development Plan and associated non-statutory guidance.

The proposal is acceptable. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 1 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Links

Policies and guidance for CITEM4, CITH8, CITT5, CITT6, CITT13, CITE3,

this application CITE6, CITE8, CITE9, CITD1, CITD3, CITD4, CITD5, CITD11, CRPSSI, NSBUS, NSLBCA, NSP, NSGD02,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Report

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below. Background

2.1 Site description

The application site is the former St Leonard's railway goods shed and terminus, including outbuildings and gatepiers, originally built for the Edinburgh Dalkeith Railway in the early 19th century. The shed is 3-storey with a long rectangular plan (53m x 7m) built from stone rubble with ashlar dressings, and sits along the eastern edge of the site. There are a number of openings including arched openings and the fenestration has been altered. The outbuildings comprise a low range with exposed gables. The building to the east is dilapidated and no longer has a roof. There are two gatepiers at the main entranceway constructed of polished ashlar. The buildings date from circa 1840. The shed, outbuildings and gatepiers are listed category B (LB29731 refers).

The building is primarily accessed from St Leonard's Lane to the north. Between the outbuilding, the Engine Shed and the neighbouring tenement is a small yard space which is accessed via a narrow opening between the two buildings. To the west is an open area recently used as a car park, bounded on the eastern edge by a foot and cycle path linking Hermits Croft and St Leonard's Lane. This open area was historically used as a railway siding, and for a period of time, a large timber pitched roof shed occupied some of this space.

To the south and west of the Engine Shed building, are relatively modern 4-storey flatted developments, dating from the 1990's.

To the north, on St Leonard's Lane, is a 4-storey tenement building, the ground floor of which is the shop frontage of the Nomad's Tent warehouse. Behind the tenement there is a large single storey warehouse building that extends some 20m beyond the back of the tenement building and abuts the Engine Shed building along its length. The flat bitumen covered roof of this large single storey structure is used by the residents of the

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 32 16/01742/FUL neighbouring tenement buildings on St Leonard's Lane and St Leonard's Bank as a drying green.

To the east of the site, on St Leonard's Bank, the 4-storey tenement from St. Leonard's Lane continues. Situated next to the tenement are four 2-storey stone built terraced houses dating from the 19th century, with gardens abutting the Engine Shed.

The wider area is of a mixed use, with mainly residential and shops, pubs and restaurants. St Leonard's Police Station is located to the north west on the corner of St Leonard's Street and St Leonard's Lane.

This application site is located within the Southside Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

17th August 1994 - Planning Permission Granted to extend opening hours to 11pm (application number: 94/01531/FUL).

9th December 1999- Applications withdrawn to erect infill section of wall (application number: 99/02337/CEC and 99/-2337/CEL).

29th April 2008-Planning Permission Granted to extend opening hours from 8am-11pm to 4am-11pm (application number: 08/00683/FUL). Main report

3.1 Description of the Proposal

The proposal comprises the change of use from a mixed use of office, conference centre and cafe/bakery to a distillery, exhibition and tasting areas (Class 4 light industrial) and associated retail sales (Class 1). The land to the front is to be used for community amenity space and occasional open air markets. The proposed micro- distillery and associated external plant-room will be operating 8am to 6pm daily with the fermenting process operating on a 24hr basis, initially on a 5-day operation. The visitor centre will be operating 10am to 8pm with a reduced closing time at 6pm out of season. Deliveries will be restricted to daytime hours only.

The proposal involves the following downtakings:

Engine Shed: Removal of non-original stairways at the north and south ends of the building; removal of non-original partitions at the north end, in the central area on the first and second floors; part removal of the floor at first and second floor levels to house the large stills, mash tuns and distilling equipment; part of the ceiling removed at the north end to allow a larger floor-to-ceiling ratio for a visitor exhibition; part of the roof removed on the rear slope to form skylights; 10 No. windows removed and replaced with new windows, arched doorway removed on the west elevation; non-original door on the east elevation to be removed; new opening formed at the north side to link in with partial new build on the existing outbuilding.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Outbuildings: Roof and gables removed from the outbuilding to the west; new opening formed in external wall to the north.

The proposed new works are as follows:

Engine Shed: Formation of new stairways (3 No.) and internal lift tower. Formation of a number of partitions to form toilets, double-height still and mash houses, office, staff and reception areas. Formation of exhibition, tasting and kitchen areas; installation of a glass entrance canopy and copper roof cladding; 7 No. timber windows to the east elevation with opaque glass; new vent, boiler flue and glazed rooflight; 3 No. new timber windows to match existing on the west elevation; blackened timber window boxes; 11 No. small vents to front elevation; New blackened timber screen to house plant area to the south.

Outbuildings: Formation of partial new 2-storey structure with a single-ply membrane flat roof, glazing, steel and blackened timber vertical screens to be used as a tasting area and for retail use ; new shop window to wall at ground floor level; new blackened timber screen to enclose existing electricity sub-station next to the outbuildings; new steel gate.

External layout: It is proposed that the main vehicular access will remain the same as the current arrangement. 10 car-parking bays are proposed. There will also be cycle provision at the front of the building, comprising 6 No. stands (12 No. spaces).

Scheme 1 Initially, the plans were not clear regarding the gates and security measures proposed for the main entrance which showed a barrier running across the right of way for the cycle path which runs through the site, to the west of the gatepiers from north to south. The plans have been revised to clarify this.

Supporting Documents The following documents have been submitted in support of the application and are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards online services:

- Pre-feasibility Study; - Planning and Design Statement; - Transport Statement; - Noise Impact Assessment; - Air Odour Report; - Holyrood Park Distillery Community Consultation; and - Waste Management Operational Statement.

3.2 Determining Issues

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of permission.

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?

If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether: a) the proposal is acceptable in principle; b) the proposal will be acceptable in terms of alterations and extensions to the existing buildings; c) the proposal is of an appropriate density, layout, scale and design; d) the proposals will have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed buildings on the site; e) the proposals will have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the conservation area; f) the proposal will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the protected species and trees; g) the proposal will have an adverse impact on traffic, road safety and parking; h) the proposal will have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity; i) the proposal will be acceptable in terms of flooding, drainage and sewage; j) the proposal will be acceptable in terms archaeology; k) the proposal meets sustainability criteria; l) there are relevant material considerations; m) any impacts on equalities or human rights are acceptable; and n) comments raised have been addressed. a) Principle

The application site is located in the Urban Area as designated by the Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP).

Policy EMP 4 applies to sites or premises generally in the urban area which are are or were last in employment use and could still be used to provide suitable accommodation for business, general industrial or storage uses. They include large and small employment sites within predominantly residential areas. This policy supports business and industrial premises and sites which are in the urban area and are not covered by policies EMP 1, 2 or 3.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 32 16/01742/FUL

The developer has calculated that the development would, upon completion, directly support approximately 25 jobs. The consultation response from the City Strategy and Economy Service states, that, given average employment densities, this is thought to be a realistic projection. Based on average levels of gross value added per employee for the food and drink manufacturing sector, the 25 jobs could be expected to support gross value added of approximately £1.49 million per annum (2013 prices).

The applicant has also submitted a Pre-feasibility Study which has concluded that 30% of Edinburgh attraction visitors may be tempted to visit the proposed new distillery. The City Strategy and Economy Service considers that the additional visitor expenditure in Edinburgh resulting from visits paid to the city to visit the distillery could potentially support significant additional jobs and GVA in the wider economy. Based on projected visitor numbers provided by the applicant, and allowing for 80% displacement, it is estimated that this could represent 67 to 155 jobs and £1.4 million to £3.2 million of GVA per annum (2013 prices).

It can therefore be concluded that such a use would be beneficial to the City in terms of generating employment and visitor spend and is to be supported in this respect.

Policy HOU 8 'Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas', seeks to control uses which would have a materially detrimental effect on living conditions of nearby residents. The proposed retail use (Class 1) and a micro-distillery business (Class 4).

The applicant has highlighted a number of mitigation measures to ensure that the proposal does not have have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity, which will be considered in more detail in section g). The Environmental Assessment has concluded that there are no objections subject to these measures and a number of conditions.

Therefore, the proposal complies in principle with Policy EMP 4, as it will encourage employment and business in this area and HOU8, as there are no adverse implications for residential amenity, subject to the mitigation measures being carried out.

The proposal is acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other relevant ECLP policies.

The detail of the proposal is assessed in parts b) to m) of this assessment. b) Alterations and Extensions to Existing Buildings

The proposed alterations are acceptable in scale, materials and design. The main intervention proposed for the Engine Shed building is a single-storey entrance canopy to be constructed of glass and copper roof cladding to the front, which will not have an adverse impact on the surroundings. There will be an enclosed plant area to the rear which will be low impact in nature. The proposals comply with the Edinburgh Design Guidelines.

The proposed modern extensions to the outbuildings will respect the existing building form and will be 2-storey in height, with a modern 'box' structure which will link it to the main distillery building at first floor level. The associated modern interventions respect the surrounding area. There are no overlooking or privacy issues.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 32 16/01742/FUL c) Density, Layout, Scale and Design

There will be no adverse impact in terms of density, layout, scale and design. The proposals are contained within the site, the existing layout will remain and the proposals respect the scale and design of the existing buildings.

Police Scotland has advised on a number of measures which would assist in making the development Secured by Design, including lighting and security provision. The proposals comply with the Edinburgh Design Guidelines. d) Impact on the Setting of Listed Buildings

The proposals respect the existing industrial nature of the Engine Shed and will ensure an appropriate long-term re-use. The outbuildings, which are in a state of disrepair will be consolidated and repaired to ensure a sustainable use to secure the future of these listed buildings. The wider area outside of the buildings has an neglected appearance, and the proposals will enable repair and renovation works and an on-going use which will ensure maintenance. They will also ensure their sustainable re-use. The proposals are in accord with Policy ENV3 and will not be detrimental to the appearance and character of the listed buildings or their setting. e) Impact on Conservation Area

The proposals respect the form of the existing historic buildings and the immediate setting. The proposed materials are in keeping with those existing, and in the surrounding area and wider setting.

The main new interventions, of an extension to the outbuildings to the north will reinstate the buildings to their original 2-storey form. The proposals will ensure a sustainable re-use for these buildings and that their historic character is retained. They comply with Policy ENV 6 regarding Development in Conservation Areas. f) Protected Species and Trees

There are no adverse implications for protected trees or species on this site. g) Traffic, Road Safety and Parking

The applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment which is acceptable. There is a requirement for cycle parking, and the plans have been revised accordingly. h) Neighbouring Amenity

Policy HOU 8 of ECLP 'Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas’ is applicable here. The applicant has submitted noise and odour impact assessments in response to the initial concerns in the Environmental Assessment relating to impact on neighbouring amenity. These have been assessed by Environmental Assessment who have no objections subject to a number of conditions and informatives which have been recommended. Other issues regarding amenity are dealt with in l) Other Material Considerations.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 8 of 32 16/01742/FUL i) Flooding, Drainage and Sewage

The site is not situated within a Flood Risk Area.

SEPA have been consulted and raise no objection. They state that given the combined nature of the drainage infrastructure in the local catchment, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems are not strictly required.

With regard to waste management, it is proposed that the discharge for the site connects to Scottish Water's existing combined sewer network, as the existing provision does. This will be subject to consultation and approval by Scottish Water. If some of the effluent streams cannot be accommodated in the Scottish Water treatment plant, then these would be collected on site and removed for off-site treatment and disposal. j) Archaeology

The application site is located on the site of the historic early railway station and good yard of St Leonard's constructed in 1831 for the Edinburgh-Dalkeith Railway; the early 19th Century Jenny Deans Tryst pub; and potentially medieval remains associated with St Leonard's almshouses and hospital. The City Archaeology Service recommended that a programme of archaeological excavations be carried out prior to and during development, should consent be granted. An appropriate condition has been recommended. k) Sustainability

The site is located within an urban location, well located with respect to public transport and is well connected by foot to the wider area. There is both existing off-road cycleway and proposed on-road cycleway provision near the site.

The existing listed buildings will be reused, and a number of energy measures such as new glazing and doors installed, which will assist with energy efficiency.

The proposed use will also contribute to the continuation of the distilling industry to produce a Scottish product.

The proposal represents sustainable development. l) Other Material Considerations

Health and Safety Executive Matters (HSE) The proposed development site does not lie within the HSE consultation distance for a major hazard site or major accident hazard pipeline.

Dangerous Substances The application has been assessed under the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Regulations 2015. It has been determined that there is no requirement for Hazardous Substances Consent as the quantities of flammable liquids which will be held on site will be below the threshold

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 9 of 32 16/01742/FUL at which Hazardous Substances Consent will be required as set out in Schedule 1 of the Regulations.

Contaminated Land The site is located within an urban location, well located with respect to public transport and is well connected by foot to the wider area. The application site has been identified as having a historic land use of a possible contaminative nature. The Contaminated Land Officer has been consulted and is satisfied that the land is likely to be suitable for the proposed use provided that there is a full encapsulation across the development and that the applicant is responsible for the safe development of the land. A condition has been recommended that in the event of the ground conditions indicating the potential for contamination it is requested that the applicant appoints a competent Environmental Consultant to undertake an assessment of the area of concern and for the Council to be informed as soon as possible.

On-site Waste Management With regards to waste management the applicant has submitted an operational statement in this regard to confirm that they intend to comply with The Waste Management (Scotland) Regulations 2014, which requires the separation of key waste materials.

Fire Scotland Issues There are no issues for Fire Scotland who have no objections subject to the access gate being a minimum of 3.5 m in width and secured by a pad lock. The proposed gate is 4.4m and will be secured by a pad lock. m) Equalities and Human Rights

It is proposed that there will be two lifts installed in the building and all other access is level in nature.

The proposal does not raise concerns with regard to equalities and human rights. n) Public Comments

The application was advertised on the 12th April 2016, and 50 representations were received. There are 7 objections, 6 comments neither objecting or supporting, and 37 representations of support including one from The Southside Association.

The representations received have been summarised below:

Material Representations: Objections - Odour, noise, and the potential associated health concerns; - Effect on wildlife; - Impact on parking and increase in traffic congestion; - Hours of operation, and selling alcohol; - Proposed gatehouse is out of keeping with the residential area and lacks visual integrity with the surrounding buildings; - Historic buildings on site; and - Concern about privacy at the rear.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 10 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Material Representations: Support - Well-thought out and integrated plan; - Design clearly sympathetic; - Enhances the local area; - Well-prepared proposal for a small commercial and visitor operation in a traditional food and drink sector in Edinburgh; - Proposal achieves balance between commercial and residential interests; - Innovative development; - It will enhance employment in the area; - Will secure the future for the building which is in need of repair and maintenance; - Business model for whisky distillation and tourist attraction is a long-term one, which should ensure long term planning and investment for the building and the local area; - Catalyst for other beneficial developments in the City; - Will be beneficial to tourism (both local, national and international) and the economy of the City, whilst being a complimentary offering to the other nearby attractions; - Viable and vibrant long-term re-use of a listed building, which is in need of repair and maintenance; - Community concern brought forward in a highly conscientious manner and treated seriously and honest dialogue undertaken.

The South Side Association support this application for the following reasons: - Renewed occupancy of the building and yard will be an improvement for the general area, which has become untidy and is used as a makeshift car-park; - Distillery will create much needed employment in the area and staff will be trained in various skills associated with the industry; and - The establishment of a distillery will be a positive development for the diversity of the Southside.

Non-Material Representations - Negative impact on property values; and - Security.

Community Council No comments received

The applicants also carried out a pre-planning submission public consultation exercise, the results of which are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Online Service.

Conclusion

The proposal is acceptable in principle and represents sustainable development as defined by the Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP) and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP).

The proposal is acceptable with respect to density, layout, scale and design and it will not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the setting of the listed buildings or the South Side Conservation Area. No concerns are raised with regard to the proposal's impact on traffic, road safety, parking, flooding, drainage, trees,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 11 of 32 16/01742/FUL protected species, archaeology or neighbouring amenity. The proposal complies with relevant policies in the Development Plan and associated non-statutory guidance.

The proposal is acceptable. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Conditions:-

3. All vapours from the mash tun shall be passed through an Odour Control Unit. The Odour Control Unit flue serving the mash tun shall terminate 0.5m above roof ridge level with a design efflux velocity of 15m/s during maximum air flow.

4. All louvres for ventilation positioned on the south-west façade of the building shall be acoustically attenuated with 150mm single bank louvres as a minimum.

5. The plant associated with the proposed micro-distillery (including the boiler and air cooled chiller) shall be fully enclosed within an acoustic enclosure in accordance with Drawing number L(PL)12 dated 18/07/2016. To be constructed with 2no. leafs of 100mm dense block-work with an 80mm clear cavity in between leafs and a 150mm concrete roof. With 150mm single bank acoustic louvres located on the western façade of the plant-room enclosure for ventilation.

6. Further details of the proposed location for additional cycle parking (3 additional stands, 6 No. spaces) and the means of enclosure should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Transport prior to the works commencing. Before any part of the development is brought into use, the cycle parking as shown on the approved plans shall be completed and available for use.

7. All details of external ventilation to roof and west elevation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to these works commencing on site.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 12 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Reasons:-

1. In order to enable the planning authority to consider this/these matter/s in detail.

2. In order to retain and/or protect important elements of the existing character and amenity of the site.

3. In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and other occupiers.

4. In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and other occupiers.

5. In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and other occupiers.

6. In order to enable the planning authority to consider this/these matter/s in detail.

7. In order to safeguard the character of the conservation area.

Informatives:-

It should be noted that:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

4. All access doors shall be fitted with air-tight seals and fast-closing mechanisms.

5. All raw materials and by-products shall be kept in sealed containers to prevent fugitive odours.

6. Given the nature of the proposed development, the requirements of Fire Scotland should be adhered to. We would, therefore, draw the applicant's attention to the requirement to agree details in this regard with Fire Scotland prior to works commencing on site.

7. Given the nature of the proposed development, it will be subject to various requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc.1974 (HSWA), and associated legislation, including the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 (DSEAR). We would, therefore, draw the applicants/agent's attention to the requirement to consult with the Health and Safety Executive to ensure compliance prior to the new use being operational.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 13 of 32 16/01742/FUL

8. The applicants should review the on-site inventory of dangerous substances as defined in Schedule 1 to the COMAH Regulations 2015 and consider if a notification is required to the COMAH Competent Authority under those regulations.

9. With regard to the recommended measures by Police Scotland for the Secured by Design scheme, the applicant/agent is advised that further consents may be required to carry these out, which may not be necessarily granted. They should seek advice from the Head of Planning and Transport prior to implementing them.

10. As the application site has a historic land use of a possible contaminative nature, the applicant/agent should note that they are responsible for the safe development of the land and in the event that ground conditions should indicate the potential for contamination (e.g. visible indications of asbestos or heavily impacted soils) during works to the extension phase of the development, it is requested that the applicant appoints a competent Environmental Consultant to undertake an assessment of the area of concern and for the Council to be notified as soon as possible on 0131 469 5693.

11. The existing cycle track on the western boundary of the site to remain unobstructed at all times. The applicant is requested to take particular care in the design and operation of any barrier or gate to ensure that cyclists and pedestrian are not at risk of injury.

12. A length of 2 metres nearest the road should be paved in a solid material to prevent deleterious material (e.g. loose chippings) being carried on to the road.

13. Any gate or doors must open inwards onto the property.

14. Any hard standing outside should be porous, to comply with 'Guidance for Householders' published in December 2012.

15. Any works to form a footway crossing or similar must be carried out under permit and in accordance with the specifications. See Road Occupation Permits http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/1263/apply_for_permission_to_creat e_or_alter_a_driveway_or_other_access_point.

16. The applicant/agent should ensure that all required permissions are sought from Scottish Water regarding drainage and water supply, to comply with the relevant legislation, prior to the new use being operational.

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

The application properties and land are owned by CEC and the Council will receive a direct revenue from the lease of these subjects.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 14 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low. Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights. Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

The application meets the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application has received 7 objections.

37 representations have been received in support of the proposal, one from the Southside Association.

6 representations were submitted neither objecting or supporting the proposal.

The Southside Community Council did not request to be a statutory consultee.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 15 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Background reading/external references

To view details of the application go to;  Planning and Building Standards online services

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 16 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision The site is located within the Southside Conservation Area and the buildings are category B listed.

Date registered 4 April 2016

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01+02A, 03-09 + 10B+ 11A+ 12A + 13A + 14+15B+ 16- 18,

Scheme 3

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Debbie McLean, Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 4468

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 17 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Links-Policies

Relevant Policies:

Policy Emp 4 (Employment Sites and Premises) sets out criteria for development proposals affecting business & industry sites and premises.

Policy Hou 8 (Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas) establishes a presumption against development which would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of nearby residents.

Policy Tra 5 (Private Cycle Parking) requires cycle parking provision in accordance with levels set out in supplementary guidance.

Policy Tra 6 (Design of Off-Street Car and Cycle Parking) sets criteria for assessing design of off-street car and cycle parking.

Policy Tra 13 (Cycle and Footpath Network) prevents development which would prevent implementation of, prejudice or obstruct the current or potential cycle and footpath network.

Policy Env 3 (Listed Buildings - Setting) identifies the circumstances in which development within the curtilage or affecting the setting of a listed building will be permitted.

Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas.

Policy Env 8 (Protection of Important Remains) establishes a presumption against development that would adversely affect the site or setting of a Scheduled Ancient Monument or archaeological remains of national importance.

Policy Env 9 (Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance) sets out the circumstances in which development affecting sites of known or suspected archaeological significance will be permitted.

Policy Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) sets general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated.

Policy Des 3 (Development Design) sets criteria for assessing development design.

Policy Des 4 (Layout Design) sets criteria for assessing layout design.

Policy Des 5 (External Spaces) sets criteria for assessing landscape design and external space elements of development.

Policy Des 11 (Alterations and Extensions) sets criteria for assessing alterations and extensions to existing buildings.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 18 of 32 16/01742/FUL

The South Side Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the harmonious scale, massing and materials and the significance of key institutional buildings within the area.

Non-statutory guidelines ‘GUIDANCE FOR BUSINESSES' provides guidance for proposals likely to be made on behalf of businesses. It includes food and drink uses, conversion to residential use, changing housing to commercial uses, altering shopfronts and signage and advertisements.

Non-statutory guidelines ‘LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS' provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

Non-statutory guidelines on 'PARKING STANDARDS' set the requirements for parking provision in developments.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 19 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Appendix 1

Consultations

City Strategy and Economy

The following are comments from the City of Edinburgh Council's City Strategy and Economy service which relate to planning applications 16/01742/FUL and 16/01743/LBC for the creation of a distillery (class 4) with ancillary retail (class 1) at 19 St Leonard's Lane, Edinburgh.

Edinburgh's economic strategy, A Strategy for Jobs 2012-17 aims to achieve sustainable economic growth through supporting the creation and safeguarding of jobs in Edinburgh. A key element of delivering jobs-driven economic growth is the provision of an adequate supply of workplaces.

Commentary on existing uses

The site in question is a 0.14 hectare plot to the south of St Leonard's Lane. The site is currently occupied by two buildings 19 St Leonard's Lane and a detached outbuilding along with an enclosed hard-standing yard. 19 St Leonard's Lane known as The Engine Shed is a 'B' listed 1840s former railway goods shed. The building was most recently operated as a café and bakery; it has been disused since February 2015. The applicant was granted a 25 year lease on the building in August 2015. The surrounding area is primarily residential with the exception of a police station and a handful of class 1, 2 and 3 units.

The existing building provides 295m2 of café space and 281m2 of office space. If fully let for these purposes, the building could be expected to directly support approximately 38 full-time equivalent jobs. Based on average levels of gross value added per employee for the relevant sectors, the 38 jobs could be expected to support gross value added of approximately £1.49 million per annum (2013 prices).

Commentary on proposed uses

Class 1 Shops The development as proposed would deliver 64m2 of new retail accommodation (class 1) in a newly constructed annex.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 20 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Class 4 Business

The development as proposed would deliver 50m2 of new distillery accommodation (class 4). Additionally, the existing 576m2 building would be converted into a distillery, with a still house, mash house and offices on the ground floor; a mash house, tasting rooms and an orientation space on the first floor; and a still house, exhibition space, kitchen and function space on the second floor.

Overall impact

The developer has calculated that the development would, upon completion, directly support approximately 25 jobs. Given average employment densities, this is thought to be a realistic projection. Based on average levels of gross value added per employee for the food and drink manufacturing sector, the 25 jobs could be expected to support gross value added of approximately £1.49 million per annum (2013 prices).

Sundry

The distillery could potentially be expected to support a minor increase in tourism in Edinburgh by attracting visitors to the city who would not otherwise have visited. These visitors could be expected to spend money elsewhere in the city, for example in shops, eateries and visitor accommodation. As of 2009, there were 41 distilleries, vineyards and breweries operating as visitor attractions in Scotland, ranging from the Tullibardine Distillery in Blackford with 130,000 visitors to the Clynelish Visitor Centre in Brora with 3,182 visitors. Based on projected visitor numbers supplied by the applicant and average levels of visitor expenditure in Edinburgh, it is calculated that visitor spend associated with the distillery would represent between £18.4 million and £42.7 million per annum. Allowing for an indicative entrance charge of £10 per visitor and a further £20 of expenditure within the distillery (in the gift shop) would give estimated spend outwith the distillery of £12.9 to £29.8 million per annum (it is necessary to make allowances for the entrance charge to avoid double counting as this expenditure will help support the 25 jobs within the distillery).

Based on average patterns of visitor expenditure, this could be expected to support between 335 and 777 jobs in Edinburgh in the accommodation; food and beverage service; transport and storage; arts, entertainment and recreation; and retail sectors, representing £6.9 to £16.0 million of gross value added per annum (2013 prices).

A key consideration is additionality i.e. what proportion of the visitors could be expected to have visited Edinburgh anyway in the absence of the distillery. It is unlikely that all visitors to the distillery will be visiting Edinburgh purely because of the distillery. It is likely that some visitors to Edinburgh will choose to visit the distillery instead of another attraction, meaning expenditure would be displaced from elsewhere in Edinburgh with no net gain to the city's economy. If it was to be assumed that 80% of visitors to the distillery would have visited Edinburgh anyway, this would give a net figure of 67 to 155 jobs and £1.4 to £3.2 million of GVA per annum (2013 prices).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 21 of 32 16/01742/FUL

SUMMARY RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

It is estimated that the development as proposed could directly support approximately 25 jobs and gross value added of £1.49 million per annum (2013 prices). By comparison, it is calculated that the building in its current configuration could be expected to directly support approximately 38 jobs and gross value added of £1.49 million per annum (2013 prices) if fully let. The development is therefore not expected to directly deliver a significant increase in economic activity. However, additional visitor expenditure in Edinburgh resulting from visits paid to the city to visit the distillery could potentially support significant additional jobs and GVA in the wider economy. Based on projected visitor numbers provided by the applicant, and allowing for 80% displacement, it is estimated that this could represent 67 to 155 jobs and £1.4 million to £3.2 million of GVA per annum (2013 prices).

Environmental Assessment

The applicant proposes changing the use of an existing three-storey engine shed building into a small distillery with associated sales area and service yard. There are existing residential properties overlooking the site with the nearest residential flats located at approximately 20m from the existing building to the south. The nearest residential property to the external plant-room is to the east, overlooking the garden to the side of the Engine Shed building at approximately 15m away.

The proposed micro-distillery and associated external plant-room will be operating 8am to 6pm daily with the fermenting process operating on a 24hr basis, initially on a 5-day operation. The visitor centre will be operating 10am to 8pm with a reduced closing time at 6pm out of season. Deliveries will be restricted to daytime hours only.

Environmental Assessment raised concerns regarding the potential noise and odour impacts this development may have on the neighbouring residential amenity. The applicant has submitted supporting noise and odour impact assessments which have been considered.

Odours

The applicants supporting odour impact assessment has detailed how the design of the distillery has considered odours from an early stage. The assessment has recommended that a number of mitigation measures will be required to ensure that odours do not adversely impact neighbouring amenity. These measures will be recommended as conditions if consent is granted.

Noise

The applicant has submitted a detailed noise impact assessment which has highlighted that a number of mitigation measures will be required to ensure that the proposal does not adversely impact neighbouring amenity.

The initial noise impact assessment identified that noise levels in the nearest residential properties due to activity in the proposed micro-distillery will be in breach of the recommended BS8233:2014 internal noise criteria and NR25 criterion for plant noise if unmitigated. The noise impact assessment has also highlighted that delivery noise will

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 22 of 32 16/01742/FUL adversely impact neighbouring amenity if uncontrolled. The applicant has now submitted further specific details which demonstrate that the above mentioned noise criteria's can be achieved with mitigation and delivery hours being conditioned.

Therefore Environmental Assessment offers no objections subject to the following conditions;

1. All access doors shall be fitted with air-tight seals and fast-closing mechanisms

2. All raw materials and by-products shall be kept in sealed containers to prevent fugitive odours.

4. All louvres for ventilation positioned on the south-west façade of the building shall be acoustically attenuated with 150mm single bank louvres as a minimum. 5. The plant associated with the proposed micro-distillery (including the boiler and air cooled chiller) shall be fully enclosed within an acoustic enclosure in accordance with Drawing number L(PL)12 dated 18/07/2016. To be constructed with 2no. leafs of 100mm dense block-work with an 80mm clear cavity in between leafs and a 150mm concrete roof. With 150mm single bank acoustic louvres located on the western façade of the plant-room enclosure for ventilation.

6. Deliveries and collections, including waste collections, to be restricted to 0700 - 1900 hours Monday to Saturday.

Police Scotland

It was a pleasure meeting with you and your client on 20th June 2016 to discuss their proposals for the Distillery in St Leonard's Lane and I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for considering Secured By Design (SBD) for this development.

While taking part in the Secured By Design scheme is not compulsory, knowing that your development has SBD status provides you with peace of mind in the knowledge that your premises benefits from enhanced security capable of deterring even the most determined criminal attack. A sensible and practical level of security is essential for a successful and profitable business and will contribute positively towards business continuity, staff safety and good neighbourhood relations.

While the area in which the development lies is not a high crime area, there are concerns across the City around business and domestic housebreaking and thefts of pedal cycles and motorcycles. We advise that cognisance is given to these issues at the planning stage.

As discussed, there are a number of enhancements that could be made at this stage to enhance overall security of your premises for the long term. With this in mind, I would comment as follows:

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 23 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Windows & Doors: The primary concerns for any Secured By Design development are windows and doors, in particular ground floor and easily accessible windows and doors. I am aware that the existing building carries a 'B' listing, which will demand the use of certain types of doors, windows and glazing. I note from the plans that glazed windows and doors across the development will be in an Astragal Georgian Bar style. This in itself is a security enhancement as it restricts the ability of criminals to gain entry by breaking glass. The majority of doors appear to be double leaf, French style. This type of door is less secure than a single leaf door but there are many secure doors of this style available on the market.

To achieve secured by design status, all ground floor and easily accessible windows and doors must meet the following standards: - PAS 24:2012 - LPS 1175: Issue 7, SR2 - STS 201 or STS 202

All ground floor and easily accessible glazing must incorporate one pane of laminated glass to a minimum thickness of 6.4mm. intruder Alarm System: A suitably designed, fit for purpose monitored alarm system must be installed. For a Police response, the system must comply with the requirements of the security systems policy, which can be found at www.securedbydesign.com.

CCTV: Before considering the installation of a CCTV system, you should be clear about the objectives you wish to meet. It is important to develop a comprehensive Operational Requirement (OR) for your proposed system that can be supplied to installers during the tendering process. An OR is used for the design, performance specification and functionality of the system. Whilst location of cameras is a site-specific matter, it would be normal practice to monitor public entrances to the premises and the reception area. Early discussions with potential installers can resolve a number of matters including:

- Monitoring and recording requirements - Activation in association with the premises intruder alarm - Requirements for observation and identification - Areas to be monitored and fields of view - Activities to be monitored - -The use of recorded images - System maintenance and management of recording - Training for operators

Safes & Secure Storage: Secured By Design recommends that commercial safes and strongrooms are certified to:

- LPS 1183: Issue 4.2, or - BS EN 1143-1:2012

The required resistance grade for a safe is determined by the value of the safe contents. Insurers will generally define their own ratings depending on the performance of the safe and the situation in which it is to be used. It is therefore crucial that you speak to your insurer prior to selecting a safe.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 24 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Your safe must be firmly secured to the fabric of the building and would ideally be contained within a lockable cupboard within a secure room. I am aware that there may be valuable bottles of malt whisky on display within the premises. It would be advisable to have these moved into secure storage outwith business hours. Perhaps these could also be stored within the aforementioned secure room. The door to this room would benefit from a more robust doorset and locking system than other internal doors.

Landscaping: I note that the intention is to have an uncontrolled boundary along the cycle path on the West side of the development. The current landscaped area, which bounds the cycle path is overgrown, restricts opportunities for natural surveillance over the site and creates potential hiding places. Where possible, plant growth above 1m and below 2m should be absent to provide a window of surveillance. This should be considered when maintaining the existing planted boundary and can help prevent casual approaches to the external face of the building, discourage loitering and enhance perimeter security. Spiny or thorny shrubs should be considered for any additional planting. I note that it is your intention to allow nearby residents to use the garden area at the south of the site. Existing trees adjacent to this area should be crown lifted to promote natural surveillance. It must be ensured that access to the plant enclosure and the main building here is robustly controlled.

Bicycle / Motorcycle Parking: Given the proximity of the proposed development to a major cycle route, there is a potential for many staff and visitors to the premises arriving by bicycle. We are aware that this cycle route has often been used by bicycle thieves to transport stolen bikes out of the City centre and therefore strongly recommend that secure bicycle storage is provided on site. External and preferably roofed bicycle stores with individual stands for securing bikes are best located close to supervised areas of the main building Bicycle storage should be covered by lighting and available CCTV. Cycle stands should facilitate the locking of both wheels and the crossbar of any pedal cycle. Minimum requirements for such equipment are:

- Galvanised steel bar construction (minimum thickness 3mm) filled with concrete. - Minimum foundation depth of 300mm with welded anchor bar

Further information about secure bicycle storage can be found at the following resource section of the 'Bikeoff' website: www.bikeoff/design_resource If it is your intention to provide motorcycle-parking spaces, these should also be created in an area that is overlooked by the main building. Secure anchor points certified to Sold Secure Silver Standard should be provided for motorcycles. Full information regarding Sold Secure products can be found at: www.soldsecure.com.

Lighting: It should be borne in mind when planning your lighting strategy that evenness of light distribution is almost always more important than the levels of illumination being achieved. Lighting should be matched to use and available surveillance/CCTV. To limit the potential for light pollution, only luminaries with suitable photometry serving to reduce light over spill and upward light should be used. Lit bollards should be avoided as a sole source of lighting. While ideal when used to mark routes and footpaths, they rarely provide enough light to allow pedestrians to effectively detect the presence or recognise the behaviour and intentions of other pedestrians. Bollard lighting can also be prone to vandalism.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 25 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Gates: Outwith business hours, the main access gate must be capable of being locked and secured to prevent unauthorised vehicular access.

Reception: It is recommended that the reception is staffed or supervised at all times in order that access beyond this point can be effectively controlled.

The foregoing recommendations are aimed at reducing the risk of criminal intrusion as far as possible taking into account various factors. With this in mind, however, no measure can ever be guaranteed to deter each and every potential intruder.

Police Scotland do not recommend or endorse specific products or companies. Any product used should, where possible, be endorsed as part of the 'Secured By Design' and 'Sold Secure' criteria.

The Secured By Design Commercial Developments 2015 guide can be downloaded at: http://www.securedbydesign.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/05/SBD_Commercial_2015_V2.pdf Should you choose to pursue Secured By Design for this development, a certificate will be provided upon production of relevant certification for windows and doors and at the conclusion

Roads Authority

No objections to the application subject to the following being included as conditions or informatives as appropriate:

1. The existing cycle track on the western boundary of the site to remain unobstructed at all times. The applicant is requested to take particular care in the design and operation of any barrier or gate to ensure that cyclists and pedestrian are not at risk of injury;

2. Cycle parking to be provided for staff and visitors in an undercover location. It is anticipated that 6No. stands (12No. spaces) would be sufficient for this development;

3. A length of 2 metres nearest the road should be paved in a solid material to prevent deleterious material (e.g. loose chippings) being carried on to the road;

4. Any gate or doors must open inwards onto the property;

5. Any hard standing outside should be porous, to comply with 'Guidance for Householders' published in December 2012;

6. Any works to form a footway crossing or similar must be carried out under permit and in accordance with the specifications. See Road Occupation Permits http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/1263/apply_for_permission_to_creat e_or_alter_a_driveway_or_other_access_point.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 26 of 32 16/01742/FUL

7. Any off-street parking space should comply with the Council's Guidance for Householders and be at least 6 metres deep and should not be wider than 3 metres. See http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/704/guidance_for_househo lders

All disabled persons parking places should comply with Disabled Persons Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009. The Act places a duty on the local authority to promote proper use of parking places for disabled persons' vehicles. The applicant should therefore advise the Head of Planning and Transport if he wishes the bays to be enforced under this legislation. A contribution of £2,000 will be required to progress the necessary traffic order. All disabled persons parking places must comply with Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 regulations or British Standard 8300:2009 as approved by the Head of Planning and Transport, on a satisfactory site visit on completion of the relevant works.

SEPA

We have no objection to this planning application. Please note the advice provided below.

Advice for the planning authority

1. Contaminated Land 1.1 Due to the historic use of this site there is the potential for contaminants to be present. We recognise, however, that these may have been addressed before the site and buildings were used for subsequent uses, e.g. as a bakery and café. 1.2 Land Contamination issues are a matter for the local authority as the planning authority and Lead Authority for Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act. Should the planning authority have any concerns on this issue, however, we will be happy to be re-consulted.

2. Dangerous Substances 2.1 The applicants should review the on-site inventory of dangerous substances as defined in Schedule 1 to the COMAH Regulations 2015 and consider if a notification is required to the COMAH Competent Authority under those regulations.

3. The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (PPC) 3.1 The activity (distilling) associated with this planning application falls below thresholds for finished product production capacity as described in PPC Section 1, Chapter 6.8(d)(ii)(aa). It is likely, therefore, that any odour or noise nuisance fall under the local authority's remit.

4. Surface Water Drainage 4.1 Given the combined nature of the drainage infrastructure in the local catchment, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) are not strictly required.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 27 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Regulatory advice for the applicant

5. Regulatory requirements 5.1 Details of regulatory requirements and good practice advice for the applicant can be found on the Regulations section of our website. If you are unable to find the advice you need for a specific regulatory matter, please contact a member of the operations team in the local SEPA office at: Clearwater House Heriot Watt Research Park Avenue North Riccarton Edinburgh EH14 4AP Tel: 0131 449 7296

Archaeology

I would like to make the following comments and recommendations concerning the above linked planning and listed building consent applications for change of use to distillery and extension to north end including ancillary uses, including exhibition and tasting areas and associated retail sales area, use of external yard for distillery related servicing, storage, community amenity space and occasional open air market or other events.

The application occupies the site of the historic early railway station & /goods yard of St Leonard's, constructed in 1831 for the Edinburgh-Dalkeith Railway. The station marks the Edinburgh Terminus for the 'Innocent Railway' and although passengers were carried its primary function was a goods yard for bringing in coal to Edinburgh from the Lothian Coalfield until its closure in 1968. The surviving buildings on site including the Listed (B) Engine Shed, Gatehouse and masonry gate columns date to foundation of the station in the 1830's and therefore some of the earliest railway buildings and structures in Edinburgh. The 19th century OS maps show that the station developed throughout the period as would be expected with the insertion of a central platform across the yard opposite the Engine House by 1893. The maps also show the location of the now demolished Jenny Dean's Tryst Public House, constructed prior to 1849 and occupying the corner between the gatehouse and engine shed buildings.

Prior the construction of the Station the site occurred with the lands given to Holyrood Abbey by David I on its foundation c.1128. In particular the site is associated with the almshouses attached to the hospital of St Leonards, given over to support of 6 hermits or bedemen, pensioners required to give prayers for the souls of the founders and patrons of the hospital. This association was maintained in the street name of Hermits & Tremits (as shown on Ainslie's 1804 map) for St Leonards Lane up until the early 19th century. Ainslie's map of 1804 also depicts earlier buildings on the site.

Based on the historical and archaeological evidence the buildings and site have been identified as occurring within an area of archaeological potential. Accordingly this application must be considered under terms the Scottish Government Historic Environment Policy (SHEP), Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), PAN 02/2011 and also Edinburgh City Local Plan (2010) policy ENV8 & ENV9. The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 28 of 32 16/01742/FUL possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.

Buried Archaeology The development will see new construction and ground breaking works (e.g. demolitions, construction, new services) which could reveal archaeological evidence for not only the development of the Railway Station, the early 19th C Jenny Dean's Tryst Pub but potentially also medieval remains associated with St Leonard's almshouses and hospital. Having assessed these potential impacts it has been that though significant they are regarded as potentially moderate. It is recommended that if consent is granted that a programme of archaeological excavations are undertaken prior to and during development in order to fully excavate and record any significant remains which may be impacted upon.

Historic Buildings This revised scheme will require substantial but localised alterations to both the B-listed Engine House and perhaps more significantly to the former railway gatehouse. Although significant, it is considered that overall such impacts are assessed are moderate in terms of archaeological importance. Accordingly if consent is granted, it is essential that an historic building survey (internal and external elevations and plans, photographic and written survey and analysis) of all the buildings affected is undertaken prior to and during alteration/demolition work, in order to provide a permanent record of these historic structures.

This work will be linked to a suitable programme of archaeological excavation as discussed above and secured by the following recommended condition;

'No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (excavation, historic building recording, analysis & reporting, publication) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.'

The work would be carried out by a professional archaeological organisation, either working to a brief prepared by CECAS or through a written scheme of investigation submitted to and agreed by CECAS for the site. Responsibility for the execution and resourcing of the programme of archaeological works and for the archiving and appropriate level of publication of the results lies with the applicant.

Health and Safety Executive

HSE's role in the planning process is limited to that of statutory consultee on:

(a) relevant developments which lie within the consultation distance of major hazard sites and major accident hazard pipelines - see the Schedule 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, and (b) applications for hazardous substances consent under the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Regulations 2015.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 29 of 32 16/01742/FUL

The proposed development site at 19 St Leonards Lane, Edinburgh does not currently lie within the HSE consultation distance of a major hazard site or major accident hazard pipeline, so HSE is not a statutory consultee in respect of planning application 16/01742/FUL and has no comments to make on this application..

The applicant's agent has confirmed that the quantities of flammable liquids which will be held on site will be below the threshold at which hazardous substances consent will be required as set out in Schedule 1 of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Regulations 2015. Therefore there will be no application for hazardous substances consent associated with this proposal on which to consult HSE.

If planning permission is granted for this proposal, when the distillery is operational it will be subject to the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA) and associated legislation, including the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 (DSEAR) for which HSE will be the enforcing authority. Section 3 of the HSWA requires the operator of the distillery to conduct the undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment, such as visitors and people in the vicinity of the distillery, who may be affected by the activities at the site, are not exposed to risks to their health or safety. Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 199 requires an employer to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work and the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking. This is for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions and by Part II of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997.

In making a decision on this planning application, should Edinburgh City Council require specialist advice on the potential risks which the proposed development may present to people in its vicinity, then consideration should be given to engaging the services of a suitably qualified consultant. Information on The Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register (OSHCR) can be found on the HSE Website.

Contaminated Land 1

Regarding this development, there is a potentially contaminative land use from historical records, however the development may lead to a full encapsulation of the site which should nullify a requirement for a planning condition. Can it be confirmed if there will be any landscaping incorporated in the development? If there is a full encapsulation it would be inappropriate to apply a condition because the former contaminative land use extends considerably beyond the boundaries of the application.

If you wish to wait for Environmental Assessments consultation of which I would probably not have input into, that would also be fine. However I would be satisfied that the land is likely to be suitable for the proposed use provided there is a full encapsulation of hard standing across the development.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 30 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Contaminated Land 2

Further to our consideration of the subject application, Environmental Assessment will not request any further information or the use of a planning condition to investigate potential risks from land contaminants.

Nevertheless the applicant should note that they are responsible for the safe development of the land and in the event ground conditions indicate the potential for contamination (e.g. visible indications of asbestos or heavily impacted soils) during works to the extension phase of the development, it is requested that the applicant appoints a competent Environmental Consultant to undertake an assessment of the area of concern and for the Council to be notified as soon as possible on 0131 469 5693.

Waste Management

As this is a commercial development, the Council will not be the provider of waste management services to this property. However I would like to highlight that in addition to ensuring that the property is designed in such a way as to facilitate access for their contractors to collect the waste and to ensure it can be properly stored off street, in addition they must comply with the Waste (Scotland) Regulations.

These require that businesses sort their waste to allow the recycling of paper, card, metals, plastics, glass and food. Depending on the size and use of the property it may also be that they are able (or require) to segregate other streams such as fluorescent lamps, batteries and electrical equipment as well.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 31 of 32 16/01742/FUL

Location Plan

END

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 32 of 32 16/01742/FUL Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Application for Listed Building Consent 16/01743/LBC At 19 St Leonard's Lane, Edinburgh, EH8 9SH Conversion, alteration, and extension to existing building. Removal (outbuilding) of roof and pitched sections of gables, erect new entrance canopy.

Item number Report number

Wards A15 - Southside/Newington

Summary

The proposals are acceptable and comply with policies ENV4, ENV8 and ENV 9 of the Development Plan and associated non-statutory guidance. Approval is recommended. No reasons to outweigh the decision to Grant Listed Building Consent.

Links

Policies and guidance for CITE4, CITE8, CITE9, CRPSSI, NSLBCA,

this application

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 1 of 13 16/01743/LBC

Report

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below. Background

2.1 Site description

The application site is the former St Leonard's railway goods shed and terminus, including outbuildings and gatepiers, originally built for Edinburgh Dalkeith Railway. The shed is 3-storey with a long rectangular plan built from stone rubble with ashlar dressings. There are a number of openings including arched openings and the fenestration has been altered. The outbuildings comprise a low range with exposed gables. The building to the east is dilapidated and no longer has a roof. There are two gatepiers at the main entranceway constructed of polished ashlar. The buildings date from circa 1840. The shed, outbuildings and gatepiers are listed category B (LB29731 refers).

This application site is located within the Southside Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

17th April 1994 - Planning Permission Granted to extend opening hours to 11pm (94/01531/FUL).

09th December 1999 - Application withdrawn to erect infill section of wall (99/02337/CEC and 99/-2337/CEL).

29th April 2008 - Planning Permission Granted to extend opening hours from 8am- 11pm to 4am-11pm (08/00683/FUL). Main report

3.1 Description of the Proposal

The application proposals are to convert the existing engine shed into a distillery which involves internal alterations, the removal of some of the floorplate, the installation of new windows, vents and flues. It is also proposed to convert the outbuildings into a tasting room with retail space. Details are as follows:

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 13 16/01743/LBC

Downtakings:

Outbuildings: Roof and gables removed from the outbuilding to the west; new opening formed in external wall to the north.

New Works:

Engine Shed: Formation of new stairways (3 No.) and internal lift tower. Formation of a number of partitions to form toilets, double-height still and mash houses, office, staff and reception areas. Formation of exhibition, tasting and kitchen areas; installation of a glass entrance canopy and copper roof cladding; 7 No. timber windows to the east elevation with opaque glass; new vent, boiler flue and glazed rooflight; 3 No. new timber windows to match existing on the west elevation; blackened timber window boxes; 11 No. small vents to front elevation; new blackened timber screen to house plant area to the south.

3.2 Determining Issues

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether: a) Special regard must be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 13 16/01743/LBC

The proposals to alter the existing buildings would not have a detrimental effect on their historic character. The downtakings proposed for the engine shed are largely for the removal of non-original partitions and stairtowers. The lift tower which is to be removed is wholly a later addition. The removal of parts of the floor to house the large stills and mash tuns will not alter the intrinsic historic character, as the remaining parts of the floors will remain and the building will be used as a 3-storey building with a gallery.

The windows will match those existing and the ventilation terminals on the roof and walls will be subject to a condition to ensure the details are appropriate for this listed building. The proposed canopy to the front will be a lightweight structure, using traditional quality materials and will not detract from the reading of the historic frontage nor detract from the building's historic character.

The proposed alterations to the outbuildings comprise a clean modern intervention which will use high quality materials and respect the existing massing. The proposed gate and fences for the sub-station and plant compound are made of timber and are in keeping with the other timber elements of the scheme and will not have an adverse impact on the listed buildings.

Regarding the Council's Archaeology Service's comment, there will be no adverse impact on building archaeology and the corresponding planning permission will be conditioned to allow a programme of appropriate archaeological work (excavation, historic building recording, analysis and reporting and publication) to take place.

The proposals are sensitive to the listed structures and comply with Policy ENV4 in respect to Listed Building-Alterations and Extensions. Referring to archaeology, the proposals also comply with Policies ENV 8 and ENV 9, with respect to Protection of Important Remains and Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance.

The proposals will not have an adverse impact on the character of the listed buildings and will ensure a long-tem use for these listed structures which have been vacant for some time and in danger of becoming buildings at risk. b) The proposal will have any detrimental impact on equalities and human rights.

The introduction of a lift is proposed. No adverse impacts on equalities or rights are identified. c) Any public comments raised have been addressed.

A letter of support was submitted by The Southside Association who welcome the proposals for improving the building and which they state will help to secure its use for many years to come.

The proposals are acceptable. Approval is recommended.

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 13 16/01743/LBC

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Conditions:-

2. All details for external ventilation to roof and west elevation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to these works commencing on site.

Reasons:-

1. In order to enable the planning authority to consider this/these matter/s in detail.

2. In order to safeguard the character of the statutorily listed building.

Informatives:-

It should be noted that:

1. The works hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

The application properties and land are owned by CEC and the Council will receive a direct revenue from the lease of these subjects. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low. Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no adverse impact in terms of equalities or human rights. Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application meets the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 13 16/01743/LBC

Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 12th April 2016. One letter of support was received from The Southside Association.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 13 16/01743/LBC

Background reading/external references

To view details of the application go to;  Planning and Building Standards online services

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 13 16/01743/LBC

Statutory Development Plan Provision Urban Area, ECLP.

Date registered 4 April 2016

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01-09+ 10A+11A+ 12A+ 13A, 14-18,

Scheme 2

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Debbie McLean, Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 4468

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 8 of 13 16/01743/LBC

Links-Policies

Relevant Policies:

Policy Env 4 (Listed Buildings – Alterations & Extensions) identifies the circumstances in which alterations and extensions to listed buildings will be permitted.

Policy Env 9 (Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance) sets out the circumstances in which development affecting sites of known or suspected archaeological significance will be permitted.

The South Side Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the harmonious scale, massing and materials and the significance of key institutional buildings within the area.

Non-statutory guidelines ‘LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS' provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 9 of 13 16/01743/LBC

Appendix 1

Consultations

Historic Environment Scotland

Historic Environment Scotland have reviewed your consultation, and we consider the proposals do not raise issues of national significance, so we can confirm that we do not object.

While we do not object, we do, however, have the following comments which your Council should take into account in your decision: The proposal to re-purpose the Category B-listed engine shed and outbuildings as a small urban distillery / visitor experience offers a sustainable re-use for this important industrial building associated with the Innocent Railway. The site visit on 1 December 2015 offered us the opportunity to look round the building and discuss the proposal with yourselves and the Design Team. Following discussions in December we note a number of revisions have been made, in particular the decision not to place an extension masking the arched openings to the end gable.

In conclusion we support the design strategy which sees little alteration to the exterior of the main building, and retains the significant elements of the interior. Furthermore the introduction of new design have been carefully considered to compliment and reference the building and its historical context.

Archaeology Service

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 10 of 13 16/01743/LBC throughout the period as would be expected with the insertion of a central platform across the yard opposite the Engine House by 1893. The maps also show the location of the now demolished Jenny Dean's Tryst Public House, constructed prior to 1849 and occupying the corner between the gatehouse and engine shed buildings.

This work will be linked to a suitable programme of archaeological excavation as discussed above and secured by the following recommended condition;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 11 of 13 16/01743/LBC

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 12 of 13 16/01743/LBC

Location Plan

END

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 13 of 13 16/01743/LBC Development Management Sub-Committee

10.00am Wednesday 3 August 2016 Protocol Note for Hearing

Planning Application Nos 15/05434/FUL and 15/05435/CON 18 Whitehouse Road, Edinburgh, EH14 IJE

Item number 6.1(a) Report number Ward Almond

Kirsty-Louise Campbell Interim Head of Strategy and Insight

Contacts: Blair Ritchie Email: [email protected]

Tel: 0131 529 4085 Summary

Protocol Note for Hearing

Summary

The Council is committed to extending public involvement in the planning process. Hearings allow members of the public to put their views on planning applications direct to the Councillors on the Development Management Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee members have a report on the planning application which contains a summary of the comments received from the public. Copies of the letters are available for Councillors to view in the group rooms. Committee Protocol for Hearings

The Planning Committee on 25 February 2016 agreed a revised general protocol within which to conduct hearings of planning applications as follows:

- Presentation by Head of Planning 15 minutes and Transport

- Presentation by Community Council 5 minutes

- Presentations by Other Parties 5 minutes, each party

- Questions by Members of the Sub-Committee

- Presentation by Ward Councillors 5 minutes each member

- Presentation by Applicant 15 minutes

- Questions by Members of the Sub- Committee

- Debate and decision by members of the Sub-Committee

Order of Speakers for this Hearing

1 Head of Planning and Transport presentation of report 10:05 - 10:20

2 Objectors Cramond and Barnton Community Council 10:25 – 10.30

Cramond Association 10:30 – 10.35

Cramond Action Group 10:40 – 10.45

Cramond Heritage Trust 10:50 – 10.55

The Cockburn Association 11:00 – 11.05

3 Ward Councillors 11:10 – 11:15 Councillor Lindsay Paterson Councillor Alastair Shields 11:15 – 11:20 Councillor Norman Work 11:20 – 11:25

4 Applicant Care Concern Holdings Ltd. 11:30 – 11:45

Steve Yeoman Yeoman McAllister Architects

5 Debate and Decision on Application by Sub- 11:50 Committee

Scheduled times are approximate but within this the time limits for speakers will be enforced – speakers will be reminded when they have 1 minute remaining. Speakers should keep to “material planning matters” that the Sub-Committee can take into account. Any visual material must be submitted to Committee Services at least 24 hours before the meeting. Decisions will generally be to approve or refuse. Conditions of approval or reasons for refusal may be considered at a subsequent meeting. If the application is continued for further information, the Hearing will not be re-opened at a later stage and contributors will not be invited to speak again. In such cases, the public can attend the meeting to observe the discussion from the gallery. Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 Aug 2016

Application for Planning Permission 15/05434/FUL At 18 Whitehouse Road, Edinburgh, EH4 6NN Proposed demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new care home and associated car parking (as amended).

Item number Report number

Wards A01 - Almond

Summary

The proposal is acceptable in principle and represents sustainable development as defined by the Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP) and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP).

The proposal is acceptable with respect to density, layout, scale and design and it will not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the site or the Cramond Conservation Area. No concerns are raised with regard to the proposal's impact on traffic, road safety, parking, flooding, drainage, trees, protected species, archaeology, neighbouring amenity or the amenity of future occupiers. The proposal complies with relevant policies in the Development Plan and associated non-statutory guidance.

The proposal is acceptable. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

Outcome of previous Committee

This application was previously considered by Committee on 22.06.2016

This application has been continued for a hearing to give all parties the opportunity to address the Committee.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 1 of 44 15/05434/FUL

Links

Policies and guidance for CITD1, CITD3, CITD5, CITD6, CITE12, CITE16,

this application CITE17, CITE5, CITE6, CITH8, CITT4, CITT5, CITH1, CITH4, OTH, NSGD02, NSLBCA, NSP, CRPCRA,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 2 of 44 15/05434/FUL

Report

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below. Background

2.1 Site description

The site is located to the rear of residential properties fronting Cramond Glebe Road and Cramond Glebe Terrace to the east, to the rear of residential properties fronting Whitehouse Road and School Brae to the south. The River Almond lies to the west. It comprises a large modern two storey detached house set within a large plot. The site is approximately 0.48 hectares in size.

The existing house is not listed and was built around the 1960s/70s. It has a footprint of approximately 213 square metres, which is approximately 4.4% of the total site area. There are several trees, some hedging and vegetation within the site, the majority of which are along or close to its boundaries. The majority of the site outwith the built footprint of the dwelling is grassed. The site slopes down gradually from east to west.

The site is bounded by a combination of stone walls, fencing, hedges, trees and shrub vegetation. The site's western boundary is heavily treed and abuts the sleeply sloping treed valley associated with the River Almond further west. The majority of residential properties abutting the site are traditional in style with the exception of two contemporary dwellings along Cramond Glebe Terrace.

Currently vehicular and pedestrian access into the site is provided from a single lane driveway located at the junction of Whitehouse Road and School Brae. There is a secondary, currently disused single lane track linking the site with Cramond Glebe Road.

The surrounding area is predominantly residential with some community and commercial uses in the vicinity. Residential properties generally comprise a mix of one and a half and two storey traditional detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings, bungalows (some with living accommodation in the attic space), and more modern one and two storey detached, semi-detached and terraced properties. Larger footprint modern developments including three and four storey flatted properties off Cramond Road North and on Cramond Green are also present. The majority of roofs are pitched however a number of more modern developments exhibit flats roofs. Stone, render, tiles and slate represent the predominant building materials within the immediate area, in addition to less frequent instances of brick and timber.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 3 of 44 15/05434/FUL

Dwellings in the surrounding area generally benefit from generous plots comprising front and rear gardens. In the immediate vicinity built footprints take up approximately 16% - 38% of the total plot areas.

The site is within walking distance of two bus services on Whitehouse Road which connect to the wider area (including the city centre and Edinburgh Park), a Core Path network along the River Almond, and several cycle routes including two national cycle routes (1 and 76). Cramond Medical Practice is also within walking distance of the site.

The site sits outwith but directly to the east of the Green Belt, an area of protected Open Space, and a Local Nature Conservation Site. These designations are associated with the River Almond valley.

This application site is located within the Cramond Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

1 December 2015 - Application for planning permission withdrawn for proposed demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new carehome (61 bed) and associated car parking (application number 15/04016/FUL).

2 December 2015 - Application withdrawn for conservation area consent for demolition of dwelling in a Conservation Area (application number 15/03901/CON).

Decision pending for conservation area consent for demolition of dwelling in a conservation area (application number 15/05435/CON).

Relevant planning history within Cramond

49, 51 Cramond Road North, 2 Cramond Place, Site 34 metres east of 12 Cramond Place:

23 January 2015 - Planning permission granted for demolition of existing 3 houses and associated garages and erection of 90 bed nursing home (application number 11/01856/FUL).

Land Adjacent To Former 34 Cramond Road North:

24 June 2011 - Proposal of application notice (PAN) approved for development of vacant site to create cricket and football sports facilities and a care village including:

 International cricket pitch and shared pavilion for Cricket Scotland  Full size 3G artificial pitch, 5-a-side pitches and shared pavilion for football academy  Community facilities building (convenience food store, health hub, creche, physio clinic  90 bed care home  4 detached blocks of assisted living apartments (64 units in total) (application number 11/01492/PAN).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 4 of 44 15/05434/FUL

Application for planning permission in principle minded to grant pending the conclusion of a legal agreement for 'Option 1 - Cricket and Football' - proposed sports facilities (cricket centre and football pitches), sports pavilion and care village (class 8) including ancillary retail (class 1), health hub/sports clinic and creche (class 10). Details brought forward for approval: layout, building footprints, massing and heights (application number 11/01492/PPP).

24 June 2011 - Proposal of application notice (PAN) approved for development of vacant site to create tennis and football sports facilities and a care village including;

 12 outdoor and 8 indoor tennis courts and shared pavilion for tennis academy  Full size 3G artificial pitch, 5-a-side pitches and shared pavilion for football academy  Community facilities building (convenience food store, health hub, creche, physio clinic  90 bed care home  4 detached blocks of assisted living apartments (64 units in total)  (application number 11/01493/PAN).

Application for planning permission in principle minded to grant pending the conclusion of a legal agreement for 'Option 2 - Tennis and Football' - proposed sports facilities (tennis centre and football pitches), sports pavilion and care village (class 8) including ancillary retail (class 1), health hub/sports clinic and creche (class 10). Details brought forward for approval: layout, building footprints, massing and heights (application number 11/01493/PPP).

24 June 2011 - Proposal of application notice (PAN) approved for development of vacant site to create cricket and tennis sports facilities and a care village including:

 International cricket pitch and shared pavilion for Cricket Scotland  11 outdoor and 8 indoor tennis courts and shared pavilion for tennis academy  Community facilities building (convenience food store, health hub, creche, physio clinic)  90 bed care home  4 detached blocks of assisted living apartments (64 units in total)  (application number 11/01494/PAN).

Application for planning permission in principle minded to grant pending the conclusion of a legal agreement for 'Option 3 - Tennis and Cricket' - proposed sports facilities (tennis centre and cricket centre), sports pavilion and care village (class 8) including ancillary retail (class 1), health hub/sports clinic and creche (class 10). Details brought forward for approval: layout, building footprints, massing and heights (application number 11/01494/PPP). Main report

3.1 Description of the Proposal

The proposal comprises the demolition of the existing dwellinghouse and the erection of a two to four storey care home with associated amenity space, parking and landscaping. Care homes fall under use class 8 (residential institutions).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 5 of 44 15/05434/FUL

The footprint of the care home will be approximately 875 square metres, which is approximately 18% of the site area.

The care home will accommodate 50 bedrooms, each floor will contain bedrooms and a range of ancillary accommodation across the floors including diagrams, quiet rooms a cinema and nursing stations. Lift and stair access will be provided to the upper floors.

The care home building has a modern design with a flat roof of varying heights. On its east facing elevation the majority of the building is three storeys in height, dropping to two storeys at either end. The west facing elevation rises to four storeys towards its northern section and the existing slope will be cut to accommodate the basement, the majority of which will be subterranean. On the west facing elevation, the northern section of the building will be accessible from ground level due to the change in levels and a relatively limited amount of cut into the ground. The top floor has been set back on all sides and top floor windows on the east facing elevation have been angled to face south east.

The external finish of the care home comprises a combination of render (off white), natural stone panels, zinc cladding, facing brick detailing and glazing with a weathered copper membrane roof. The east facing elevation incorporates vertical sections of natural stone panelling which extend from ground to second floor. The northern section of the east and west facing elevations and the north facing elevation will comprise mainly glazing and stone panelling. The zinc cladding will be restricted mainly to the top floor elevations. Window and door frames will be aluminium and powder coated dark grey.

A communal garden will be provided to the west and north of the site, and paved areas will be provided adjacent to the building. The remainder of the grounds will incorporate landscaping and hardstanding for parking and access. Bin storage will be located to the north eastern corner of the site.

The proposal will result in the loss of approximately ten trees. Thirteen new trees will be planted in mitigation, the majority of which will be positioned within the northern area of the site as part of the communal garden or along the site boundaries. Existing hedging along the access from Whitehouse Road will be retained and shrub planting will be incorporated along the site boundaries. The existing stone wall along the site's northern and eastern boundaries will be retained and the remaining boundaries will be fenced.

Vehicular access will be provided into the site from the existing access point on Whitehouse Road and out of the site onto Cramond Glebe Road in a 'one way' system. Both accesses will have a shared surface arrangement therefore no footpaths will be provided. Pedestrian refuge areas will be provided at intervals along both lanes.

Twenty car parking spaces will be provided including four disabled spaces. One ambulance/patient transport vehicle space will be provided along with spaces for two motorcycles and four bicycles.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 6 of 44 15/05434/FUL

The Transportation Statement states that nursing and care staff will be present on site at all times. The working day will comprise two main shifts, between 7.00am and 2.00pm, and then 2.00pm until 10.00pm. There will also be staff working overnight. Administrative and kitchen staff will work a single daytime shift. There will be no resident staff and the maximum number working on site at any one time will be 22 during the day, and five overnight.

The Transportation Statement confirms that visiting hours for residents' relatives will be flexible with the exception of meal times, and peak visiting hours will tend to be between 10.00am and 12.00pm, and between 2.00pm and 4.00pm.

With regard to deliveries and servicing, the Design and Access Statement confirms that they will be limited to food and catering twice a week. One weekly refuse collection will be made and laundry will be undertaken in-house.

The lighting strategy for the site consists of a mix of low (bollards and wall mounted) and higher level (4 metre high post-mounted) elements.

The Sustainability Statement confirms that a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) boiler will be installed in addition to other low carbon equipment relating to heating, ventilation and lighting specifications.

The Drainage Strategy notes that a Sustainable Urban Drainage system (SUDs) will be incorporated.

With regard to waste management it is proposed that the discharge for the site connects to Scottish Water's existing combined sewer network. The Drainage Strategy states that Scottish Water has confirmed that there is sufficient capacity in the wastewater treatment works and local network to service the development.

Scheme 1

Initially the materials for the external walls of the care home building comprised render, reconstituted stone and timber cladding.

Supporting Documents

The following documents have been submitted in support of the application and are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services:

 Design and Access Statement  Planning Statement  Transportation Statement  Pre-application Consultation Report  Archaeological Evaluation - Written Scheme of Investigation  Archaeological Evaluation - Data Structure Report  Existing Public Utility Review  Habitat Survey Report and Bat Surveys  Tree Survey  Sound Report  Drainage Strategy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 7 of 44 15/05434/FUL

 Sustainability Statement Form  Lighting Strategy

3.2 Determining Issues

Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of permission.

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?

If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:

- the proposal is acceptable in principle; - the demolition of the existing house is acceptable; - the proposal is of an appropriate density, layout, scale and design; - the proposal will have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the conservation area; - the proposal will have an unacceptable adverse impact on protected species and trees; - the proposal will have an adverse impact on traffic, road safety and parking; - the proposal will have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity; - the proposal will create an acceptable living environment for future occupiers; - the proposal will be acceptable in terms of flooding, drainage and sewage; - the proposal will be acceptable in terms archaeology; - the proposal meets sustainability criteria; - there are relevant material considerations; - any impacts on equalities or human rights are acceptable; and - comments raised have been addressed. a) Principle

The application site is located in the Urban Area as designated by the Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP). There are no specific policies which relate to care home developments in the ECLP. However Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development) and Policy Hou 2 (Housing Mix) encourage a mix of housing to meet all needs on suitable sites within the urban area, provided proposals are compatible with other policies in the Plan.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 8 of 44 15/05434/FUL

The ECLP states that within the Urban Area, new development should respect the principles of sustainable development and contribute positively to the development of sustainable communities. In addition to allocated sites, the majority of new development is to be directed to the Urban Area.

The ECLP states that sustainable development aims to minimise the impact of human activity on the environment, whilst supporting economic and social progress. The ECLP also states that social inclusion is important to sustainable development. This means seeking to build better, balanced communities and providing everyone with decent homes in safe, attractive and accessible surroundings with convenient access to jobs and services.

The sustainable development principles in the ECLP broadly reflect those set out in Scottish Planning Policy (SPP).

The site comprises a dwelling and associated driveway, parking and garden ground, and as such, is considered to be previously developed land (also referred to as 'brownfield land'). The proposal seeks to maximise the developable area of this large site, which is currently underused.

The site is not located on a protected nature conservation site and there are no designations which would prevent its redevelopment in principle.

The site is accessible to public transport, cycle and walking routes. Cramond Medical Practice is also within walking distance of the site.

The proposal will provide employment within the local area; equivalent to circa 90 full and part time jobs, and will provide residential accommodation for elderly people with care needs.

The proposal is compatible in principle with the predominantly residential nature of the surrounding area. There are no policies within the ECLP which seek to restrict the number of care homes delivered across the city, and there are no policies which seek to restrict the demographics of the area in respect of elderly people.

There are no care homes currently operational within Cramond. However, planning permission was recently granted for a 90 bed care home to the south east of the village on Cramond Road North (application number 11/01856/FUL). This site has recently been cleared for development. As with the majority of development types, the delivery of proposals of this nature is market driven and therefore dependent on there being an identified need and demand.

The proposal is acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other relevant ECLP policies.

The detail of the proposal is assessed in parts b) to m) of the assessment. b) Demolition of Existing House

The site is located within the Cramond Conservation Area and the existing house is not listed. When considering the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area it

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 9 of 44 15/05434/FUL is appropriate to assess the application against ECLP Policy Env 5 (Conservation Areas - Demolition of Buildings) and Historic Environment Scotland (HES) Policy Statement (2016).

Policy Env 5 sets out the circumstances against which the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area will be considered. Policy Env 5 initially requires an assessment of whether the building proposed for demolition makes a positive contribution to the character of the area. If the proposal does not make a positive contribution, its removal is considered acceptable in principle so long as the replacement building either preserves or enhances the character of the area.

In some instances demolition may be considered appropriate, for instance where the building is of little or no townscape value, or where repair costs are unreasonable, or where the existing form or location makes any re-use extremely difficult.

The existing house is set within a substantial plot with its footprint covering approximately 4.4% of the total site area. The house is situated in the south eastern section of the plot and views to it from public vantage points are limited mainly to glimpses from the two access points and from Cramond Glebe Terrace due to the intervening built form and landscaping. The plot is the largest in the immediate locality. Notwithstanding the house's limited visibility, its contribution to the character of the conservation area the impact of its removal needs to be assessed.

Whilst the footprint size of the house is comparable to the existing detached villas on Cramond Glebe Road, it does not have any special features of merit which would support its retention from an architectural or townscape perspective. It has a relatively modern two storey design and is fairly disjointed in appearance and neither enhances nor detracts from the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area. On this basis its removal would have a neutral impact overall.

Having concluded that the building has no special merit, the requirements of ECLP Policy Env 5 and the HES Policy Statement are not applicable with regard to the need to consider the condition / cost of repairing the building, the adequacy of efforts to retain the building, the merits of alternative proposals for the site, and whether the public benefits to be derived from allowing demolition outweigh the loss.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 10 of 44 15/05434/FUL

The demolition of the existing house complies with ECLP Policy Env 5 and the HES Policy Statement. c) Density, Layout, Scale and Design

Density

The existing site does not reflect the established density of the surrounding area. The demolition of the existing house presents an opportunity to utilise this large plot more efficiently in terms of its built to open space ratio. The site is in a sustainable location and increasing the density of development in such areas is supported in principle.

A balance is required between supporting greater efficiency in the use of this site and its backland position. The Edinburgh Design Guide states that 'backland development must be designed to ensure that any proposed building is subservient to surrounding buildings and it does not have an adverse impact on spatial character.

The proposed care home building cannot reasonably be considered to be subservient to the surrounding buildings, which are generally domestic in scale and nature. There are a number of larger buildings in the wider area, including flatted properties with comparable footprints and scales; however they are not located on backland sites.

The footprint of the care home will take up approximately 18% of the site. While the footprint will be substantially larger than the existing house, the resultant built form to open space ratio will be comparable, if not lower in some cases, than plots within the immediate locality.

The proposal will achieve an appropriate density for the site and its context and will not result in the overdevelopment of the site. The site's backland nature is not sufficient justification to discount the opportunity to achieve an appropriate density for this site.

Layout

The care home building has a linear footprint which responds to the dimensions of the site and ensures stand-off from all four boundaries. A communal garden will be located to the north and west of the building and existing landscaped boundaries will be enhanced with further planting. Parking and turning along with bin and cycle storage will be accommodated to the east and south of the building, which corresponds to the position of the two access points.

ECLP Policy Os 3 (Open Space in New Development) requires open space for new development to be appropriate and justified by its scale and needs. The provision of high quality, well located amenity space in relation to care home development is critical due to the limited mobility of its residents. The useable amenity space for this proposal will be consolidated to the north and west, and linked by two level access points at the northern end of the building. The communal garden will be well landscaped to provide interest, and is of a sufficient size for the scale and type of development proposed.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 11 of 44 15/05434/FUL

The proposal complies with ECLP policies Des 1 (Design Quality and Context), Des 3 (Development Design), Des 4 (Layout Design), Des 5 (External Spaces) and Os 3 (Open Space in New Development) and the Edinburgh Design Guidance, with respect to its layout.

Scale and Design

The care home building will be substantially larger in scale than properties in the immediate area. In the wider vicinity, modern flats located on Cramond Green and recently constructed residential properties off Cramond Road North are more comparable in scale and in some cases larger.

The care home building is approximately 61 metres long, and between two and three storeys to the east and two and four storeys to the west. The north and south facing gables are comparable and in some cases lower in scale than surrounding properties.

In order to reduce the visual impact of the building, its height has been dropped at both gables, the upper floors stepped back on the east and west facing elevations and the roof has been designed without a pitch. The upper floor has also been designed to contrast with the lower floors through the use of zinc cladding and contrasting window detailing on the east facing elevation. The west facing elevation rises to four full-height storeys only at the northern end of the building, and the majority of this section will be glazed resulting in a visually lighter structure.

Traditional properties within the immediate area extend to no more than two storeys in height. Whilst their footprints are much smaller, the overall height of some of these buildings with their high ceilings and pitched roofs are not unsubstantial, with some of their ridge heights being comparable with the height of the proposed care home building - particularly its north, south and east facing elevations.

Despite the comparably large scale of the care home building, the plot that it will sit within can comfortably accommodate a building of this size. The building's scale relates well to the size and dimensions of the plot and its varying heights are not incomparable with the surrounding area.

The care home has a contemporary design with a rectangular form and a flat roof. In more recent years, contemporary buildings have been erected in Cramond, including within the new residential development site accessed from Cramond Road North. These contemporary styles present an appropriately contrasting and non-pastiche response to their context.

The key materials proposed for the care home building are render (off white), natural stone panelling and glazing, with brick and zinc detailing. Render, stone and glazing are the predominant materials within the surrounding area. The use of these materials in the majority of the building's design is appropriate. Brick and zinc is evident in the local area in smaller quantities, and is used to break up the building's facades. The use of zinc on the upper floor helps to reduce its visual impact along with its stepped back position. In addition, the positioning of the stone panelled projections in vertical sections on the east facing elevation relate to the rhythm of the traditional terraces within the surrounding area. Aluminium frames for the windows and doors are acceptable.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 12 of 44 15/05434/FUL

A condition requiring full details of the materials, including samples, has been added.

The design of the care home is acceptable and complies with ECLP Policy Des 3 (Development Design) and the Edinburgh Design Guidance. d) Impact on Conservation Area

The Cramond Conservation Area Character Appraisal divides the conservation area into four defined areas; 'Cramond Village', 'River Almond Valley', 'Cramond Brig' and 'Cramond Island'.

The site is located within the 'Cramond Village' area, and sits adjacent to the 'River Almond Valley' area to the west. 'Cramond Village' includes the original Cramond village around the estuary, the area surrounding Cramond Kirk and the later residential development along Cramond Glebe Road and a part of Whitehouse Road including School Brae.

The Cramond Conservation Area Character Appraisal identifies a number of townscape components within the 'Cramond Village' area, including several 'intimate lanes' and 'positive frontages'. The access road into the site from Whitehouse Road is identified as an 'intimate lane', and built frontages along parts of Whitehouse Road and Cramond Glebe Road are identified as 'positive frontages'. There are no key views identified into the site from the surrounding area, and the Character Appraisal notes that recent development is set back from the street with high stone walls ensuring the original village character is unspoilt.

When describing the townscape character of 'Cramond Village', the Character Appraisal makes reference to...'an interplay of Edwardian and Victorian terraces, semi- detached and detached villas, mostly set back from the road with small gardens to the front bounded by hedges and stone walls. Whilst these properties have a mix of styles, the Character Appraisal concludes that they are generally suburban in appearance and that overall, traditional building materials of sandstone, harl (roughcast render), slate and pantiles are predominant.

The Character Appraisal makes specific reference to the area around Cramond Glebe Road, Whitehouse Road and School Brae, and states that the variety and contrast between the later different housing types and layouts contributes to the visual character of Cramond. The Character Appraisal also notes that buildings are generally two storeys in height moving towards three storeys adjacent to the river.

The Character Appraisal states that any further new development on the ridge of the River Almond valley should be restricted in height and set back from the valley so it is not visible. The Character Appraisal also states that no new development should be permitted within the valley itself on either side of the bank.

ECLP Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas - Development) states that development within a conservation area should preserve or enhance its special character or appearance. Features of merit including trees and boundary treatment which contribute positively to the area should be preserved, and proposals should demonstrate high standards of design which utilise materials appropriate to the historic environment.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 13 of 44 15/05434/FUL

The proposal replaces an existing large dwellinghouse with a two to four storey care home and associated landscaping and infrastructure. The site is previously developed and therefore new development on this site is acceptable in principle. Whilst the use of the site will be intensified, the area to the north, east and south is in active residential use and therefore increased residential activity on the site will not be detrimental to this established character.

The site and its boundaries are generally well landscaped with grass, shrubs and trees. This landscaping enhances the site's secluded and green character. Whilst the built footprint of the care home is larger than the existing house, its linear configuration and central positioning minimises the number of trees to be removed. The majority of the new trees will be positioned to further enhance the site's landscaped boundaries and will thus maintain its green, secluded character.

Clear views into the site from public vantage points are restricted due to intervening landscaping and built form. Even in the winter months only occasional glimpses of the existing dwellinghouse are afforded from Cramond Glebe Road and Cramond Glebe Terrace.

Section 5 of the Design and Access Statement presents a comparative study of one of the clearest views into the site from the junction of Cramond Glebe Road and Cramond Glebe Terrace. This demonstrates that the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area will not be adversely affected by the proposal despite the care home being larger than the existing house.

Significant tree cover on the eastern bank of the River Almond, its steep gradient, and the set back position of the care home means that the development will not be readily visible from the footpath located down on the eastern bank. Whilst being heavily restricted due to the tree cover, views to and either side of the site from the western bank already incorporate the existing dwellinghouse and other built form. The proposal will not therefore breach a previously building-free view.

On balance, when taking into account the substantial tree cover and topography of this part of the River Almond valley and the set back position of the care home, the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the existing character and appearance of this part of the conservation area.

The character of the existing access lane from Whitehouse Road is referred to in the Character Appraisal as 'intimate' primarily due to its narrow width, landscaped boundaries and the restricted views afforded into this secluded site. The width of this lane will remain unchanged as a result of the proposal, and the landscaping along the boundaries will be retained. Low level bollard lighting will be added to improve public safety.

The existing character and appearance of the lane into the site from Whitehouse Road will be retained with the exception of the addition of low level lighting and comparatively greater vehicular usage. Whilst the lighting will alter the character of this lane, its low level nature will reinforce its intimate character in comparison to neighbouring high level street lighting along Whitehouse Road and School Brae. As the movement of vehicles along the lane will be for entry only rather than entry and exit as it is currently used, it is

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 14 of 44 15/05434/FUL not anticipated that there will be an unacceptable change in the character of the lane in terms of its use.

Whilst the second access point into the site from Cramond Glebe Road is currently gated and unused, it is an established opening and the removal of the gate and formalisation of the road surface will not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the conservation area. It should be noted that in any event, planning permission would not be required to reopen this access.

The proposal will add to the variety and contrast of traditional and more recent development in this part of the Cramond Conservation Area. As demonstrated in section 3.3c) of this assessment, the proposal is of an appropriate design and the materials reflect those established in the surrounding area.

The proposal will preserve the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area. The proposal therefore complies with ECLP Policy ENV 6. e) Protected Species and Trees

The site is adjacent to the River Almond, which is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation in the ECLP for its biodiversity value. No concerns are raised with regard to the proposal's impact on this designation.

The application is accompanied by a Habitat Survey Report and subsequent surveys. No concerns were raised with regard to badgers or bats. The Habitat Survey Report confirmed that there was no evidence of other protected species, including otter, on the site or in the immediate vicinity.

ECLP Policy Env 12 (Protection of Trees) states that development will not be permitted if likely to have a damaging impact on a tree or trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The trees are protected by virtue of their location within a conservation area. Not subject to specific preservation orders.

Approximately 10 small and semi-mature trees require to be removed as a result of the proposal. Thirteen 'extra heavy' standard trees will be planted in mitigation within the same general area of the site (north). No concerns have been raised regarding the removal of these trees, and the type and position of the new trees is acceptable. Tree protection measures will be employed for the remaining trees which comprise the creation of root protection areas demarked by protective fencing.

The proposal complies with ECLP policies Env 12 and Env 16 and the associated Edinburgh Design Guidance. f) Traffic, Road Safety and Parking

The application is accompanied by a Transportation Statement which sets out the proposal's potential impact on the transport network. The Transportation Statement includes a review of the existing network including public transport provision, and the likely vehicle trip rates and amount of trips.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 15 of 44 15/05434/FUL

The Roads Authority confirms that the trip generation from the development and the resultant impact on the local road network within the Transportation Statement is an accurate assessment. The Roads Authority also raised no concern with regard to the information set out in the Statement regarding public transport provision. The Applicant's Transport Consultant confirms that Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has been consulted in detail on the proposals, including vehicle tracking diagrams for appliances, and satisfied with the access and egress arrangements. No concern has been raised by the Roads Authority on this matter.

The Roads Authority raises no concerns regarding the entrance and exit of refuse vehicles.

The entry and exit driveways are proposed as shared surfaces. The sharing of space between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles is encouraged by Designing Streets and the Council's Street Design Guidance. These documents promote shared surfaces, which encourage motorists to recognise the space as being different, drive more slowly, and respond directly to the behaviour of other users (including other motorists). The access lanes have sufficient widths (minimum of 4 metres) to allow space for vehicles to pass pedestrians and cyclists, and pedestrian refuge areas will be provided at intervals along both lanes.

Current Council parking standards for a care home development in this area (Zone 4) require a between 20 and 35 parking spaces. The developer is proposing to provide 20 parking spaces including four disabled spaces. One ambulance/patient transport vehicle space will also be provided along with spaces for two motorcycles and four bicycles. The Roads Authority raises no objections to this level of provision and the provision complies with the Council's Parking Standards.

The Roads Authority does not object to the proposal subject to the inclusion of relevant conditions, informatives and the creation of a suitably worded legal agreement for contributions including:

- £5,000 for the improvement of public transport infrastructure (bus shelters), to accommodate movement needs associated with the development in the vicinity; and - £2,000 to progress a suitable traffic order to introduce waiting and loading restrictions on Whitehouse Road, Cramond Glebe Road and School Brae as necessary, in particular, to ensure adequate visibility is afforded to drivers exiting onto Cramond Glebe Road.

The Roads Authority confirms that without the introduction of waiting and loading restrictions particularly on Cramond Glebe Road, the proposed exit will be unsafe due to limited visibility. As there is no guarantee that the promotion of the traffic order will be successful, the Roads Authority confirms that a suspensive condition should be attached to the permission. This condition has been added accordingly.

The Cramond and Barnton Community Council objects to the proposal on several grounds, including various traffic and safety issues. The Roads Authority was reconsulted on the matters raised in the Community Council's response, and did not raise any concerns.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 16 of 44 15/05434/FUL

The proposal complies with ECLP policies Tra 4 and Tra 5, and the Council's non- statutory guidance on Parking Standards. g) Neighbouring Amenity

The Edinburgh Design Guidance states that the pattern of development in an area will help to define appropriate distances between buildings and consequentially privacy distances. The Guidance also set out matters relating to sunlight, daylight and outlook.

The care home will be approximately 14 metres from the eastern boundary of the site with a short windowless projection at approximately 9.6 metres from that boundary, approximately 26 metres from the northern boundary of the site, and approximately 11 metres from the southern boundary of the site. The closest window-to-window distance from the care home to a neighbouring residential property will be approximately 18 metres at 4 Cramond Glebe Terrace.

The privacy distances achieved for this development are characteristic of the surrounding area and in some cases greater. The window-to-window distances are acceptable and will avoid adverse impacts on the privacy experienced by neighbouring properties.

The care home will be set back a sufficient distance from the site's boundaries to avoid any adverse impacts on daylight, sunlight and outlook relative to neighbouring residential properties.

The site has an established residential use and the proposed change to a care home will both maintain and intensify this use type. The lighting consists mainly of low level bollard and wall mounted types, and higher level post mounted lighting in the car park which will be automatically switched off following shift changes and outwith visiting times for public access.

Environmental Assessment has assessed the proposal against its potential impacts with regard to noise, disturbance, odour, air quality, soil pollution and light pollution, and raises no objections.

Environmental Assessment recommends conditions including one to restrict timings for deliveries and collections. This condition has been added accordingly.

The proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.

The proposal complies with ECLP Policy Des 3 (Development Design) and Policy Hou 8 (Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas), and the associated Edinburgh Design Guidance. h) Living Environment for Future Occupiers

The proposal comprises 50 bedrooms with en-suites and ancillary facilities, communal areas, a cinema room and hair and therapy spaces. Useable outdoor amenity space is provided to the north and west of the building.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 17 of 44 15/05434/FUL

All the bedrooms have windows providing natural light. From a planning perspective there are no minimum floor areas set out for bedrooms in care home uses such as this. The adequacy of the room sizes would be assessed under a separate regime set by the Care Quality Commission.

An assessment of the quantity and quality of the open space provided is particularly relevant given the value of accessible space to residents who are likely to have a range of mobility difficulties. Excluding paths and ancillary landscaping the proposal will provide direct access to approximately 998 square metres of useable shared amenity space comprising garden and paved areas. The majority of this outdoor space will be north and west facing.

The quantity and quality of the outdoor space is acceptable, and the standard of living provided internally is acceptable from a planning perspective.

Environmental Assessment raises no objections with regard to the impact on the amenity of future residents. Conditions have been recommended relating to acoustic glazing to mitigate against noise from aircraft and ceiling insulation to mitigate against noise relating to the roof top plant equipment.

The proposal complies with ECLP policies Des 3 (Development Design) and Des 5 (External Spaces), and the associated Edinburgh Design Guidance. i) Flooding, Drainage and Sewage

Flood Prevention has assessed the proposal in relation to drainage and flood risk and raises no objections. Similarly, SEPA raises no objections.

No concerns are raised with regard to the proposal's impact on water quality or soil erosion.

With regard to waste management, it is proposed that the discharge for the site connects to Scottish Water's existing combined sewer network. The Drainage Strategy states that Scottish Water has confirmed that there is sufficient capacity in the wastewater treatment works and local network to service the development.

The proposal complies with ECLP Policy Env 17 (Flood Prevention). j) Archaeology

The site lies across the southern entrance to the Roman Fort at Cramond. Although predominantly outwith the main fort itself, the outer ditches are thought to be on or close to the site's northern boundary, and the site does occur within the area known to contain evidence of the fort's associated extra-mural settlement, temporary camps and southern Roman Road. Based on the historical and archaeological evidence, the site has been identified as occurring within an area of archaeological significance.

No objections are raised with regard to archaeology subject to a condition requiring a programme of archaeological work (excavation, analysis & reporting, publication, public engagement) in accord with a written scheme of investigation to be submitted prior to the commencement of development. This condition has been added accordingly.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 18 of 44 15/05434/FUL

The proposal complies with ECLP Policy Env 9 (Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance). k) Sustainability

The site comprises a number of measures to enhance energy efficiency, including the use of a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) boiler and low carbon equipment relating to heating, ventilation and lighting specifications. In addition, a Sustainable Urban Drainage system (SUDs) will be incorporated.

The site is within an urban location, well located with respect to public transport and well connected by foot and cycleways to the wider area.

The proposal represents sustainable development. l) Other Material Considerations

Representations have raised concern about potential overburdening of local medical services.

It is the requirement of NHS Lothian to provide or expand existing health care facilities where needed. The applicant confirms that the care home will be run by registered nursing staff who will be on-site at all times. When GPs are required, the applicant has stated that these do not come solely from the local catchment area, but also the catchment area of where the patient has come from. The applicant states that due to this arrangement, the impact of the proposal on Cramond Medical Practice will be kept to a minimum. m) Equalities and Human Rights

The building has been purposely designed for the elderly including those with mobility difficulties, where access will be required for wheelchair users. Lift access is provided between floors. Externally, level access from entrance and exit points is provided, and four disabled parking spaces are also provided.

The proposal does not raise concerns with regard to equalities and human rights. n) Public Comments

The application has received 475 objections including from Cramond Action Group, Cramond Association, Cramond Heritage Trust, Cockburn Association, an MSP and an MP.

55 representations have been received in support of the proposal including one from the Council's Health and Social Care Department, and one petition in support. The petition contains 338 signatures.

The objections raised have been summarised below:

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 19 of 44 15/05434/FUL

Material Representations: Objections

- Use is inappropriate in residential area - this has been addressed in section 3.3(a) of the assessment - Cramond should be kept free of development - this has been addressed in section 3.3(a) of the assessment - Unsustainable location - this has been addressed in section 3.3(a) of the assessment - Demolition of existing dwelling unacceptable - this has been addressed in section 3.3(b) of the assessment - Detrimental to character of conservation area - this has been addressed in section 3.3(d) of the assessment - Inconsistent with spatial character of area - this has been addressed in section 3.3(c) of the assessment - Scale, massing and design of building inappropriate - this has been addressed in section 3.3(c) of the assessment - Materials inappropriate - this has been addressed in section 3.3(c) of the assessment - Insufficient amenity space provided - this has been addressed in section 3.3(h) of the assessment - Impact on road and pedestrian safety and congestion - this has been addressed in section 3.3(f) of the assessment - Increase in parking on surrounding streets - this has been addressed in section 3.3(f) of the assessment - Access to site unsuitable - this has been addressed in section 3.3(f) of the assessment; - Insufficient parking provided - this has been addressed in section 3.3(f) of the assessment - Inadequate access for pedestrians, cyclists and wheelchair users - this has been addressed in section 3.3(f) of the assessment - Noise and disruption - this has been addressed in section 3.3(g) of the assessment - Loss of privacy, outlook and light - this has been addressed in section 3.3(g) of the assessment - Lack of public transport - this has been addressed in section 3.3(a), 3.3(f) and 3.3(k) of the assessment - Lack of amenities in wider area including medical facilities - this has been addressed in section 3.3(a) and 3.3(I) of the assessment - Light pollution - this has been addressed in section 3.3(g) of the assessment - Air pollution - this has been addressed in section 3.3(g) of the assessment - Odours - this has been addressed in section 3.3(g) of the assessment - Care home residents will be adversely by noise from aeroplanes - this has been addressed in section 3.3(h) of the assessment - Detrimental impact on archaeology - this has been addressed in section 3.3(j) of the assessment - Detrimental impact on trees - this has been addressed in section 3.3(e) of the assessment - Detrimental impact on sewage system - this has been addressed in section 3.3(i) of the assessment - Potential detrimental impact on water quality of River Almond - this has been addressed in section 3.3(j) of the assessment

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 20 of 44 15/05434/FUL

- Detrimental impact on protected species - this has been addressed in section 3.3(e) of the assessment - Flood risk and soil erosion - this has been addressed in section 3.3(i) of the assessment

Several representations cited inaccuracies in the supporting documentation. This issue was raised with the Agent and an opportunity was provided to review the documentation in order to make revisions as required. As a result, the Design and Access Statement, Transportation Statement and Archaeological Evaluation - Written Scheme of Investigation were revised to account for an error in the reference to the number of bedrooms proposed. The revised documents are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services.

Material Representations: Support

- Principle of care home supported - Existing house does not complement character of conservation area - Large garden is suitable for development - Architecture in keeping with area - Circa 90 jobs will be created - Local employment encouraged which will minimise travel - Impact on adjacent properties is negligible - Limited visibility of site from roads and surrounding area - Enhanced and accessible amenity space will contribute to local community - Existing local amenities will support proposal (i.e. public transport, medical centre) - Traffic impact will be negligible - High standard of accommodation provided - Ecology will not be adversely affected

Non-Material Representations

 Proposal will create a precedent  Proposal will enhance bank balance of shareholders  There are more appropriate sites available  Proposal will devalue surrounding properties  Loss of view  Disruption from construction process  Not taken account of residents views as part of the community consultation undertaken by the Applicant  Revisions to the proposal are minimal  Interior layout not fit for purpose  Residential development would be more appropriate  Residents will oppose Traffic Regulation Order  Structural stability of building could be an issue  Proposal will adversely impact demographic of population in Cramond  Proposal meets social need  Shortage of care homes  Oversupply of care homes

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 21 of 44 15/05434/FUL

Community Council

Cramond and Barnton Community Council requested to be a statutory consultee therefore their response is set out in the consultation section of this report. The comments raised have been addressed within the relevant sections of the assessment.

Conclusion

The proposal is acceptable in principle and represents sustainable development as defined by the Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP) and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP).

The proposal is acceptable. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Conditions:-

1. The occupation of the development hereby approved shall not commence until the waiting and loading restrictions on Whitehouse Road, Cramond Glebe Road and School Brae (as necessary), which are required to be progressed through a suitable traffic order, have been implemented in full.

2. No demolition or development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (excavation, analysis & reporting, publication, public engagement) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.

3. The landscaping scheme as approved shall be implemented within the first planting season following the completion of the development hereby approved.

4. All planting carried out on site shall be maintained by the developer to the satisfaction of this Planning Authority. Any plants, which are dead, damaged, missing, diseased or fail to establish shall be replaced annually.

5. The trees to be retained on the site shall be protected during the construction period by the erection of fencing, in accordance with clause 2 of BS 5837:2012 "Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction".

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 22 of 44 15/05434/FUL

6. Full details of the boundary treatment(s) shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development on site.

7. All trees existing on site at the date of this report except those identified for removal shall be retained and no trees shall have roots cut or be lopped, topped, felled, uprooted or removed, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. 8. A detailed specification, including trade names where appropriate, of all the proposed external materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before work is commenced on site; Note: samples of the materials may be required.

9. All bedroom windows of the development shall be glazed to provide a minimum sound reduction index value of 35dB (e.g. glazing consisting of 10mm and 6mm thick panes of normal float glass separated by a 20mm wide cavity).

10. Deliveries and collections, including waste collections, shall be restricted to between the hours of 07:00 and 19:00, Monday to Saturday.

11. The bedroom(s) directly below the roof top plant equipment shall have a suspended ceiling construction comprised of two layers of 15mm thick plasterboard with 100mm thick mineral fibre slabs, having a density of at least 100kg/m3, laid on top of it.

Reasons:-

1. To ensure adequate visibility is afforded to drivers.

2. In order to safeguard the interests of archaeological heritage.

3. In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure a satisfactory standard of local environmental quality.

4. In the interests of visual amenity and effective landscape management; to ensure that adequate measures are put in place to protect the landscaping and planting in the long term.

5. In order to safeguard trees.

6. In order to enable the Planning Authority to consider this/these matter/s in detail.

7. In the interests of visual amenity; to ensure that all trees to be retained are satisfactorily protected before and during construction works.

8. In order to enable the Head of Planning to consider this/these matter/s in detail.

9. In order to protect the amenity of the occupiers of the development.

10. In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and other occupiers.

11. In order to protect the amenity of the occupiers of the development.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 23 of 44 15/05434/FUL

Informatives:-

It should be noted that:

1. Prior to the issue of consent the applicant shall enter into a suitably worded legal agreement with the Council to contribute the sum of £5,000 for the improvement of public transport infrastructure (bus shelters) to accommodate movement needs associated with the development in the vicinity.

2. Prior to the issue of consent the applicant shall enter into a suitably worded legal agreement with the Council to contribute the sum of £2,000 to progress a suitable order to introduce waiting and loading restrictions on Whitehouse Road, Cramond Glebe Road and School Brae as necessary (in particular, to ensure adequate visibility is afforded to drivers exiting onto Cramond Glebe Road).

3. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

4. No development shall take place on the site until a 'Notice of Initiation of Development' has been submitted to the Council stating the intended date on which the development is to commence. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of planning control, under Section 123(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

5. As soon as practicable upon the completion of the development of the site, as authorised in the associated grant of permission, a 'Notice of Completion of Development' must be given, in writing to the Council.

6. The applicant should submit a draft Travel Plan prior to first occupation and a final Travel Plan within 12 months of that date. The Travel Plan should explore financial contributions to transport promotion measures, including contributions to, or provision of, public transport season tickets and the provision of a public and sustainable transport information pack.

7. A monitor capable of receiving an internet connection to display Public Transport Real Time information should be displayed in the reception area of the care home.

8. Refuse facilities should be within 30 metres of an area which can be accessed by a refuse removal vehicle.

9. The provision, layout and location of cycle parking should be to the Councils standards in accordance with Cycle Friendly Design Guide and to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning and Transport.

10. All disabled persons parking places should comply with Disabled Persons Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009. The Act places a duty on the local authority to promote proper use of parking places for disabled persons' vehicles. The applicant should therefore advise the Head of Planning and Transport if he wishes the bays to be enforced under this legislation. If relevant, a contribution of £2,000 will be required to progress the necessary traffic order. All disabled

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 24 of 44 15/05434/FUL

persons parking places must comply with Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 regulations or British Standard 8300:2009 as approved by the Head of Planning and Transport.

11. The applicant should contact the Council's Public Transport section, Graham Atkins, Tel 0131 469 3783, email [email protected] before commencing work on site to ensure the proposed works do not have an impact on the operation of the bus stops.

12. Electric vehicle charging outlets should be considered for this development which includes dedicated parking spaces with charging facilities ducting and infrastructure to allow electric vehicles to be readily accommodated in the future.

13. In addition to the advertising costs associated with the progression of a suitable order to introduce waiting and loading restrictions on Whitehouse Road, Cramond Glebe Road and School Brae as necessary, the applicant will be required to provide suitable consultation drawings to allow the Council to initiate the statutory traffic order process with respect to these waiting and loading restrictions.

14. Clearance of vegetation/trees has the potential to disturb nesting birds; therefore clearance should be carried out outside the bird nesting season March - August (inclusive). Should it be necessary to clear ground during the bird nesting season the land should be surveyed by a suitably qualified ecologist and declared clear of nesting birds before vegetation clearance starts. Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

The application is subject to a legal agreement for developer contributions. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low. Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights. Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 25 of 44 15/05434/FUL

Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application has received 475 objections including from Cramond Action Group, Cramond Association, Cramond Heritage Trust, Cockburn Association, an MSP and an MP.

55 representations have been received in support of the proposal including one from the Council's Health and Social Care Department, and one petition in support. The petition contains 338 signatures.

Cramond and Barnton Community Council requested to be a statutory consultee therefore their response is set out in the consultation section of this report.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 26 of 44 15/05434/FUL

Background reading/external references

To view details of the application go to;  Planning and Building Standards online services  Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan  Planning guidelines  Conservation Area Character Appraisals  Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 27 of 44 15/05434/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision The site is located within the Cramond Conservation Area. The site sits outwith but directly to the east of the Green Belt, an area of protected Open Space, and a Local Nature Conservation Site.

Date registered 3 December 2015

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01,02A,03,04B,05,06,07A- 09A,10,11,12A,13,14,15A,18-20,

Scheme 2

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Ruth King, Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 6475

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 28 of 44 15/05434/FUL

Links-Policies

Relevant Policies:

Policy Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) sets general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated.

Policy Des 3 (Development Design) sets criteria for assessing development design.

Policy Des 5 (External Spaces) sets criteria for assessing landscape design and external space elements of development.

Policy Des 6 (Sustainable Design & Construction) sets criteria for assessing the sustainable design and construction elements of development.

Policy Env 12 (Trees) sets out tree protection requirements for new development.

Policy Env 16 (Species) sets out species protection requirements for new development.

Policy Env 17 (Flood Protection) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on flood protection.

Policy Env 5 (Conservation Areas – Demolition of Buildings) sets outs criteria for assessing proposals involving demolition of buildings in conservation areas.

Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas.

Policy Hou 8 (Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas) establishes a presumption against development which would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of nearby residents.

Policy Tra 5 (Private Cycle Parking) requires cycle parking provision in accordance with levels set out in supplementary guidance.

Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development) supports housing on appropriate sites in the urban area, and on specific sites identified in the Plan.

Policy Hou 4 (Density) sets out the factors to be taken into account in assessing density levels in new development.

Other Relevant policy guidance

Non-Statutory guidelines Edinburgh Design Guidance supports development of the highest design quality and that integrates well with the existing city. It sets out the

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 29 of 44 15/05434/FUL

Council's expectations for the design of new development, including buildings and landscape, in Edinburgh.

Non-statutory guidelines 'LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS' provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

Non-statutory guidelines on 'PARKING STANDARDS' set the requirements for parking provision in developments.

The Cramond Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the enclosed, compact and informal spatial structure, the vernacular style of many of the buildings, the predominance of traditional building materials, and the prevalence of residential uses.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 30 of 44 15/05434/FUL

Appendix 1

Consultations

Roads Authority

I have no objection to the proposed application subject to the following being included as conditions or informatives as appropriate:

1. Consent should not be issued until the applicant has entered into a suitable legal agreement to: a. Contribute the sum of £5,000 for the improvement of public transport infrastructure (bus shelters), (to accommodate movement needs associated with the development in the vicinity - in accordance with LTS policies LU1-LU4, PT3 and the approved transport contributions report); b. Contribute the sum of £2,000 to progress a suitable order to introduce waiting and loading restrictions on Whitehouse Road, Cramond Glebe Road and School Brae as necessary (in particular, to ensure adequate visibility is afforded to drivers exiting onto Cramond Glebe Road- see note iv below); c. Submit a draft Travel Plan prior to first occupation and a final Travel Plan within 12 months of that date. The Travel Plan to include financial contribution to transport promotion measures, including contributions to, or provision of, public transport season tickets and the provision of a public and sustainable transport information pack. Reason - To encourage more sustainable travel modes in line with the Local Transport Strategy policy LU 3; d. A monitor capable of receiving an internet connection to display Public Transport Real Time information should be displayed in the reception area of the care home. (Reason to advise staff and visitors of public transport); 2. The proposed exit on Cramond Glebe Road to be widened within the constraints of ownership; 3. Refuse facilities should be within 30 metres of an area which can be accessed by a refuse removal vehicle; 4. The provision, layout, location and number of cycle parking should be to the Councils standards in accordance with Cycle Friendly Design Guide and to the satisfaction of the Head of Transport; 5. The developer must submit a maintenance schedule for any SUDS infrastructure for the approval of Head of Planning; 6. All disabled persons parking places should comply with Disabled Persons Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009. The Act places a duty on the local authority to promote proper use of parking places for disabled persons' vehicles. The applicant should therefore advise the Head of Transport if he wishes the bays to be enforced under this legislation. A contribution of £2,000 will be required to progress the necessary traffic order. All disabled persons parking places must comply with Traffic

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 31 of 44 15/05434/FUL

Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 regulations or British Standard 8300:2009 as approved by the Head of Transport.

Notes: i. Current Council parking standards for a care home development in this area (Zone 4) require a between 20 and 35 parking spaces. The developer is proposing to provide 20 parking spaces which is acceptable; ii. The applicant should contact the Council's Public Transport section, Graham Atkins, Tel 0131 469 3783, email [email protected] before commencing work on site to ensure the proposed works do not have an impact on the operation of the bus stops; iii. Electric vehicle charging outlets should be considered for this development which includes dedicated parking spaces with charging facilities ducting and infrastructure to allow electric vehicles to be readily accommodated in the future; iv. In addition to the advertising costs as noted the applicant will be required to provide suitable consultation drawings to allow the Council to initiate the statutory traffic order process with respect to these waiting and loading restrictions. A suspensive condition is requested as there is no guarantee that the promotion of this order will be successful. It is considered that without it this exit is unsafe (appropriate visibility splay not provided); v. The application was submitted with a comprehensive Transport Statement (Andrew Carrie, Traffic and Transportation Ltd, August 2015). This TS has been examined and the trip generation from the development and impact on the local road network demonstrated within it is considered valid. The walking section of the document, however, only considers the facilities on the existing road network once pedestrians have left the site. It is noted that the long driveway entry and exit are narrow and proposed as shared surfaces. As this is not a proposed road for adoption this is not a matter for consideration by Transport. However I would suggest that Building Control are consulted on this layout as it would appear that pedestrians- particularly mobility and visibility impaired ones- will have no safe refuge from vehicles using the drive; vi. It is noted that the fire service has confirmed that the proposed development layout is acceptable.

Archaeology

I would like to make the following comments and recommendations concerning the above linked planning applications for the proposed demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new care-home and associated car-parking.

The site lies across the southern entrance to the Roman fort at Cramond, constructed c.140AD as part of the Antonine Wall border system and which was extensively re- occupied during the Severan invasion of Scotland in the early 3rd century AD. Although predominantly out with the main fort itself, the outer ditches thought to on or close to the sites northern boundary, the site does occur within the area known to contain evidence for the fort's associated extra-mural settlement, temporary camps, southern Roman Road leading into the fort and also Anglian (7-10th century) and medieval occupation.

The site was identified at the pre-application/PAN stage as being high archaeological significance. Accordingly and in line Policy ENV 9 an archaeological evaluation was

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 32 of 44 15/05434/FUL required to be undertaken to determine the significance of any surviving remains. This work was undertaken by ARCHUS in May 2015. The results have demonstrated that the application site lies outwith the Roman Fort's main defences but within an area containing associated features such as pits/post-holes and possible field-boundary of both Roman and post-Roman date. Pre-historic artefacts were also recovered along with an isolated fragment of human remains. The human bone was not related to a grave cut and its original origin and date is currently unknown, though a Roman date cannot be ruled out..

Based on the historical and archaeological evidence the site has been identified as occurring within an area of archaeological significance. Accordingly this application must be considered under terms the Scottish Government Historic Environment Policy (SHEP), Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), PAN 02/2011 and also Edinburgh City Local Plan (2010) policy ENV9. The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.

An assessment of the results of evaluation undertaken by ARCHUS in 2015 has led to the conclusion that the demolition of the current property and new care-home will have a significant archaeological impact. However although significant, the nature and scale of the deposits encountered indicate that in my opinion such would overall be seen as moderate. As such it is recommended that a detailed programme of archaeological excavation is undertaken in order to fully record and excavate all significant archaeological deposits which may be affected by these proposals.

Furthermore, given the potential importance of these remains it is essential that the excavations contain a programme of public/community engagement (e.g. site open days, viewing points, temporary interpretation boards) the scope of which will be agreed with CECAS.

It is recommended that the following condition is attached to both the FUL & CON applications if consent is granted, to ensure that this programme of archaeological works is undertaken.

'No demolition or development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (excavation, analysis & reporting, publication, public engagement) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.'

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 33 of 44 15/05434/FUL

SEPA

Thank you for your consultation letter which SEPA received on 07 December 2015.

We responded to planning application 15/04016/FUL for the same site on the 5 October 2015 (our ref: PCS/142572). We note that the proposal has been revised with a reduced scale.

The changes to the development do not impact on our previous comments which we have therefore repeated in this response (see Section 1 and 2 below).

We have no objection to this planning application. Please note the advice provided below.

Advice for the planning authority - the same as for 15/04016/FUL (our ref: PCS/142572)

1. Flood risk

1.1 SEPA were previously consulted on a pre-application enquiry for development at this site. We provided comments that there would unlikely be an objection as the site was outwith the 0.5% annual probability (1:200-year) flood extent and we hold no further information to indicate a risk at this site. Further to these previous comments, the section information provided with the consultation indicates a significant level difference between the western boundary of the site and the River Almond. We have no objection to the proposals on flood risk grounds.

1.2 The SEPA Flood Maps have been produced following a consistent, nationally- applied methodology for catchment areas equal to or greater than 3km2 using a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) to define river corridors and low-lying coastal land. The maps are indicative and designed to be used as a strategic tool to assess, flood risk at the community level and to support planning policy and flood risk management in Scotland.

1.3 Please note that we are reliant on the accuracy and completeness of any information supplied by the applicant in undertaking our review, and can take no responsibility for incorrect data or interpretation made by the authors.

1.4 The advice contained in this letter is supplied to you by SEPA in terms of Section 72 (1) of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 on the basis of information held by SEPA as at the date hereof. It is intended as advice solely to City of Edinburgh Council as Planning Authority in terms of the said Section 72 (1). Our briefing note entitled: Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009: Flood risk advice to planning authorities outlines the transitional changes to the basis of our advice in line with the phases of this legislation.

2. Surface water drainage

2.1 It is proposed to discharge surface water from the development to the combined sewer. Our preference would be to treat surface water by sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) and discharge to the water environment. SUDS help to protect water quality, reduce potential for flood risk and release capacity in the public sewerage network.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 34 of 44 15/05434/FUL

Discharges to combined sewers should be avoided to free up capacity for waste water discharges.

2.2 Scottish Water should be consulted to ensure that they are willing to accept the surface water from the proposed development into the combined sewer. Scottish Water only accepts surface water into a combined system in exceptional circumstances. We would expect Scottish Water and the applicant to ensure that all reasonable efforts are made to remove surface water from the combined sewer.

2.3 We encourage surface water runoff from all developments to be treated by sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) in line with Scottish Planning Policy (Consultative Draft Paragraph 160), PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and PAN 79 Water and Drainage. Further guidance on SUDS can be found in the SUDS section of our website and in CIRIA's C697 manual entitled The SUDS Manual. Advice can also be found in the SEPA Guidance Note Planning advice on sustainable drainage systems (SUDS).

2.4 Comments from Scottish Water, where appropriate, the Local Authority Roads Department and the Local Authority Flood Prevention Unit should be sought in terms of water quantity/flooding and adoption issues.

Regulatory advice for the applicant

3. Regulatory requirements

3.1 Details of regulatory requirements and good practice advice for the applicant can be found on the Regulations section of our website. If you are unable to find the advice you need for a specific regulatory matter, please contact a member of the operations team in your local SEPA office (tel: Edinburgh & West Lothian 0131 449 7296 / Borders 01896 754797 / Falkirk 01786 452595).

Environmental Assessment

The applicant proposes the demolition of an existing dwelling at 18 Whitehouse Road, to be replaced with a care home. The site is accessed via a driveway to the south and another to the east (joining Cramond Glebe North). Bordering to the south, east and north are existing dwellings with the river Almond to the west.

Environmental Assessment has concerns over the introduction of a noise sensitive property in this location given its proximity to the flight path of Edinburgh Airport. In addition to inward aircraft noise intrusion, this proposal has the potential to generate operational noise which could negatively affect the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings; both of these aspects have been considered and assessed in noise impact assessments submitted by the agent. These assessments conclude that: o an upgraded glazing specification will be required to attenuate aircraft noise to acceptable levels within the bedrooms of the care home o a specific ceiling construction will be required to protect the amenity of the top floor bedrooms of the care home from plant noise o noise associated with servicing vehicles will not be loud enough to negatively affect the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings during daytime operation.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 35 of 44 15/05434/FUL

Conditions regarding each of these points are recommended.

This proposal includes a kitchen which will provide hot food for residents. Due to the proximity of the neighbouring residential dwellings Environmental Assessment has concerns over the potential for kitchen odours to affect amenity. The agent has submitted information regarding the performance specification of the kitchen extract fan and flue which meet Environmental Assessment's minimum standards and addresses these concerns. The proposal also includes a combined heat and power plant. Environmental Assessment has considered the capacity of the system in relation to the Clean Air Act 1993; the power output being below the level which would require a chimney height calculation to be submitted by the developer.

Environmental Assessment has no objections to this proposal, subject to the following conditions:

1. All bedroom windows of the development shall be glazed to provide a minimum sound reduction index value of 35dB (e.g. glazing consisting of 10mm and 6mm thick panes of normal float glass separated by a 20mm wide cavity). 2. Deliveries and collections, including waste collections, shall be restricted to between the hours of 07:00 and 19:00, Monday to Saturday. 3. The bedroom(s) directly below the roof top plant equipment shall have a suspended ceiling construction comprised of two layers of 15mm thick plasterboard with 100mm thick mineral fibre slabs, having a density of at least 100kg/m3, laid on top of it.

Flood Prevention

No objections.

Cramond and Barnton Community Council

Cramond and Barnton Community Council appreciates the City Council's agreement to being granted statutory consultee status in respect of this development.

The Community Council opposes the application for the construction of a 50-bedroom care home on this backland site within Cramond Conservation Area. In doing so, the Community Council is reflecting the views of the local community , which have been consistently expressed at Community Council meetings, a public exhibition organised by the applicants, and in representations by individuals and organisations to the Community Council. The revised scale of the proposals does not change the community's objections to the principle of this development within the Conservation Area or to the specific details of the proposed development, as set out in the revised application.

In summary, the Community Council seeks refusal of the application for the following reasons -

1. Inappropriate replacement development within Cramond Conservation Area 2. Matters of concern, but not material planning considerations 3. Location and scale of development

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 36 of 44 15/05434/FUL

4. Building design and materials 5. Landscaping, open space provision and species conservation 6. Traffic and safety issues 7. Capacity of community medical services 8. Sewerage capacity 9. Light pollution and noise nuisances.

These grounds for seeking refusal of the application are discussed in more detail overleaf.

This submission should be read in conjunction with the Community Council's objections to application 15/05435/CON for conservation area consent to permit demolition of the dwelling house to enable the care home development. It is not intended to repeat verbatim the case made in this parallel submission and many of the reasons for objection are similar to those set out below.

1. Inappropriate replacement development within Cramond Conservation Area

The replacement development, including its location, footprint, massing, height, materials, traffic implications, noise and lighting pollution and effects on surrounding trees, would adversely affect the character and qualities of Cramond Conservation Area. Consequently, consent to the proposals would be contrary to planning policies and guidance for conservation areas in Scottish Planning Policies (SPP), Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP), PAN 71 and the Council's Local Development Plan, Edinburgh Design Guide and Cramond Conservation Character Assessment. It should be noted, however, that the Community Council is unlikely to object to a replacement private house of a scale and design that is compatible with character of the Conservation Area. Similarly, the Community Council is not opposed to appropriate care home developments and has supported development of a 74-bed nursing home at Cramond Place, proposed 90-bed nursing home on the former Cramond Campus site and 70 assisted-living flats at Barnton Grove.

2. Matters of Concern, but not Material Planning Considerations a. Potentially misleading statements by the applicants - the Community Council has significant concerns that statements by the applicants' consultants may not accurately reflect the Council's position on the proposals and may be intended to mislead the public; for example - o pre-application exhibition boards stated … Edinburgh Council's Transportation Department has raised no concerns over traffic impacts …. o the current application form states that, in pre-application discussions with planning staff, … RK & EC were supportive of the reduced scale, massing and approach, etc.. Also, the 'Planning Statement' reports that … At the meeting with the Council's Planning Officers at the end of October 2015, it was confirmed by the Council that the principle of redeveloping the application site for a new care home development was acceptable and could be supported by current planning policies….. The Officers also confirmed that the consultation responses received on the first application indicated that the proposed redevelopment of the site was appropriate in terms of relevant technical, infrastructure, heritage, and environmental considerations. This latter statement is patently untrue and the Community Council cannot understand how Council staff could give assurances, such as those reported above, prior to fully

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 37 of 44 15/05434/FUL assessing the proposals and reviewing submissions by the public and statutory consultees. o In various locations, the 'Planning Statement' refers to the building being … a maximum of two-storeys (s. 5.2). The application is accompanied by plans and visualisation clearly showing a building of 4-storeys b. interior layout is not fit for purpose - as modern principles of care home design eschew the provision of lengthy bedroom corridors, in favour of smaller groups of rooms around a carers' hub.

3. Location and Scale of Development

The introduction of this commercial, 50-bedroom development on a backland site, and with a gross internal floor area of 2,974m2 (locally, homes are around 160-220m2) and a frontage of around 54m, would comprise over-development of the site and this scale of development and intensification of use would adversely affect the residential amenity and special character of Cramond Conservation Area. Hence, it would be contrary to LDP2 policies Des 1, Des 3, Des 4, Env 6, Hou 4 and Hou 7 and guidance in Cramond Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Edinburgh Design Guidance.

4. Building Design and Materials

Cramond Conservation Area Character Appraisal highlights key characteristics of the Conservation Area, including the variety of suburban, cottage-style, Edwardian and Victorian houses and predominance of traditional building materials creating a coherent visual unity (e.g. sandstone, harl, slate or pantile roofs, domestic fenestration). Edinburgh Design Guidance states that backland development should be subservient to surrounding buildings, avoid disrupting the spatial character of the area, design features (e.g. scale, size, windows, doors) should harmonise with, and be of a similar scale to, existing buildings, and buildings should sit within the form set by the eaves and ridge of neighbouring buildings.

The massing, form, scale, fenestration, materials (i.e. reconstituted stone, timber cladding, copper-coloured membrane roof) and fourth floor with flat roof at the height of adjacent roof ridges, are clearly contrary to the guidance and policies in SPP, SHEP and LDP2 - especially LDP2 policies Des 1, Des 3, Des 4, Env 5 and Env 6.

5. Landscaping, Open Space Provision and Species Conservation

The landscaping, open space and conservation proposals are unacceptable, as - a. the visualisations in the Design and Access Statement (e.g. 'Drawing 5. Proposed Design') show an extent and scale of tree cover and screening, which is unlikely to be achievable given the landscaping proposals shown on other plans and would cast excessive shade on west- and north-facing rooms and garden grounds b. revised siting of the 4 storey-building towards the western boundary of the site will increase its visibility on the skyline, when viewed across the River Almond from the popular John Muir Way and Dalmeny path network - especially in winter, when there is no vegetation on trees on the site boundary

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 38 of 44 15/05434/FUL c. ready access to comfortable, attractive greenspace is essential for the physical and mental well-being of elderly residents. The plans show relatively small garden areas to the north and west sides of the proposed development, which will be overshadowed by the 3-/4-story care home to the south and east and mature trees to the west and north - all having major shading effects and potentially creating a frost pocket in winter and damp environment over much of the year d. the tree protection areas appear inadequate given the size and likely extent of root systems of existing trees. In particular, the access road in front of the building will require to support heavy vehicles during construction and thereafter and construction of this road is likely to adversely affect the few existing trees along this frontage, which provide essential, but partial visual screening d. a bat survey during the main activity period (i.e. summer) will be essential to ascertain the presence of bats in the existing building and comply with EU/UK regulations. It is unacceptable to state in the Habitat Survey Report that … It is considered that the main building does not have features suitable for supporting bat roosts; such as gaps beneath roof-tiles and within soffits, without undertaking a bat survey in accordance with BCT and CIEEM guidelines. As a consequence of the above assessments, the Community Council contends that this proposal is contrary to LDP2 policies Des 5(a), Env 6 and Env 16

6. Traffic and Safety Issues a. Misleading or inaccurate statements in Transportation Statement, including - i. understated levels of use of Whitehouse Road and Cramond Glebe Road - despite statements to the contrary, Whitehouse Road is a well used traffic route. Also, while it is true that Cramond Glebe Road is a local access road, it provides essential access for residents and to Cramond car park (150+ spaces; frequent peak period turnover), Cramond Inn (approx. 45 spaces), Cramond Kirk Halls (approx. 60 spaces; 2,000+ bookings/year), Cramond Kirk (no dedicated parking for services, weddings or funerals), Cramond Nursery (100+ children; morning/afternoon sessions) and Cramond Medical Practice (approx. 12 spaces) - all of which generate overflow parking pressures at peak times ii. bus services - Section 4 refers to six '41' buses/hour in each direction. In reality, the '41' terminus is close to the proposed site and there are only 4 buses/hour at peak periods arriving at/leaving Cramond. Early morning/late evening services at weekends are half-hourly and do not commence early enough on Sundays to serve the stated morning shift times. In addition, travel time from Cramond to Princes Street is stated as 10 minutes, as opposed to the 33 to 49 minute travel time to Hanover Street shown in Lothian Buses' timetable. These long travel times will deter bus use, as driving times can be 10 to 20 minutes and most staff will not live near the '41' route. Also, Lothian Buses have indicated that continuance of the '41' service to this part of Cramond is not guaranteed, due to the low density of residents iii. traffic generation predictions - Section 5 indicates that the first staff day shift starts at 07.00 and the second shift finishes at 22.00, when night staff take over. However, the Trip Generation tables (5.1, 5.2) and Accumulation of Vehicles diagram (7.1) do not show these arrivals or departures. Staff arriving/leaving at these early

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 39 of 44 15/05434/FUL morning/late evening times will mostly use private vehicles, with inevitable noise disturbance to neighbouring residents. iv. deliveries and refuse collection - statements that The only deliveries … will be food and catering twice a week …and… one refuse pick-up from the site weekly .. are apparent gross understatements and ignore postal, parcel, pharmacy, florist, maintenance equipment and other deliveries. Also, compliance with recycling policies will require more than one refuse collection per week (e.g. general wastes, clinical wastes, recycling collections) and additional traffic will be generated by tradesmen and taxis. b. Potentially hazardous access and egress arrangements - traffic and pedestrian safety hazards and issues are numerous, for example - i. drivers approaching the care home from the east (e.g. Cramond Road North) have a very restricted view of the entrance, which is set back and obscured by neighbouring properties and often by parked cars. Drivers, especially HGV drivers, will effectively have to make a U-turn in Whitehouse Road and drive directly across the Whitehouse Road/School Brae junction ii. the entrance requires drivers and cyclists to cross the Whitehouse Road/School Brae junction at the point where residents and River Almond Walkway users' vehicles and cyclists are emerging from, or entering, School Brae and pedestrians are crossing the junction, including adults and children from the adjacent Nursery and Cramond Primary School. These conflicting pedestrian and traffic movements will pose significant safety hazards iii. the exit to Cramond Glebe Road uses a narrow lane (approx. 3.5m wide) with stone walls at the exit point, resulting in an absence of visibility splays. Hence, the front of vehicles will be across the footway before drivers see any approaching pedestrians, cyclists or elderly people intending to access the care home. This footway is used by visitors to Cramond, who will be unaware of the need to exercise caution. iv. parked cars on Cramond Glebe Road, between the care home exit and junction with Whitehouse Road, will further obscure exiting drivers' views of approaching traffic and Cramond Glebe Road users' views of cars coming out of the care home v. parked cars restrict the above-mentioned section of road to one-way traffic, with resultant congestion - often backing up onto Whitehouse Road or Cramond Road North. This congestion is compounded by high flows of traffic at weekends and public holidays to Cramond Car Park, Boat Club, Harbour, Kirk and Kirk Halls, resulting in conflicts and grievances, which will be exacerbated by a further 112+ vehicle movements per day vi. while there is limited off-street parking for everyday needs, additional on-street parking will be generated during care home events (e.g. parties, summer fairs, open days). This will exacerbate parking pressures from residents, patients at Cramond Medical Practice and clients of the two Children's Nurseries, which are a current cause of congestion, nuisance and safety hazards.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 40 of 44 15/05434/FUL

It is noted that the Council's Transport Development Control Manager has recommended a suspensive condition requiring approval of a statutory TRO to restrict waiting and loading on sections of Cramond Glebe Road, without which the traffic exit from the proposed Care Home would be unsafe. Local residents, many of whom have no alternative parking, have indicated that they will strongly oppose any such Order c. Pedestrian Access and Safety - Designing Streets states that priority should be given to pedestrians' and cyclists' safety and design should be inclusive. LDP2 policy Des 7: Layout Design states that … safe and convenient access and movement in and around development will be promoted, having regard especially to the needs of people with limited mobility and special needs. Many residents will fall into these categories and separate footways will be essential for residents and visitors with mobility, sight or hearing impairments. Also, a footway along the exit lane will be required to enable residents' access to Cramond Medical Practice, Cramond Kirk/Kirk Halls (programmes for the elderly) and Cramond Village and Harbour.

However, the current proposals do include footways along the internal access/egress road and, if this road is to meet width requirements for emergency and refuse vehicles, there will be insufficient width for footways, especially for wheelchairs users. Consequently, the lack of safe and adequate width footways is likely to deter active travel d. Emergency Vehicle Operations - It is assumed that the emergency services have approved the traffic arrangements. The emergency vehicle 'Swept Path Analysis' does not cover the access and egress points and it is unlikely that there would be sufficient turning space for a fire appliance (plus snorkel/ladders) exiting the site onto Cramond Glebe Road

Taking account of the above traffic and safety issues, the Community Council contends that the proposals are contrary to guidance in Designing Streets, other national policies and LDP2 policies Des 7, Hou 7 and Tra 2.

7. Capacity of Medical Services

Cramond Medical Practice is the only medical practice in the vicinity of the proposed care home. It is operating at capacity and is/will be coming under further pressures for services for the elderly from the assisted-living and care home developments at Barnton and Cramond Place. Cramond's ageing demographic will further exacerbate pressures on local medical services.

8. Sewerage Capacity

The 'Drainage Strategy' plan shows the intention to connect all drainage flows into the combined sewer, which links to the trunk sewer along the River Almond. This sewer operates above capacity at periods of peak flow, resulting in occasional effluent discharges onto the River Almond Walkway in Cramond Village and into the River Almond. Additional drainage loading from this proposal will exacerbate this already unacceptable situation. LDP2 policy RS 6 applies.

9. Light and Noise Pollution

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 41 of 44 15/05434/FUL

The existing dwelling generates little or no external lighting pollution or noise nuisance. In contrast, the proposed 50-bed care home will - a. require lighting of access and egress roads, parking areas, entrance area and utility areas. Also, there may be façade lighting and some rooms may generate external light b. generate vehicular traffic day and night (e.g. night-time emergency medical and fire responses), with resultant noise nuisances.

Resultant lighting pollution and noise nuisances will adversely affect the amenity of the 16 or so houses immediately adjacent to/overlooking the development and its access and egress roads, and the wider neighbourhood. Such impacts are inappropriate to a backland site in a primarily residential area - especially within a conservation area - and, as such, are contrary to national policies (e.g. SPP, SHEP) and LDP2 policies Des 5, Env 6, Env 22, and Hou 7.

10. Recommendation for Site Visit and Request for Hearing by Committee

Understandably, the applicants have presented their proposals in the most favourable light. However, the Community Council has identified inaccuracies, deficiencies and distortions in their proposals and reports. To enable elected members to get a fair and balanced view of the proposals and understand the constraints and character of the site, we suggest that a site visit is required, so that members can take a considered and informed judgement of the potential impacts of the proposals.

Representatives of the Community Council will be pleased to discuss the above reasons for seeking refusal of this application. In particular, the Community Council requests the opportunity to present the community's views at a hearing by the Development Management Sub-Committee.

Additional Comments

Bat Surveys: We note that the bat surveys have been undertaken in May and did not show bat activity within the buildings. However, bat roosting potential in the buildings has been shown in these and previous reports. We would draw your attention to the following advice on SNH's website (http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/wildlife-and- you/bats/advice/) … For small-scale developments, i.e. those affecting individual houses or small groups of associated buildings, a minimum of three activity (emergence/re-entry) surveys and a thorough inspection of building(s) both inside and out is required. The activity surveys should be undertaken at dusk or dawn and comprise at least one dawn visit. They should be spread over several weeks during the bats' main period of activity, ideally with visits in June, July and August. The objective of these surveys is to: identify the species of bat present; locate their access point(s); provide an estimate of numbers; and determine the status of the roost (e.g. maternity, transition, male roost etc). If a survey has been conducted during the winter and has reported suitable habitat for/evidence of bats a summer survey will be necessary before planning approval can be granted. (key points highlighted in bold). While Community Council members do not purport to be experts in bat surveys, the above advice would suggest that timings of the bat surveys in May are on the margins

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 42 of 44 15/05434/FUL of the bat activity season. We would suggest, therefore, that a further series of bat surveys be required during over the summer during the main bat activity season.

Swept Path Analysis In assessing the Swept Path analyses drawings for both emergency vehicles and refuse collection vehicles, we note that the path of these vehicles is in immediate vicinity to the boundaries of the adjacent properties. This is likely to affect the landscaping proposals alongside the entrance driveway, allows for no margin of error before damage is made to the boundaries and would not seem to allow for any protuberances from the vehicles (e.g. mirrors) or cambers on the internal or public roads - especially at the exit onto Cramond Glebe Road.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 43 of 44 15/05434/FUL

Location Plan

END

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 44 of 44 15/05434/FUL Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 Aug 2016

Application for Conservation Area Consent 15/05435/CON At 18 Whitehouse Road, Edinburgh, EH4 6NN Demolition of dwelling in a conservation area.

Item number Report number

Wards A01 - Almond

Summary

The demolition of the existing dwellinghouse is acceptable on the basis that its removal will not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal complies with Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP) Policy Env 5 (Conservation Areas - Demolition of Buildings) and the Historic Environment Scotland (HES) Policy Statement 2016.

The proposal is acceptable and there are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion. Outcome of previous Committee

This application was previously considered by Committee on 22 June 2016

This application has been continued for a hearing to give all parties the opportunity to address the Committee. Links

Policies and guidance for CITE5, NSLBCA, CRPCRA,

this application

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 1 of 16 15/05435/CON

Report

Application for Conservation Area Consent 15/05435/CON At 18 Whitehouse Road, Edinburgh, EH4 6NN Demolition of dwelling in a conservation area.

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below. Background

2.1 Site description

The site is located to the rear of residential properties which front on to Cramond Glebe Road and Cramond Glebe Terrace to the east, to the rear of residential properties fronting Whitehouse Road and School Brae to the south. The River Almond lies to the west. It comprises a large modern two storey detached house set within a large plot. The site is approximately 0.48 hectares in size.

Currently vehicular and pedestrian access into the site is provided from a single lane driveway located at the junction of Whitehouse Road and School Brae. There is a secondary, currently disused, single lane track linking the site with Cramond Glebe Road.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 2 of 16 15/05435/CON

This application site is located within the Cramond Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

2 December 2015 - Application withdrawn for conservation area consent for demolition of dwelling in a Conservation Area (application number 15/03901/CON).

Decision pending for planning permission for proposed demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new carehome and associated car parking (application number 15/05434/FUL). Main report

3.1 Description of the Proposal

The application seeks conservation area consent for the demolition of the existing dwellinghouse.

The demolition of the dwellinghouse is proposed to facilitate the erection of a two to four storey care home with associated amenity space, parking and landscaping.

The redevelopment of the site is considered in full under the associated application for planning permission (application number 15/05434/FUL).

Supporting Documents

The following documents have been submitted in support of the application and are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services:

 Design and Access Statement  Planning Statement

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 3 of 16 15/05435/CON

3.2 Determining Issues

Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of consent.

3.3 Assessment To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:

a) the demolition of the existing house is acceptable;

b) any impacts on equalities or human rights are acceptable; and

c) comments raised have been addressed. a) Demolition of Existing House

The site is located within the Cramond Conservation Area and the existing house is not listed. When considering the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area it is appropriate to assess the application against ECLP Policy Env 5 (Conservation Areas - Demolition of Buildings) and the Historic Environment Scotland (HES) Policy Statement (2016).

The HES Policy Statement requires that when assessing the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area, local authorities should take into account the importance of the building to the conservation area, and the future proposals for the site. If the building is considered to be of any architectural or historic value a positive attempt should be made to achieve its retention and re-use before any demolition proposals are seriously investigated. In some instances demolition may be considered appropriate, for instance where the building is of little or no townscape value, or where repair costs are unreasonable, or where the existing form or location makes any re-use extremely difficult.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 4 of 16 15/05435/CON

Notwithstanding the house's limited visibility, its contribution to the character of the conservation area the impact of its removal needs to be assessed.

The house has a relatively modern two storey design and is fairly disjointed in appearance. The main part of the house is located to the west and has a pitched roof, and to the east is a flat roofed double garage with two storey living accommodation to the rear. These two sections of the house are linked by an interconnecting shallow roof pitched building at a lower height. A conservatory and porch have been added to the front and rear of the house. The house is rendered white and the majority of the roof is slate. The interconnecting building, porch and garage are partially clad in timber.

Whilst the footprint size of the house is comparable to the existing detached villas on Cramond Glebe Road, it does not have any special features of merit which would support its retention from an architectural or townscape perspective. The house neither enhances nor detracts from the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area. On this basis its removal would have a neutral impact overall.

The demolition of the existing house complies with ECLP Policy Env 5 and the HES Policy Statement.

An assessment of the proposal's impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area is considered under application 15/05434/FUL. b) Equalities and Human Rights

The proposal does not raise concern with regard to equalities and human rights. c) Public Comments

The application has received 49 objections including from Cramond Action Group and the Cockburn Association.

The objections raised have been summarised below:

Material Representations: Objections

 Demolition of existing dwelling unacceptable - this has been addressed in section 3.3a) of the assessment.  Adverse impact on character and appearance of conservation area - this has been addressed in section 3.3a) of the assessment.

Several representations cited inaccuracies in the supporting documentation for this and the associated application for planning permission (application number 15/05434/FUL). This issue was raised with the agent and an opportunity was provided to review the documentation in order to make revisions as required. As a result, the Design and

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 5 of 16 15/05435/CON

Access Statement, Transportation Statement and Archaeological Evaluation - Written Scheme of Investigation were revised to account of an error in the reference to the number of bedrooms proposed. The revised documents are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services.

Non-Material Representations

 Proposal will create a precedent  There are more appropriate sites available  Public consultation by applicant insufficient  Structural stability of building could be an issue  Oversupply of care homes  Disruption from construction  Use is inappropriate  Modern design of building inappropriate  Scale and massing of building inappropriate  Materials inappropriate  Increase in traffic and congestion  Detrimental to road and pedestrian safety  Increase in parking on surrounding streets  Access to site unsuitable  Visibility splays inappropriate  Noise and disruption  Loss of privacy  Overdevelopment  Light pollution  Air pollution  Detrimental impact on trees  Detrimental impact on protected species  Existing medical facilities in Cramond at capacity  Demolition will cause uncertainty for future of site

Community Council

Cramond and Barnton Community Council requested to be a statutory consultee therefore their response is set out in the consultation section of this report. Relevant comments have been addressed within the assessment.

Conclusion

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 6 of 16 15/05435/CON

The proposal is acceptable and there are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

1. No demolition shall start until the applicant has confirmed in writing the start date for the new development by the submission of a Notice of Initiation.

Reasons:-

1. In order to safeguard the character of the conservation area. Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

There are no financial implications to the Council. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low. Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights. Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application has received 49 objections including from Cramond Action Group and the Cockburn Association.

Cramond and Barnton Community Council requested to be a statutory consultee therefore their response is set out in the consultation section of this report.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 7 of 16 15/05435/CON

Background reading/external references

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 8 of 16 15/05435/CON

Date registered 2 December 2015

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01 - 04,

Scheme 1

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Ruth King, Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 6475

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 9 of 16 15/05435/CON

Links-Policies

Relevant Policies:

Policy Env 5 (Conservation Areas – Demolition of Buildings) sets outs criteria for assessing proposals involving demolition of buildings in conservation areas.

Non-statutory guidelines 'LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS' provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 10 of 16 15/05435/CON

Appendix 1

Application for Conservation Area Consent 15/05435/CON At 18 Whitehouse Road, Edinburgh, EH4 6NN Demolition of dwelling in a conservation area.

Consultations

Historic Environment Scotland

Historic Environment Scotland does not object to this application and we do not have any comments to make on the proposals.

Cramond and Barnton Community Council

Cramond and Barnton Community Council appreciates the City Council's agreement to being granted statutory consultee status in respect of this development and seeks refusal of the revised application to demolish the dwelling house at the above address within Cramond Conservation Area to enable development of a 50-bed care home.

In making this submission, the Community Council is reflecting the views of the community that a care home, which is of a substantial scale, on a backland site, of a non-traditional design and potentially generating substantial traffic on already congested roads and with potentially hazardous access, is inappropriate within Cramond Conservation Area. These views have been expressed consistently at Community Council meetings, a public exhibition organised by the applicants, and representations to the Community Council. The revised scale of the proposals does not change the community's objections to the principle of this development within Cramond Conservation Area.

The Community Council would not be opposed, in principle, to development of a replacement private dwelling of a scale, materials and other characteristics, which are consistent with the character of neighbouring dwellings in the Conservation Area. Similarly, it is not opposed in principle to care home, or similar, developments outwith the Conservation Area. Indeed, a 74-bed nursing home is being developed at Cramond Place (11/01856/FUL), a 90-bed nursing home and 64 assisted-living flats are proposed on the former Cramond Campus site (11/01493/PPP), and 70 assisted- living flats have been completed at the former Barnton Hotel site (12/01941/FUL) - all within a 1km radius of the current proposals.

National and local planning policies and guidance clearly indicate that, as the proposed demolition is sited within a conservation area, the proposal should be assessed within the context of the development proposed to take its place and the implications of that development on the historic, architectural and environmental character and qualities of the Conservation Area.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 11 of 16 15/05435/CON

As outlined below, the Community Council and members of our community are concerned that demolition of the private single dwelling and its replacement with a commercially-operated, 3- and 4-storey, 50-bedroom care home - a. would be contrary to policies relating to development in a conservation area and associated design guidance within Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP), PAN 71: Conservation Area Management, Edinburgh Local Development Plan (including LDP2) and the Edinburgh Design Guidance and Cramond Conservation Area Character Appraisal b. represent over-development of the site c. would set an inappropriate and unacceptable precedent for larger-scale commercial or accommodation development within Cramond Conservation Area.

Relationship to Planning Policies and Guidance

Scottish Planning Policy - Paragraph 143: Conservation Areas states that Proposals for development within conservation areas … should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. This is echoed in Scottish Historic Environmental Policy and Edinburgh Local Development Plan: Second Proposed Plan - Policy Env5: Conservation Areas - Demolition of Buildings, which requires that … Proposals for the demolition of any building within a conservation area, whether listed or not, will not normally be permitted unless a detailed planning application is approved for a replacement building which enhances or preserves the character of the area …. Similarly, Policy Env6: Conservation Areas - Development states that … development within a conservation area or affecting its setting will be permitted which … preserves the special characteristics or appearance of the conservation area and is consistent with the relevant conservation area character appraisal.

Cramond Conservation Area Character Appraisal refers specifically to the Cramond Glebe Road, Whitehouse Road and School Brae areas, where this proposal is located. It highlights common characteristics which give the Conservation Area its special qualities, including - o Variety of suburban cottage style Edwardian and Victorian houses … o Predominance of traditional building materials and detailing giving a coherence and visual unity to the Conservation Area o Overall, traditional building materials of sandstone, harl, slate and pantile are predominant. Windows are timber sash and case and generally with small panes.

The Character Appraisal notes that some new development … has failed to take reference from the spatial pattern and surrounding original buildings and materials … and … is of a large scale that is out of context with the domestic scale of Cramond. It states that … new design should take cognizance of this in order to reinforce the character of the Conservation Area.

Edinburgh Design Guidance includes statements that, in summary, o the density of new development should be appropriate to the neighbourhood o new development should reflect existing spatial characteristics, building forms and heights, and new buildings should sit within the form set by the eaves and ridge of neighbouring buildings

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 12 of 16 15/05435/CON o backland development should be subservient to surrounding buildings and should be avoided where it would disrupt the spatial character of an area o design of new buildings should harmonise with the scale, size, form, windows and doors and other features by making them a similar size to those of their neighbours.

The backland location in the Cramond Conservation Area and scale, design and materials of the proposed 50-bedroom care home, which is intended to replace a single dwelling, are contrary to the above-mentioned policies, character appraisal and guidance. In particular, - a. location and access - the backland site requires access along narrow access and egress lanes overlooked by around 11 houses. The consultants' estimated 112 vehicle movements per day contrasts with very limited traffic flows from the existing dwelling and are inconsistent with maintaining the qualities of this quiet, low density Conservation Area and the amenity of neighbouring properties b. scale and over-development of the site - typically, adjacent properties are 2- storey with an internal floor area of under 200m2. and parking for around 2 cars accessed from the adjacent road frontage. The proposed development has a gross floor area of around 3,000m2 (i.e. over 15 times the floor area of adjacent homes), parking for 21 vehicles (including ambulance) and an internal road approx. 180m long. Consequently, the site and the scale and massing of this development is inappropriate within a backland site in this residential part of Cramond Conservation Area c. height and roof type - typically, neighbouring houses are one- or two- two-storey in height (ground to eaves) with gable or hipped roofs, whereas this is a 3-storey plus basement builidng with a flat roof. The proposed height and form is contrary to advice in Edinburgh Design Guidance and out-of-scale with surrounding buildings. d. materials and design details - whereas buildings in the Conservation Area predominantly comprise sandstone or harl walls, slate or pantile roofs, and domestic scale fenestration, the proposed design comprises extensive rendered façade, timber cladding, reconstituted stone, high and non-traditional fenestration and a copper- coloured membrane roof. These features and materials are contrary to established conservation area policy and design guidance and will detract from the qualities of the Cramond Conservation Area e. landscaping issues - the site and adjacent gardens contain many mature trees which contribute to the landscape values and amenity of Cramond Conservation Area. While a tree protection zone is shown on the 'Tree Proposals' plan, this would appear to be insufficient to guarantee the protection of the root systems of larger trees during construction and the proposed sealed access/egress roads and parking areas are likely to have detrimental effects on the trees on the eastern and southern perimeters of the site f. European protected species - while potential bat roosting trees have been identified in the 'Habitat Survey Report', a bat survey has not been undertaken to identify whether bats may be roosting within the property for which demolition consent is being sought. This will be required in order to satisfy EU/UK regulations and national and local planning policies g. noise nuisance - noise from moving vehicles (est. 112 vehicle movements over 14+ hour day), waiting vehicles (e.g. taxis), vehicle doors being opened/closed and residents' conversations in near vicinity of adjacent homes will transform this quiet backland site into a source of noise nuisance to neighbouring properties contrary to conservation area values

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 13 of 16 15/05435/CON h. lighting pollution - the access and egress roads, parking areas and exterior reception area will require extensive and substantial levels of lighting during dusk and darkness to enable safe use by elderly and less-sighted residents and visitors. Interior lighting of some rooms may be evident from outside the building and there may be façade lighting. Hence, the development will introduce levels of lighting over extensive areas that are alien to domestic backland plots in Cramond Conservation Area and light pollution will detract from the amenity of surrounding and more distant properties.

Issues of Precedent

There are no larger-scale commercial or accommodation developments in Cramond Conservation Area. Members of the community are concerned that consent for the demolition of this single dwelling and its replacement with a commercially-operated care home could set a precedent for larger-scale commercial or other development in Cramond Conservation Area (e.g. tourist accommodation, high-density flatted accommodation), to the detriment of the special character and qualities of the Conservation Area and amenity of Cramond's residents and visitors. It should be noted that while the consultants' 'Design and Access Statement' (section 3) shows photos and refers to modern 3-/4-storey high flatted developments in the Cramond area, these are sited outwith the Conservation Area and not within a backland site, such as the current proposal.

Other Issues in Respect of the Care Home Proposals

This submission, on behalf of the communities of Cramond and Barnton, has focused on specific planning considerations relating to application 15/05435/CON. Further issues relating to the care home proposals, including key concerns over amenity, traffic generation and pedestrian safety will be covered in the Community Council's separate submission on application 15/05434/FUL.

Request for Hearing by the Development Management Sub-Committee

Given the controversial nature of the above proposals and their potential impacts on Cramond Conservation Area and its residents and visitors, Cramond and Barnton Community Council a. requests an opportunity to present the community's views to the Development Sub-Committee b. recommends that a site visit be arranged to acquaint members with the particular characteristics of the site and Conservation Area and key issues relating to the proposals. Representatives of the Community Council will be pleased to provide further information or to clarify any matters relating to the proposals discussed in this submission.

Additional Comments

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 14 of 16 15/05435/CON advice on SNH's website (http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/wildlife-and- you/bats/advice/) … For small-scale developments, i.e. those affecting individual houses or small groups of associated buildings, a minimum of three activity (emergence/re-entry) surveys and a thorough inspection of building(s) both inside and out is required. The activity surveys should be undertaken at dusk or dawn and comprise at least one dawn visit. They should be spread over several weeks during the bats' main period of activity, ideally with visits in June, July and August. The objective of these surveys is to: identify the species of bat present; locate their access point(s); provide an estimate of numbers; and determine the status of the roost (e.g. maternity, transition, male roost etc). If a survey has been conducted during the winter and has reported suitable habitat for/evidence of bats a summer survey will be necessary before planning approval can be granted. (key points highlighted in bold). While Community Council members do not purport to be experts in bat surveys, the above advice would suggest that timings of the bat surveys in May are on the margins of the bat activity season. We would suggest, therefore, that a further series of bat surveys be required during over the summer during the main bat activity season.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 15 of 16 15/05435/CON

Location Plan

END

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 Aug 2016 Page 16 of 16 15/05435/CON Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Application for Planning Permission 15/05662/FUL At New Parliament House, 5 - 7 Regent Road, Edinburgh Project proposes conservation of Thomas Hamilton designed former Royal High School building to form new premises for St Mary's Music School. Combined with demolition of later ancillary buildings, space to the East is created for new residential, teaching/practice facility. Proposed new landscaped public garden to West. New basement created under Main Hall to provide new foyer giving access to public performance spaces above.

Item number Report number

Wards A11 - City Centre

Summary

The proposal would bring the principal building, known as the Hamilton Building, at the former Royal High School, which is on the Buildings at Risk Register, back into a sustainable long term use. The demolition of other buildings at the site is justifiable under the provisions of ECLP policy Env 2 owing to the merits of the proposed development scheme, which includes the retention and restoration of the principal listed building.

The proposed performance space would make a potentially valuable contribution to the city's cultural infrastructure and provide opportunities for its use by the wider community. The location of the leisure, or entertainment venue at this accessible central area, accords with the provisions of relevant development plan policy. This proposed use also complies with the relevant principles of the Princes Street Block 10 Development Brief.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 1 of 97 15/05662/FUL The proposals to create an improved school campus for this school support the principles of Scottish Planning Policy for sustainable development, in terms of its contribution towards educational infrastructure. The proposed school use further supports SPP principles through its beneficial impact on the city's economy, whilst the use as performance space offers similar potential benefits to the economy.

The design, scale and layout of this generally low profile, sensitively designed extension safeguards the overall character and setting of the listed Hamilton building, the setting of surrounding listed buildings and monuments and the site's conservation area setting. The use of a condition requiring the re-design of the proposed cupolas will help safeguard views of the Old Town Conservation Area. The proposals comply with policy Des 1, Des 3, Env 3 and Env 6 of the ECLP and the Edinburgh Design Guidance in these respects.

Subject to recommended conditions, the proposed alterations to the listed building are considered acceptable and the proposal will comply with ECLP policy Env 4.

The proposed extension design, together with its co-ordinated landscape scheme is compatible with the site's landscaped setting and enhances views thereof, in accordance with ECLP and LDP policies Env 11. The proposals have no significant adverse effects on the qualities of the SSSI at Calton Hill, in accordance with the provisions of ECLP policy Env 14, subject to the use of a conditions relating to tree protection and external lighting. The character and views of the New Town Gardens Inventory Site are also safeguarded, in compliance with ECLP policy Env 7. There would be no significant adverse impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site, in compliance with ECLP policy Env 1.

In terms of the impact on neighbouring amenity, transport, archaeology, geology, surface water management and ecology, the development is acceptable or its impacts can be successfully mitigated with the use of relevant planning conditions.

An informative is included requiring the conclusion of a section 75 legal agreement, which provides for the relevant footway improvements to be designed and undertaken by the applicant and for the payment of the promotion of the relevant traffic orders, allowing these works to commence.

Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITCA1, CITCO3, CITD1, CITD3, CITD5,

this application CITD6, CITD7, CITD10, CITD11, CITE1, CITE2, CITE3, CITE5, CITE6, CITE7, CITE8, CITE9, CITE11, CITE12, CITE14, CITE15, CITE16, CITE17, CITE18, CITH8, CITH10, CITOS3, CITR6, CITR12, CITT1, CITT2, CITT3, CITT5, CITT6, LDPP, PLDP01, PLDP02, PLDP03, PLDP06, PLDP07, PLDP08, PLDP12, PLDP19, PLDP20, PLDP21, PLDP22, PLDP24, PLDP25, PLDP26, PLDP27, PLDP29, PLDP30, PLDP32, PLDP33, PLDP34, PLDP38, PLDP39, PLDP40, PLDP57, PLDP66, PLDP72,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 97 15/05662/FUL PLDP73, PLDP74, PLDP78, NSG, NSDCAH, NSGD02, NSGSTR, NSESBA, NSLBCA, NSP, CRPNEW, CRPOLD,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Report

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below. Background

2.1 Site description

The application site is the former Royal High School with its grounds and ancillary buildings. The site is located at a prominent, elevated position on the north side of Regent Road on Calton Hill. It is 1.13 hectares in area.

The former school and the buildings are category 'A' listed (LB ref LB27987, 19 April 1966). The principal building was designed in the Greek revival style by Thomas Hamilton in 1825 - 1829. It is widely regarded as an exemplar of this type of architecture. It is composed of a powerful symmetrical grouping of the principal Doric temple-pavilion, with flanking colonnades and subsidiary temples. This is known as the Hamilton building.

The listed building group also includes the Lodge on the north west side of the site (built in 1885) and a classical style, classroom block (built in 1894) to the north east of the main building, known as the Gymnasium Building. The northern boundary of the former school grounds is bounded by a deep retaining wall which is also part of this listing. This wall runs alongside the public walkway on Calton Hill. At the eastern end of this wall is a tower which is currently hidden from view by vegetation and the classroom block. There are also other buildings within the site that are listed because they were built before 1948 and are within the curtilage of a listed building. These include a block known as the Classroom Building on the northern boundary to the north west of the Hamilton Building and a block to the south of the 1894 Classroom Block, known as the Luncheon Hall.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 97 15/05662/FUL

The Hamilton Building, its Pavilions, the Gymnasium Building and the Lodge are on the Buildings at Risk Register.

An area of informal landscaping, including small trees and shrubs, is located at the western end of the site next to the entrance to the old school and the walkway to Calton Hill. This area contains a car park which is largely screened from public view by the planting. There is former playground space to the rear of the building and between the buildings at the eastern end. To the front, there are terraces and lawns which slope down towards the boundary wall on Regent Road.

The public park on Calton Hill, lies to the north of the site. The park is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, being part of the Arthur's Seat Volcano, and is included in the Historic Scotland Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes. It is identified as a Candidate Special Landscape Area, in the Second Proposed Edinburgh Local Development Plan It contains a collection of category 'A' listed buildings, including:

- National Monument (LB ref 27820, 19 April 1966); - Nelson's Monument (LB ref 27823, 19 April 1966); - Dugald Stewart Monument (LB ref 27835, 19 April 1966); - Playfair's Monument (LB ref 27826, 19 April 1966); and - The City Observatory (LB ref 27603, 19 April 1966).

The Robert Burns monument, designed by Hamilton is category 'A' listed (LB ref 27801, 19 April 1966) and is located on the opposite side of Regent Road to the east of the Royal High School. The category A listed 1 Regent Terrace (LB ref 29618, 16 December 1965) is situated immediately to the east of the site. With the other buildings in Regent Terrace, it is part of the 'Calton A' group of listed buildings. The category A listed, St Andrew House (LB ref 27756, 14 December 1970) is located to the south east, on the opposite side of Regent Road. There is a category B listed 'K6' telephone box (LB ref 49151, 19 March 2003) on the northern footway of Regent Road, just to the west of the site.

The site is within 800m of Holyrood Park, which is a royal park and a scheduled monument, (SM13032, 7 February 2013. It is also within 800 metres of the Palace of Holyroodhouse, which is a Royal Palace and category A listed building (LB Ref 28022, 14 December 1970). The associated Holyrood Abbey, precinct and remains is a scheduled monument (SM ref 13031, 7 February 2013).

The site is located in the Old and New Towns of Edinburgh World Heritage Site.

This application site is located within the New Town Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

17 November 1971 - Planning permission granted for change of use to an arts and cultural centre for the city (planning application number 1389).

22 September 1976 - planning permission granted for alterations to existing buildings to form accommodation for the Scottish Assembly (planning application number GD68/76).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 97 15/05662/FUL

7 March 2000 - Planning permission granted for alterations to form temporary district courts including the erection of a porta-cabin (planning application number 99/3131/CEC).

7 March 2000 - Listed Building Consent approved for alterations to form temporary district courts including the erection of a port-a-cabin (listed building consent application number 99/3131/CEL).

25 July 2002 & 19 March 2004 - Planning permission granted for the erection of a temporary port-a-cabin (planning application numbers 02/00072/CEC & 04/00135/FUL).

21 January 2015 - Proposal of application notice (PAN) submitted for planning permission for the change of use, alterations to and restoration of principal former High School building and pavilions, demolition of ancillary buildings, including former gymnasium and gatehouse, new build development, new /improved pedestrian and vehicle access, landscaping, parking and public realm works to create a world class hotel of international standing. The PAN was approved on 3 February 2015. It was reported to the Development Management Sub Committee on 25 February 2015 (PAN number 15/00223/PAN).

21 May 2015 - PAN submitted for the conservation and adaption of former Royal High School building, to form new premises for St Mary's Music School and adaption and demolition of later ancillary buildings essential to form new residential and practice facilities for the school. It was approved on 5 June 2015; subject to the condition that one further community consultation event is held. The submission of the PAN was reported to Development Management Sub Committee on 24 June 2015 (PAN number 15/02381/PAN).

10 December 2015 - Application submitted for listed building consent for conservation of Thomas Hamilton designed former Royal High School building to form new premises for St Mary's Music School. Combined with demolition of later ancillary buildings, space to the east is created for new residential, teaching and practice facility. To the west, a new landscaped public garden is proposed. A new basement created located under the Main Hall to provide new foyer giving access to the public performance spaces above (application number 15/05665/LBC). This application accompanies the planning application that is subject of this report.

17 December 2015 - Application for listed building consent refused for refurbishment (external and internal), alteration and extension of principal former Royal High School building and pavilions, demolition of former Lodge, Gymnasium Block, demolition of 2 curtilage buildings (former Classroom Block and Luncheon Hall), demolition of existing gates, wall (in part) and formation of new service access (application number 15/03990/LBC).

17 December 2015 - Planning Permission refused for change of use, alterations to and restoration of principal former Royal High School building and pavilions (original Thomas Hamilton-designed school buildings), demolition of ancillary buildings including the former Gymnasium Block and Lodge, new build development, new/improved vehicular, service and pedestrian accesses, landscaping, parking, public realm and other works to create a world class hotel of international standing with associated uses

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 97 15/05662/FUL

(including publicly accessible bars (public house) and restaurants (Class 3) (planning application number 15/03989/FUL).

16 January 2016 - Application for pre-application screening opinion was determined in respect of a proposal for the conversion and adaption of the former Royal High School, to form new public performance space/concert venue in conjunction with new premises for St Mary's Music School and demolition of later ancillary buildings essential to form new residential, teaching and practice facilities for the school (use classes 8, 10 and 11). It was determined that statutory pre-application consultation procedures were not required in respect of the relevant application, as the application would constitute a 'Local Application'.

17 March 2016 - planning appeal lodged in respect of the refusal of planning application number 15/03989/FUL on 17 December 2015. This appeal is currently pending determination by the Department of Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) (reference PPA-230-2178).

17 March 2016 - appeal lodged in respect of the refusal of application for listed building consent number 15/03990/LBC on 17 December 2015. This appeal is currently pending determination by the DPEA (reference LBA-230-2076).

Other Relevant Site History

1968 - The building was vacated when Edinburgh Royal High School was relocated to its current Barnton site.

1 June 2009 - The Council launched a business competition to attract expressions of interest from experienced leisure and entertainment providers to develop proposals for the use, design, funding and commercial potential for the redevelopment of the Old Royal High School. Proposals had to demonstrate that there was no public funding requirements for capital development or ongoing day-to-day operations.

2 February 2010, the selection panel confirmed Duddingston House Properties LLP as the City's preferred partner to 'deliver a sustainable development and business solution for the former Royal High School'. Duddingston's proposal centred on providing a luxury hotel of international standing that will provide exceptional culture, arts and performance programmes and work closely with stakeholders to improve the local amenities of Calton Hill and the surrounding area. Main report

3.1 Description of the Proposal

It is proposed to conserve, adapt and extend the former Royal High school principal building (known as the Hamilton Building) including its pavilions, to form a new school and public performance space. This would form new premises for St Mary's Music School. It would contain new residential accommodation, teaching and practice, facilities for the school. The total floor area of the school with ancillary residential accommodation is 6,210 square metres.

The existing entrance lodge is to be converted to form ancillary accommodation for teaching staff.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 97 15/05662/FUL

The principal school building (the Hamilton Building) would be retained, along with the pavilions on its frontage, the gate lodge and the retaining wall and belvedere, to the north and north east of the applications site.

Alterations to Listed Building

The proposed alterations to the principal former Royal High School building and pavilions include:

- the formation of a glazed slot within the portico floor of the Hamilton building; - the formation of a wide glazed entrance, below the portico, on the south facing elevation; and - the formation of a glass balustrade on the terrace to the portico.

The proposed performance space is located in the main hall of the Hamilton building and two ancillary rooms, with an overall floorspace of 556 square metres. The west pavilion is proposed for use as service space at lower ground floor level, with potential use as a function room or exhibition space above. The east pavilion is proposed for use as ancillary staff residential accommodation at upper ground floor level and service space below.

New build

An extension is proposed to the east and north of the Hamilton Building. It covers the majority of the eastern side of the site. It is linked to the Hamilton Building at low level. It is split over 2 storeys with the building stepping down to follow the topography.

The northern element of the extension sits parallel to the rear elevation of the Hamilton Building. It is largely single storey, but includes two octagonal shaped features which are two storey. These have octagon shaped cupolas on top of them.

The following new accommodation is proposed:

- Pupil residential accommodation for boarders at lower ground level, to the east of the site; - Teaching space at upper ground floor level, to the north and east of the Hamilton Building; - Single storey accommodation, housing one-to-one tuition space, along the site's northern boundary; and - Provision of school playground space on roof of new building.

The proposed external materials comprise natural sandstone, zinc cladding and glazing.

Demolition

The proposed development results in the demolition of ancillary listed buildings, including:

- The existing Classroom Block to the north west of the Hamilton Building; - The Gymnasium Building to the north east of the Hamilton Building; and

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 8 of 97 15/05662/FUL

- The luncheon hall to the east of the Hamilton Building

Parking and access arrangements

Pedestrian and vehicular access is proposed from the existing entrance to the school to the west of the site on Regent Road. The existing entrance gates and railings would be altered to incorporate a new pedestrian entrance to the proposed garden area. A security gateway is proposed to the north of the Hamilton Building to provide additional secure access for pupils using the residential accommodation.

A total of 23 parking spaces are proposed, including two spaces for use by disabled drivers and 5 cycle racks.

Access to the performance venue is proposed from a newly created entrance below the portico on the Regent Road façade of the Hamilton Building.

Service access is proposed from Regent Road, with entrances to service space in the east and west pavilions.

Landscape

The landscape design proposals include the following features:-

- The creation of a publically accessible garden in place of the existing car park, to the west the Hamilton Building; - The formation of south facing terraces at the front of the building, accessible to those using the performance venue; - The provision of courtyard gardens situated within proposed school accommodation; and - A proposed planting scheme, including wildflower meadows and lawns, low shrubs and hedging, and a total of 21 trees of semi-mature size, positioned in the western side of the site and the courtyard gardens.

The roof top accommodating the proposed school playground is to be surfaced in artificial turf. All other roofs are to be planted with natural turf.

The proposed hard surfacing materials include a range of the following materials, as included in the Landscape Design and Access Statement. These materials, which are not indicated on the formal plans include:

- resin bonded gravel on pathways; - natural stone paving on Regent Road; - timber decking in western garden; - coloured asphalt on pedestrian school access road and footpath; - reconstituted and natural stone paving to school building exterior; - natural stone sets on main paths and plaza in western garden; and - granite cubes on parking areas.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 9 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Boundary Treatment

The majority of the original walls and railing on the boundary of the site are to be retained. The exceptions are the existing railings at ground level on the eastern boundary, which are to be re-positioned to form the boundary of the roof-top playground and the proposed replacement of the remains of railing below the portico on the Regent Road frontage.

Scheme 1

The proposals constitute an amended scheme (scheme 2). The originally submitted proposals (scheme 1) included the following:

- the glazed glass floor to proposed for the portico was larger; - the paving design of the rear courtyard was not clearly defined and the school gate at the rear of the building was in a different position; - Slightly different design of the practice rooms and the octagonal building facades, to the north of the Hamilton Building, including those relating to the glazing and roof edge detailing; - the design of the facade of the octagonal practice room to the east of the Hamilton Building was slightly different; - the railings on the boundary of the Western gardens were proposed for removal (while now these are to be retained); - fewer details relating to landscaping, site levels and materials. (These have now been added to the sectional drawings and plans.)

Supporting Information

The following supporting documents have been submitted with this application and are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services:

- Planning Policy Statement; - Design and Access Statement (updated 29/3/2016); - Landscape Design and Access Statement; - Conservation Plan; - Transport Assessment; - Sustainability Statement - form S1; - Environmental Statement, with reference to following issues: air quality, noise and vibration, cultural heritage, townscape, landscape and visual Impacts; - Addendum to Environmental Statement, including revised chapter 5 and other supplementary information (April 2016); - Pre-application Consultation Report; - letter from the Dunard Fund (which currently provides complete financial support to the Royal High School Preservation Trust) confirming that it has sufficient resources to enable the Royal High School Preservation Trust to proceed with proposed development, as well as allowing for the long term sustainability of the development; and - Impact Report, with reference to social, cultural, economic and place-making impacts (June 2016).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 10 of 97 15/05662/FUL

3.2 Determining Issues

Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states: 'Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.'

Section 59 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 states: 'In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, a planning authority or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.'

Section 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 states: 'In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any powers under any of the provisions in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.'

Therefore:

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?

If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?

And:

Do the proposals preserve the listed buildings or their setting? If they do not there is a strong presumption against granting planning permission.

Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of planning permission.

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:

a) the principle of development is acceptable; b) the impacts on the listed buildings are acceptable; c) the impact on the conservation area is acceptable; d) the impact on the landscape is acceptable; e) the impact on views is acceptable; f) the impact on the Edinburgh World Heritage Site is acceptable; g) the design is acceptable; h) the impact on trees is acceptable; i) the impact on neighbouring amenities is acceptable;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 11 of 97 15/05662/FUL

j) the impact on transport and road safety is acceptable; k) the impact of archaeology is acceptable; l) the impact on geology is acceptable; m) the economic impacts are acceptable; n) the cultural impacts are acceptable; o) the impacts on surface water run off are acceptable; p) Infrastructure requirements have been addressed; q) the environmental statement has been considered; r) the proposals are sustainable; s) Impacts on equalities and rights are acceptable; and t) representations have been considered. a) Principle

The principle of the proposed development scheme requires to be assessed under relevant development plan and national planning policy.

Scottish Planning Policy

The Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP) was adopted more than five years ago, in January 2010. Paragraph 33 of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), states that if a development plan is more than five years old, the presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development will be a significant material consideration. SPP lists a number of sustainable development principles which should be used to guide decisions including:

- giving due weight to net economic benefit; - responding to economic issues, challenges and opportunities, as outlined in local economic strategies; - supporting good design and qualities of successful places; - making efficient use of existing capacities of land, buildings and infrastructure including, supporting town centre and regeneration priorities; - supporting delivery of infrastructure, for example transport, education, energy, digital and water; - supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation including taking account of flood risk; - improving health and well-being by offering opportunities for social interaction and physical activity, including sport and recreation; - having regard to the principles for sustainable land use set out in the Land Use Strategy; - protecting, enhancing and promoting access to cultural heritage, including the historic environment; and - protecting, enhancing and promoting access to natural heritage, including green infrastructure, landscape and the wider environment;

The use of the site for educational purposes and cultural activities is consistent with the principles relating to the delivery of infrastructure and promoting access to the cultural environment.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 12 of 97 15/05662/FUL

The proposed provision of the school, with public performance space, complies, in general terms, with sustainable development principles relating to accessibility, owing to the site's city centre location, where public transport facilities are readily available. The re-use of the existing building also contributes to the sustainable nature of the development.

The proposals will introduce a high quality development, on an underused site, which will promote place making. The proposed use of the performance space for cultural events during out of term times, such as during the festival period, would contribute to the economic growth of the City. The proposals are considered to be consistent with these principles. The extent to which these proposals meet other SPP principles, notably those relating to the protection of the cultural and natural heritage, quality of place, as well as economic impacts, are taken into account in the relevant sections of this assessment.

Local Plan

While the ECLP is more than five years old, its policies remain relevant as many of these have been taken forward in the proposed Second Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP).

The site is located in the Central Area as designated under ECLP policy Ca 1, and policy Del 3 of the LDP, which support proposals for comprehensive development schemes that accord with the provisions of the relevant site development brief or guidance. These policies also provide that the use should be suitable for the site, its characteristics, and level of accessibility. The mix of uses which includes performance space as well as educational facilities, accords with the general provisions of this policy.

The site is at a highly accessible location within the city centre, where it has good public transport connections, as well as pedestrian links available to serve pupils travelling from all over the city and the wider regional catchment area, serving this specialised educational facility.

The placing of the proposed performance venue at this city centre location accords with the provisions of ECLP policy Ret 6, which provides for the location of such arts and leisure facilities within the Central Area, subject to compliance with other development plan policies.

Princes Street Block 10 Development Brief

The Princes Street Block 10 Development Brief - Approved by Planning Committee 15 May 2008 sets out development principles for the Royal High School and its immediate surroundings. The three principles are:

1) to promote the viable re-use of the former Royal High School and campus buildings as a visitor facility and civic/cultural destination; 2) to enhance movement and access to and from the former Royal High School campus and the Old Town; and

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 13 of 97 15/05662/FUL

3) to respect and enhance key views to and from the area and protect the setting of the former Royal High School.

Although seven years old, these principles remain relevant.

The proposed provision of a performance space suitable for holding cultural events would enhance facilities for visitors to the city, as well as for local residents, in accordance with the first principle of this brief.

The impact of the proposed development on access and views of the area is assessed in the sections 3.3 e) and j) of this report.

In conclusion, in respect of SPP generally, local plan policy and the Princes Street Block 10 Development Brief, the proposed school and performance space uses are acceptable in principle, subject to other policy considerations. b) Impact on Character and Setting of Listed Buildings

There are four main aspects to the consideration of the impact on listed buildings which are assessed in turn:

Impact on character of listed Hamilton Building; Impact on setting of Hamilton Building; Impact on setting of other listed buildings; and, Impact of demolitions.

Impact on character of listed buildings

A full assessment of the impact of the proposed alterations on the special interests of the listed Hamilton Building, as required under the provisions of Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement - June 2016, is included in the report on the relevant Listed Building application.

ECLP policy Env 4 provides that proposals to alter or extend listed buildings will be permitted where such works are justified, will not cause any unnecessary damage to historic structures, or diminish its interest, and where any additions are in keeping with other parts of the building.

The former Royal High School is a nationally, as well as internationally, important building. The building is the finest example of Greek Revival architecture in Scotland with no other building matching it in terms of ambition, site, function or form. It stands not only as an architectural masterpiece but also as one of the most culturally important buildings of its time. It is one of the most significant buildings in Scotland. A number of significant interventions are proposed as part of the redevelopment proposals.

Historic Environment Scotland (HES) does not object to this application or the corresponding listed building application. It considers that the proposals represent a measured re-use of a nationally and internationally important site and building. Furthermore, it welcomes not only the proposed restoration and repairs to the listed buildings on the site, but also the design of the new school accommodation blocks which, by their scale and positioning, firmly retain the primacy of the Hamilton Building

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 14 of 97 15/05662/FUL on the site. However, HES does raise a number of concerns relating to specific elements of the proposals affecting the listed building, such as the opening to the front elevation, the excavation to form the subterranean reception hall and the glass strip proposed at portico level.

Edinburgh World Heritage also supports the proposals stating:

The result is a set of proposals that we have no hesitation in endorsing as an exemplary and thoughtful marriage of ancient and modern in the highly sensitive setting of Calton Hill, managing the relationship between Hamilton's building, its immediate and wider setting in a way to both conserve and enhance Hamilton's building.

For the most part, a conservation based approach of repair, maintenance and improvement is proposed for the Hamilton Building. The principal alteration to the main Hamilton Building is the new extension to the east of the site. The manner in which this new building connects to the main Hamilton Building is discreet and sensitively handled. A low level link from the basement of the Hamilton Building to the new extension would not be visible from outwith the site and, given its limited scale, would have no adverse impact on the character of the listed building, connecting old to new in a sensitive manner.

The proposed contemporary style extension represents a significant increase in the footprint of the building footprint to the east. Through its design, it ensures it appears subservient in character, in relation to the Hamilton Building. This is considered in more detail in section 3.3 (g) of this report.

The other significant alteration to the building is on the southern, principal elevation, where the formation of a new opening is proposed below the portico, to allow for an entrance into the foyer of the new concert hall. The concert hall is seen by the applicants as being an essential element of the long term viability of the project. Although a significant intervention to this listed building, the new entrance and terrace would be masked by the retaining wall and would not be visible from Regent Road. The discreet location and sensitive handling of the opening ensure that this alteration does not have an adverse impact on the character of the listed building.

As the portico would be accessible to the public from the main assembly hall, a glass balustrade is proposed for safety purposes, to be located on the inside of the columns. Given that glass is a reflective material, a different approach to the design of these railings would be required to safeguard the character of the listed building. A condition is recommended to ensure an appropriate material and detailing is attached to the consent.

It is also proposed to remove a section of the floor of the portico and replace it with a fritted glass slot. The design rationale for this is to allow daylight into the subterranean entrance space and add interest, allowing a view upwards to the coffered pediment ceiling. The character of the portico is of something solid, robust and self-contained, and the removal of a section of the Craigleith stone flooring has an unacceptable impact on the architectural integrity and composition of this important feature, to the detriment of the character of the listed building. This element of the proposal is unacceptable. It is recommended that the omission of this aspect of the proposal is secured through the use of a condition.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 15 of 97 15/05662/FUL

In general, the proposed alterations to the retained listed buildings would have no significant adverse impacts on the character of these buildings. The use of appropriate planning conditions would allow for those aspects of the proposals which have been identified as detracting from the building's character to be removed from the proposals, ensuring compliance with relevant development plan policy.

Impact on setting of Hamilton Building

Historic Environment Scotland's document 'Managing change in the Historic Environment - Setting' states;

''Setting' is the way the surroundings of a historic asset or place contribute to how it is understood, appreciated and experienced.

Monuments, buildings, gardens and settlements were almost always placed and orientated deliberately, normally with reference to the surrounding topography, resources, landscape and other structures. Over time, these relationships change, although aspects of earlier settings can be retained.

Setting can therefore not simply be defined by a line on a map, and is likely to be unrelated to modern landownership or to curtilage, often extending beyond immediate property boundaries into the wider area.

ECLP policy Env3 provides that development within the curtilage or affecting the setting of a listed building will only be permitted if not detrimental to the appearance or character of the building or its setting.

The design of the Royal High School was conceived integrally with the National Monument above. It was placed on the side of the hill, mimicking the relationship of the Propylea or Lesser Temple (Gateway) to the Parthenon (National Monument) on the Acropolis (Calton Hill). It therefore strongly helps give Edinburgh the name: the Athens of the North. As well as commanding a prominent position on Calton Hill, it terminates Regent Terrace and provides the foreground for the arrangement of buildings on Calton Hill. The ancillary buildings, the Burns Monument and the landscaped setting of the historic gardens frame this classical centrepiece.

The proposed new teaching and accommodation block on the eastern portion of the site sits lower than the existing Gymnasium Building occupying this part of the site. Its stepped massing and form follow the natural topography of the hill. There is simplicity to the layered style of the design, which allows the Hamilton Building to retain primacy when viewed from its most prominent aspects.

The inclusion of planting and green roofs anchors the building into its wider landscape context, making it visually recessive in contrast with the powerful classical language of the Hamilton Building. The planned relationship between buildings and landscape, which is of exceptional significance to the setting of Hamilton's building, would be enhanced as a result of the low profile form of the proposed built form. In this respect the setting of the existing listed building is enhanced.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 16 of 97 15/05662/FUL

The new practice rooms proposed at the rear interrupt views of the building on approach from the west of the site and from the path to Calton Hill. This prevents the north façade from being read coherently. Although this elevation is a rear elevation, it is highly significant, as historically it formed the main entrance to the school. It is a carefully detailed and proportioned elevation. The proposed two storey, octagonal shaped buildings on this aspect, would result in an uncharacteristic series of interlocking spaces close to the building façade and would obscure views of this part of the building from within the site. However, as indicated in the submitted Design and Access statement the series of spaces created would also provide new visual interest in this area of the site.

The adverse impact on the rear elevation is however outweighed by the significant benefit to the setting of the building and other buildings on Calton Hill which results from the terraced eastern part of the extension.

Impact on setting of other listed buildings

The low profile form of the proposed new building and its careful siting within the site's topography ensures that there is no significant adverse impact on the setting of the listed buildings or monuments within the vicinity of the application site, including those on Calton Hill.

On the whole, the proposals have no significant adverse impact on the setting of the listed Hamilton Building, or other listed buildings and monuments in this area. The low profile form of the proposed new building and their careful siting within the site's topography ensures that there is no significant adverse impact on the setting of the listed buildings, or monuments within the vicinity of the application site, including those on Calton Hill. The proposals therefore accord with the provisions Env 3 of ECLP.

Impact of proposed demolitions

ECLP policy Env 2 provides that:

Proposals for the total or substantial demolition of a listed building will only be supported in exceptional circumstances, taking into account:

a) the condition of the building and cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value to be derived from its continued use. b) the adequacy of efforts to retain the building in, or adapt it to, a use that will safeguard its future, including its marketing at a price reflecting its location and condition to potential restoring purchasers for a reasonable period. c) the merits of alternative proposals for the site and whether the public benefits to be derived from allowing demolition outweigh the loss.

Criteria (a), (b), and (c) need to be considered together.

A significant material consideration in relation to demolition is the overall approach to conservation within the site. This therefore needs to be considered alongside the policy in respect of demolition.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 17 of 97 15/05662/FUL

The value of returning the main Hamilton Building to a long term future use cannot be underestimated. To successfully deliver the requirements of the music school it is acknowledged that the demolition of the buildings to the east of the side would be required. A conservation based approach to the main building would be adopted and no new buildings are proposed to the west of the site.

The listed buildings proposed for demolition include the category 'A' listed Gymnasium Building, the Luncheon Hall and the Classroom Block. The Luncheon and Classroom buildings are listed by virtue of their pre-1948 age and location within the curtilage of the Hamilton Buildings. Demolition of these buildings would be necessary to allow for the accommodation required for the proposed school use.

Demolition of the Luncheon Building and the Classroom Block is accepted on the basis that these buildings are not of special interest in their own right.

The justification for the demolition of these buildings, in accordance with the provisions of Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement - June 2016 (HESPS) is included in detail in the assessment of the relevant listed building application. HESPS replaces the Scottish Historic Environmental Policy, known as SHEP. HESPS sets out the same considerations as SHEP in respect of demolition of listed buildings.

The conclusions are that the significant historic and cultural benefits to be gained by bringing the principle, category A listed building into use as a school, with a concert hall, provide a strong justification for the demolition of the Gymnasium block (the other two buildings being of no significant architectural or historic value).

The proposed development would allow for the active use of this prominent, noteworthy, category 'A' listed, vacant building, providing for its long term future. The overall proposals adopt a conservation based approach, as referred to in detail in the report on the listed building consent application.

Given that the proposals have been justified and a conservation based approach has been adopted in the restoration of the Hamilton Building, there is no requirement to address one of the tests set out in SHEP. The proposed demolitions meet the requirements of ECLP policy Env 2 and are acceptable.

Listed building summary

The majority of the proposed alterations to the remaining listed buildings have no adverse impacts on the character of these buildings. The use of appropriate conditions will allow for the details of the proposals which detract from the building's character to be removed from the approved plans, ensuring full compliance with policy Env 4 of ECLP.

The overall benefits of bringing the building back to its original and appropriate long term use; as well as the benefits to the wider landscape context of the site and setting of the building and the conservation based approach to the Hamilton Building adopted, represent significant conservation gain.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 18 of 97 15/05662/FUL c) Impact on Conservation Areas

ECLP policy Env 6 provides that development within a conservation area or affecting its setting will be permitted which:

a) preserves or enhances the special character or appearance of the conservation area and is consistent with the relevant conservation area character appraisal; b) preserves trees, hedges boundary walls railings, paving and other features which contribute positively to the character of the area; and c) demonstrates high standards of design and utilises materials appropriate to the historic environment.

Impact on setting of New Town Conservation Area

The site is in the New Town Conservation Area. The essential characteristics of the New Town Conservation Area Character appraisal include:

- the overwhelming retention of buildings in their original design form, allied to the standard format of residential buildings strongly contributes to the character of the area; - the important contribution that the cohesive, historic skyline makes to the conservation area, means that it is particularly crucial to control incremental creep in building height, especially along skyline ridges; - a richly varied topography of ancient landform shaped by volcanism and later by glacial scouring; - internationally important private and public open spaces lying within, and on the edge of a neoclassical grid pattern and reflecting the picturesque tradition of landscape improvement; - gardens that create open and framed long distant picturesque views of exceptional quality; and - presence of high quality boundary elements, including random rubble' walls and black railings in stone copings, often curved.

The Royal High School and Calton Hill are key elements of the New Town Conservation Area. The Royal High School was purposefully designed and sited on a prominent location within the landscape setting of Calton Hill. The other monuments of the Hill are designed to be seen alongside one another within this urban landscape.

The proposed retention of the Hamilton Building, with minimal interventions to the exterior, will ensure that this iconic building continues to make a significant contribution towards the character and appearance of the New Town Conservation Area. The proposals to retain of most of the original railings on the boundary of this site will also ensure that the contribution these features make to the area's character is not lost.

Although the listed Gymnasium Building makes some contribution towards the character of the conservation area, its demolition is justifiable, within the context of the conservation area policy which requires new development to "preserve or enhance".

The massing and design of the proposed new buildings, including the low profile form, allows the Hamilton Building to retain its dramatic presence at this highly prominent and

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 19 of 97 15/05662/FUL sensitive site and has beneficial impact on this key landmark building and its setting on Calton Hill.

The appreciation of this landscape characteristic, in particular its 'crag and tail formation' and views of this historic skyline would be retained by this proposal. This picturesque landscape is not damaged as explained in section 3.3e) of this report.

The provision of green roofing on the new buildings and formation of a landscaped garden, on the west side of the site, enhances the site's landscaped setting and provides a visual connection with the green space on Calton Hill and at Regent Terrace Gardens.

Impact on Setting of Old Town Conservation Area

The essential character of the Old Town Conservation Area, which is located to the south of the application site include:

- a landscape and topography formed by vigorous geological activity; and - the quality of long distance views both open and framed in out and through the spaces, and views from different levels and idiosyncratic angles.

There would be a partial obstruction of the view of the Old Town Conservation Area, including views of the Castle, from the path to Calton Hill at the rear of the site. This is as a result of the glass cupolas to the rear part of the extension. This impact would be reduced through the removal of the cupolas from the proposed octagonal shaped buildings on this part of the site. The use of a suitable planning condition is included to secure their removal and redesign.

The proposed creation of a new publically accessible garden in the western part of the site would allow enhanced opportunities to access views of the Old Town Conservation Area.

The proposals safeguard the essential characteristics of the Old and New Town Conservation Areas, in accordance with policies Env 6 of the ECLP and the Proposed Development Plan, subject to the use of a condition requiring the removal of the cupolas on the two octagonal shaped buildings proposed, to the rear of the Hamilton Building.

d) Impact on Landscape

The application site is located on the lower slopes of Calton Hill, which as well as being a public park, is an important and prominent land form and iconic landmark. The hill is an urban, picturesque landscape, containing an arrangement of unique monuments, which use their relationships to evoke a strong sense of place, connecting to places beyond Scotland, particularly Greece. This composition results in a series of scenes which has given Edinburgh the 'Athens of the North' name. It is visible from many locations in the city and is highly sensitive to change.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 20 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Calton Hill has a number of important landscape related designations, including as part of the Arthur's Seat Site of Special Scientific Interest. The application site is within the New Town Gardens which is included in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes. The designation is a result of the Gardens being outstanding in relation to its historical, architectural and scenic values and in being a work of art. Proposals affecting this sensitive area require careful consideration under the provisions of relevant development plan policies. The landscape at Calton Hill is also proposed as a 'Special Landscape Area' in the LDP.

Impact on Landscape feature at Calton Hill and Arthurs Seat Site of Special Scientific Interest

Under the provisions of ECLP Env 11, planning permission will not be granted for development which damages or detracts from the overall character and appearance of areas of landscape quality, including such important topographical or landscape features.

The protection of the character and appearance of the proposed 'Special Landscape Area' at Calton Hill is provided for under LDP policy Env 11, which is also a material consideration.

Furthermore, any development which has the potential to impact on the Arthur's Seat Volcano, Site of Special Scientific Interest, requires assessment in terms ECLP policy Env 14 which states that:

Development which would affect a site of Special Scientific Interest will only be permitted where an appraisal has demonstrated that: a) the objectives of the designation and the overall integrity of the area will not be compromised or; b) any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance.

The landscape of Calton Hill is part of the geological formation of the Arthur's Seat Volcano, along with Salisbury Crags and the Castle Rock. It is a 'crag and tail' landform that is a result of geological processes including glaciations. Its designation as an SSSI is largely as a result of its geological characteristics, the physical protection of which are considered in section 3.3 (i). The appreciation of the visual aspects of this geological landform also requires protection under this policy.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, which form part of the Environmental Statement, shows that the visual impacts of the development would be most noticeable during the construction phase. Such impacts would be temporary.

The low profile form of the proposed new building, its green roofing and location partially behind the Hamilton Building would ensure that any potential adverse impacts on the existing landscape character of Calton Hill and the views of this landform are minimised. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has recommended that methods of securing tree protection and new planting, as landscape mitigation within the site are

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 21 of 97 15/05662/FUL secured, and that detailed consideration is given to matters put forward in the night time lighting strategy. The use of appropriate planning conditions is recommended, requiring further details regarding both of these matters.

Impact on New Town Gardens Inventory Site

In accordance with ECLP policy Env 7, with the site being in the New Town Gardens Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape, development is not permitted which would have a detrimental impact on the character of the Inventory site, or upon important views to and from and within the site, or of features which contribute to its value.

The public park at Calton Hill is a carefully laid out semi-rural landscape in the middle of the city. The site was envisaged as part of a picturesque rural scene that connected with, and brought in, the rural landscape to the town. Each monument within this landscape was placed for dramatic effect in relation to views and paths. There is sufficient landscape space around each element to allow them to be appreciated individually and sequentially. The way this comes together creates a unique urban picturesque landscape. The proposals do not damage the special qualities of this landscape.

The Hamilton Building harmonises with the scale and character of the surrounding designed landscape. Although it is perceived as an impressive building of some height, in reality it is relatively small. This is a result of the long horizontal walls, the elevated position of the Hamilton Building and the position of the pavilions. An illusion of scale was therefore created, as can be seen in EIA view 4 from Radical Road. This visual illusion further emphasises the sensitivity of the site. The visual illusion remains unharmed in this proposal.

The proposed development, with its generally sensitively handled, low profile form and terraced gardens, does not damage the character or appearance of this unique landscape, or views thereof, in accordance with ELCP policy Env 11(Landscape Quality) and the provisions of LDP policy Env 11(Candidate Special Landscape Area).

The proposals do not have any significant adverse effects on the visual appreciation of the landscape qualities of the topographical formation of the SSSI, in accordance with ECLP policy Env 14. Furthermore, the proposals safeguard the character and views of the New Town Gardens Inventory Site, in compliance with ECLP policy Env 7 (Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes). e) The impact on views;

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), which forms part of the Environmental Assessment, includes a visual representation and analysis of the impact of the proposed development on a range of views to and from this site.

There is no impact in views across the site from the top of Calton Hill as the development cannot be seen. In EIA View 8 - Nelson's Monument, the eye would be drawn to the landscape beyond the town with the foreground views are improved due to the replacement of the car park with soft landscape. The proposed creation of terraced gardens at the site, part of which would be open to the public, would allow a new viewing platform for the appreciation of views from this aspect.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 22 of 97 15/05662/FUL

The proposals do not damage the city wide views of the site from the south, due to the low elevations of the proposals. These can be seen in EIA Views 2, 3,4,10 and 13. The low elevations also mean that views from the west are not affected detrimentally, for example EIA view 1, 11 and 14. The historic view from the Canongate Kirk cemetery (view EIA 5), is also not damaged. View 6 from Regent Road indicates that the setting of Nelson's monument is also undamaged.

The development is more prominent in the local views and there is a significant alteration to EIA View 15 - Calton Hill. The building and octagonal practice rooms will be visible and form new elements of this view. In certain places the projecting, octagonal shaped cupolas block the views from the site of the Castle in the Old Town as referred to in detail in section 3.3(g) (Design). This would be ameliorated through the removal of the proposed cupolas. As set out in section 3.3 c), a condition is recommended to secure this.

Night Time Views

The proposed night time lighting strategy included in the Design and Access Statement includes: - The provision of back lighting behind the columns to create a silhouette effect on the southern façade of the Hamilton Building, as well as discretely located LED lighting, illuminating the wall behind; and - Low level lighting in the proposed gardens, in order to maintain the connection with the dark background, which forms the site's night time setting, on Calton Hill.

As the proposed lighting strategy is not incorporated in the proposed drawings, there is no means of assessing it full impacts. A condition is therefore included, to ensure that full details of the proposed lighting scheme are submitted for approval. This will enable these matters to be considered in detail and their impacts fully assessed. In respect of this, it should be noted that listed building consent would also be required for the fitting of light fixings to the listed building.

In summary, the LVIA has demonstrated that the proposed low profile form and terraced layout of the development would safeguard and enhance views of this iconic building, set within its picturesque and highly visible landscaped setting, in compliance with ECLP policy Des 3 (a) and the Edinburgh Design Guidance. The proposals also accord with the principles of the Princes Street Block 10 Development Brief in this respect. f) the impact on the Edinburgh World Heritage Site

ECLP policy Env 1 states that development will not be permitted which would have a harmful impact on the qualities which justified the inscription of the Old and New Towns of Edinburgh World Heritage Site, or would have a detrimental impact on the Site's setting.

The key paragraphs from the Old and New Towns of Edinburgh Statement of Outstanding Universal Value relating to the application site include the following:

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 23 of 97 15/05662/FUL

- The remarkable juxtaposition of two clearly articulated urban planning phenomena, each of exceptional historic and architectural interest, which are linked across the great landscape divide, the 'great arena' of Sir Walter Scott's Waverley Valley, by the urban viaduct, North Bridge, creates the outstanding urban landscape; - The New Town, constructed between 1767 and 1890 as a collection of seven new towns on the glacial plain to the north of the Old Town - Contained and integrated with the townscape are gardens, designed to take full advantage of the topography, while forming an extensive system of private and public open spaces. The New town is integrated with large green spaces. It covers a very large area, is consistent to an unrivalled degree, and survives virtually intact; - Some of the finest public and commercial monuments of the neo-classical revival in Europe survive in the city; - The successive planned extensions from the first New town, and the high quality of the architecture, set standards for Scotland and beyond, and exerted a major influence on the urban architecture and town planning throughout Europe; - The dramatic topography of the Old Town combined with the planned alignments of key buildings in both the Old and the New Town, results in spectacular views and panoramas and an iconic skyline; and - Edinburgh retains most of its significant buildings and spaces in better condition than most other historic cities of comparable value.

The proposals would have a slight adverse impact on views to the Castle and Old Town from the rear of the site. The recommended condition on the octagon cupolas overcomes this however. Subject to this being secured, the overall the relationship between the main building and the Old Town remains intact. The relationship between the main building and the landscape setting is protected and enhanced through the creation of a landscaped garden in place of the existing car park, and as a result of the low rise nature of the extension to the east.

The proposals support the ambitions of the World Heritage Site Management Plan, in terms of conservation and re-use of existing buildings, as well as in relation to supporting the culture and sustainability of the City.

As a whole, the proposals support the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site, in compliance with ECLP policy Env 1. g) Design

ECLP policy Des 1 provides that the design of a development should be based on an overall concept which draws upon the positive characteristics of the surrounding area, to create or reinforce a sense of place, security and vitality. It further provides that planning permission will not be granted for poor quality or inappropriate design, or for proposals which would be damaging to the area's character or appearance, particularly where this has a special importance (such as at the application site).

The Design and Access Statement sets out how the design solution seeks to address the operational requirements for the proposed school, whilst paying due regard to the site's prominent landscaped setting and heritage value. The statement indicates that the low level, horizontal alignment of the proposed building follows the alignment of the plinth of the Hamilton Building and takes advantage of the site's topography.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 24 of 97 15/05662/FUL

The eastward par of the extension replaces the taller Gymnasium Building. This new built element is stepped in a low linear form, following the contours of the hill, over the full extent of this part of the site. The resultant deep plan form is punctuated with courtyards, with the stepped building sections designed to allow daylight to enter the school accommodation. This low profile approach and absence of new development on the west side of the site, reduces the impact of the new development on the setting of the listed Hamilton Building. The proposed design also reveals Hamilton's belvedere to the north east of the site. The design and layout safeguards views of the landscaped backdrop on Calton Hill.

The proposed teaching accommodation to the rear of the site changes the character of the rear entrance to Hamilton's buildings and alters its setting as addressed in paragraphs 3.3 (b) and (c). However, the series of connecting spaces created by the juxtaposition of the original and new buildings in this area would provide visual interest on the approach to the main entrance to the school. The proposed pattern of decorative paving would enhance this effect. The overall impact of this part of the building is considered acceptable, with the exception of the proposed octagonal shaped cupola features which are subject of the condition recommended in section 3.3 c) above.

The proposed materials, which include natural sandstone, zinc cladding and glazing, are appropriate for the site's historic context. To ensure a suitable quality, a condition is recommended requiring full details of all external materials, including sample panels of the proposed facing materials

The proposed contemporary designed landscape with garden terraces and green roofs compliments the building design and allows the development to harmonise with the site's landscaped setting on Calton Hill. The proposals for the design of the soft landscaping and plant choice are acceptable subject to a condition requiring the submission and approval of a proposed landscape maintenance schedule.

The vehicle parking area is relatively discreetly located at the rear of the site, where it would be screened from view by the existing entrance lodge and proposed tree planting

The historic boundaries elements are mostly being retained, thus safeguarding this part of the listed building which is important to its character and to the streetscape of the conservation area. Where alterations are proposed to boundary features, such as the repositioning of the railings, these are handled in a sensitive manner.

The supporting Landscape Design and Access statement identifies the use of high quality surfacing materials, including natural stone paving within the site. Full details of these materials will be required through the use of an appropriate planning condition.

A scheme to upgrade the public footway on the site frontage, as part proposed development scheme, has been agreed in principle with the applicant. Such works would improve the streetscape on Regent Road. The detailed design of this and the implementation of the works would be required secured via a suitable legal agreement.

The Edinburgh Urban Design Panel reviewed the proposals at pre application stage. These were similar to the application proposals. In summary, the Panel noted

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 25 of 97 15/05662/FUL

"The Panel unanimously supported the general design strategy and approach, particularly that relating to the proposed use and adaptation of the original Hamilton building."

While there has been some design development since the pre application stage when the Panel reviewed the proposals, the scheme remains more or less the same and therefore it is reasonable to state that the Panel's comment still applies.

The design of the overall development scheme respects the site's sensitive location and draws upon the positive characteristics of the area, in terms of its landscape and heritage value, in accordance with the provisions of policy Des 1 and Des 3 (Development Design) of ECLP and the associated policies of the LDP, as well as the Edinburgh Design Guidance. h) Impact on trees and biodiversity

The existing trees on site and on its perimeter contribute to the designed semi-rural character of the hill and help provide a visual link between the upper and lower sections of the hill in city views, which adds to the understanding of the hill form.

A total of 13 trees worthy of retention are to be removed from within the application site. An additional tree on the boundary of the site may require removal, subject to further consideration of its condition. Some canopy works are also required to a further 5 trees. Whilst this proposal is contrary ECLP policy ENV 12 (Protection of Trees) of the Proposed Development Plan, mitigation planting is proposed, in the form of 21 trees, planted at a semi-mature size. This replacement planting scheme will help to offset the temporary damage to the site's landscaped setting caused by the proposed tree removal.

The use of a condition requiring the submission and implementation of tree protection measures, in relation to the existing trees on the southern boundary of the site is recommended, in order to ensure that any damage resulting from construction works and associated impacts on the site's landscaped setting are minimised.

The application site also lies within close proximity of the Calton Hill Local Nature Conservation Site. The impact of the proposed development on the plant species or wildlife at this site must be taken into consideration, as required under the provisions of Env 15 ECLP (Sites of Local Importance). Policy Env 16 further provides that relevant surveys are carried out and suitable mitigation measures proposed in relation to any species found at the site which are protected under European law.

Ecological matters are comprehensively dealt with in the Environmental Statement. The results of a survey carried out on the periphery of the site at pre-application stage indicated that bat activity was low. The Outline Construction and Demolition Environmental Management Plan include provisions for further protected species surveys to be carried out at pre-construction stage. The results of these surveys would inform any mitigation measures considered necessary for the construction and demolition stage. An informative is included referring to this requirement.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 26 of 97 15/05662/FUL

In summary, the proposals comply with policy Env 12 (Trees) subject to the provision and implementation of the relevant tree protection plan. The use of an informative advising the agent of the requirement to carry out of relevant wildlife survey and mitigation measures, in accordance with the provisions of their Construction and Demolition Management Plan, is also included, to allow for compliance with ECLP policies Env 15 and Env 16. i) Residential Amenity

The proposed development is bounded to the east by residential premises on Regent Terrace, the gardens of which are located at a lower level than the existing ground levels on this side of the application site. There are also residential premises and student halls situated to the south of the development, on Calton Road. The proposals therefore require assessment in terms of their potential impact on neighbouring residential amenity, as a result of local air quality, noise and daylight and privacy considerations.

Air Quality

The site is located adjacent to the City Centre Air Quality Management Area, which has been declared for exceeding Nitrogen Dioxide levels, caused mainly by traffic emissions. The potential impact on local air quality is therefore a material planning consideration. The installation of a relatively small gas powered energy plant is proposed. However, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the Clean Air Act with supporting chimney height calculation ensuring an appropriate sized chimney is proposed.

The City of Edinburgh Council's Parking Standards are used to determine the appropriate level of car parking for new developments. The proposals do not exceed the maximum number of parking spaces recommended in the relevant guidance for this parking zone. Environmental Assessment has advised that the applicant must consider the provision of rapid electric vehicle charging points for staff and visitors, in order to encourage the use of low carbon transport modes. The use of a suitable informative is recommended, to encourage the provision of this facility.

Noise

A noise impact assessment has been submitted to address potential concerns regarding potential noise disturbance. The areas requiring attention relevant to the noise and vibration are demolition, construction and operational noise:

Operational Noise Sound insulation performance of the building envelope (including glazing and ventilation) for performance space and music class rooms, are the most likely areas where noise breakout may occur. The applicant's noise impact assessment provides details on how the development will be designed to ensure that break-out noise levels have no material impact on neighbouring amenity. An acoustic glazing plan has been submitted indicating all windows to be fitted with acoustic glazing including the use of secondary glazing, where such measures are required in relation to the listed building.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 27 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Environmental Assessment is satisfied that the measures proposed in the assessment which includes the use of acoustic glazing on rooms to be used for either performance space, or the practising of musical instruments.

A condition is recommended which secures the noise reduction measures set out in the applicant's noise report. Works to the windows on the listed building would require listed building consent. An informative is recommended which highlights this. In the event that listed building consent is not granted for these works, the applicant would be able to submit a Section 42 planning application to amend the condition to take account of any alternative proposals it may wish to put forward.

The risk of noise breakout from the proposed performance space may also be controlled under the licensing regulations. It is further noted that over 100 metres from the nearest residential properties.

The use of an appropriate condition will ensure that relevant sound attenuation measures are implemented, to protect residential amenity.

Noise from Construction The applicant has identified a range of measures to control site specific demolition and construction noise and vibration, including restricted working hours and measures to reduce noise and vibration at source. Such controls are not regulated under planning legislation. These are regulated under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which gives environmental health officers the powers to control noise and vibration pollution from construction sites.

With regards to rock excavation, the range of methods identified for use, can be regulated under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, to ensure disturbance is minimised. Environmental Assessment is satisfied that the techniques proposed, are unlikely to breach the relevant British Standards.

Daylight and Sunlight

The only neighbouring residential property which would potentially be affected by a loss of daylight, as a result of the development is the existing dwelling house at 1, Regent Terrace. However, the only windows affected at this property are situated on the gable end and as such, would not be afforded protection under the provisions of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. The property at no. 1 Regent Terrace would be subject to a slight loss of sunlight during the early evening hours as a result of the development. However, the overall impacts on sunlight levels to this property would generally be improved as a result of the proposed development, which is mostly at a lower level than the existing building on this part of the site.

Privacy

The proposed building contains high level windows which will prevent overlooking of neighbouring residential properties. However, the proposed roof top playground areas would have the potential to result in some loss of privacy to neighbouring residents. The proposals provide for the repositioning of the existing railings on this boundary to form the enclosure to the roof top playground on this aspect. The railings would be located above a 1.5 metre parapet wall on this part of the roof. The open slatted form of

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 28 of 97 15/05662/FUL the railings would not provide full privacy screening above eye level. However, the proposed form of screening on this boundary is an appropriate response, which addresses the need to protect neighbouring amenity on this boundary while ensuring that the built form does not appear overly dominant. The solution also takes account of the fact that a significant number of children using this playground will not reach the height of adult eye level.

The impacts on daylight, sunlight and privacy are acceptable.

Light Pollution

The relevant Design and Access Statement includes a lighting strategy for the site. However, full details are not available as part of the formal plans. A condition is therefore recommended to require the submission of this information for approval in order to safeguard residential amenity as well as heritage interests. Any nuisance caused by lighting intensity is further controlled under the Environmental Protection Act.

Public Security

The occupation of the buildings, including the use of the entrance lodge as ancillary residential accommodation, would have the potential to improve security on Calton Hill through increased passive surveillance.

The proposals will safeguard residential amenity, subject to the use of the above mentioned planning conditions, in accordance with the provisions of ECLP policy Des 3 and the Edinburgh Design Guidance. j) Transport and Road Safety

The application site is located at a highly accessible site within the city centre, which is well served by public transport and the local road network. No significant impacts on the local road network or related road safety concerns are identified in the relevant traffic impact assessment.

The proposed parking provision, which includes 23 spaces (two of which are for disabled drivers), accords with relevant parking standards for this area. Cycle parking provision is proposed within an enclosure to the rear of the existing entrance lodge, in accordance with relevant standards. However, a condition is recommended to allow the full details of this facility to be agreed, in accordance with relevant standards.

The proposals originally included an aspirational scheme for the public realm, which included pavement widening and the removal of the central island and railings on the existing road carriageway. Whilst such proposals would contribute to an improved public realm, there is no current Council programme currently in place for the delivery of this type of scheme. Instead, the applicant has confirmed their commitment to undertake public realm works, including pavement widening and resurfacing, on the immediate frontage of the application site on Regent Road. Such works would help accommodate the increased footfall in this area, as a result of the proposed development and proved a safe, more attractive pedestrian environment. These works would be secured through the provisions of an appropriate legal agreement.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 29 of 97 15/05662/FUL

There are no new footpath links outwith the application site proposed.

Contributions would be required, as referred to in section 3.3 (p), towards the promotion of relevant roads traffic orders, in order to allow the public realm works to take place. There is no objection from the Council as Roads Authority, to the removal of existing on-street parking spaces on this part of Regent Road, to allow for the implementation of this pavement widening scheme. However, the removal of spaces on the opposite side of the road is not supported at this time.

There are no objections to the proposals, in terms of road safety or other traffic issues. k) Impact on Archaeology

In order to safeguard the archaeological interests of the existing buildings and the earth below, the use of a condition is recommended, if Committee is minded to grant the application. This would require a site survey to be undertaken to secure the recording of historic buildings and excavations, before development commences on site. Given the significance of the history of the Royal High School, and the resulting level of public interest, it is also recommended that the applicant be required to undertake a programme of public engagement, in co-ordination with the programme of works. An informative would be recommended in this regard. l) Geology

The site is situated adjacent to one section of the Arthur's Seat Volcano Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), notified in part for its Carboniferous - Permian Igneous geology. It is therefore important to ensure that the required rock extraction associated with this development does not have a detrimental impact on the special interests of this site. Furthermore, the proposed rock extraction methods also requires to take account of the need to ensure the structural integrity of the remaining listed buildings on site and the adjacent, underlying railway tunnels.

The Environmental Impact Technical Assessment includes detail of the proposed methods of rock extraction, which include a potential mix of rock breaking propellants, chemical blasting and hydraulic rock splitting. The applicant has advised that site investigations would be carried out to identify the most appropriate methods used, taking into account the localised characteristics of the rock and the degree of control required. They have also undertaken to liaise with other parties, including Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Historic Environment Scotland, CEC and Network Rail, to agree an acceptable methodology for rock excavation.

SNH advises that this methodology should be adhered to, in order to ensure that the natural heritage interests of national importance adjacent to the site will not be affected by the proposal. SNH and Network Rail wish to continue to be consulted regarding the outcomes of any assessments and potential impacts of rock extraction.

The use of a condition is recommended to ensure that the above mentioned assessment is carried out prior to the commencement of development and the results used to inform the selected methodology. An informative is also recommended, advising the applicant to consult with relevant parties during this process.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 30 of 97 15/05662/FUL m) Economic Considerations

The applicant has provided background information, including a Report on Economic Social and Cultural Impacts, in order to help demonstrate that the proposals would promote the viable re-use of the former Royal High School, in accordance with the principles of the Princes Street Block 10 Development Framework.

The applicant has stated that they have sufficient funds committed which are underwritten from private benefactors, to allow for both the restoration of the listed buildings and for the provision of the proposed facilities available to the music school and general public. A letter from the Edinburgh based charity (the Dunard Fund), has been submitted, confirming that it has committed funds to underwrite the preserving and enhancing of existing buildings on site and implementing the proposed development, as well as ensuring its long term financial sustainability. The applicant has further stated that the funding of the development would be aided through the proceeds from the sale of their existing music school and by income generated through making the proposed performance space available for public events. It has also stated that additional income could be raised through the potential for letting out of the boarding accommodation to visitors during the summer months.

It is estimated in the applicant's supporting impact statement that the development could potentially lead to the creation of a total of between 35 and 49 new jobs at the premises. As the proposal relates to the replacement of an existing music school within the city, not all jobs resulting from the development are likely to be newly created. However, given that the existing school role and supporting facilities are to be expanded and the jobs created are of a specialist nature, this estimate is considered reasonable and is similar to the estimate of around 50 new jobs made by Economic Development.

The supporting statement also advises that between £0.70 million and £1.11 million of gross value could be added to the economy per annum, as a result of the proposed development. This estimate is similar to the scale of impact estimated by Economic Development (i.e. £1.07 million). A small proportion of this estimate would be attributable to the letting out the residential space as visitor accommodation during the summer months. However, it is noted that this latter use may require separate planning permission, as it is not part of the formal proposals under this planning application.

The revenue gained through the use of the proposed performance space and the subsidiary function rooms at weekends and during out of term times would contribute to the above sum of gross value. However, the extent to which this use would contribute to the city's economy would depend on the frequency of events held, which would not be possible to quantify in the consideration of this application.

The use of the buildings as a potential visitor venue has also the potential to encourage additional footfall in the area, providing a catalyst for further economic regeneration at this underutilised part of the city centre, meeting the need identified in the Princes Street Development Brief.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 31 of 97 15/05662/FUL

The proposal would bring an existing vacant building back into active use, resulting in positive impacts to the City's economy. Although the extent of benefits arising from visitor use is not easy to predict, the overall estimate of added value largely accords with the estimates of Economic Development. The proposals are consistent with the relevant principle of Scottish Planning Policy in this respect. The proposals also support the priorities of the ECLP and LDP, in terms of encouraging economic growth in the city centre area. n) Cultural and educational Issues

The relocation of this specialist school to this site would allow additional space to be provided for an expanding school role and for the provision of improved facilities for the school and its boarders, as set out in the supporting Impact Statement. The proposed development would also allow the school to expand their existing Saturday workshops and to widen their accessibility and to potentially run a summer school from the premises, as further referred to in this Statement. The proposed development would add to the City's educational infrastructure at an easily accessible city centre site, which was originally used for such purposes. The proposals support SPP principles for sustainable development, in terms of providing educational infrastructure.

The cultural benefits to the city and country, brought about as a result of the provision of this musical school and the opportunities for advancement it provides, are acknowledged. However, it should be noted that whilst the facilities to be provided clearly relate to this specialised nature of this school, the type of school operated cannot be controlled through the planning function.

The accessible, Central Area location of the proposed performance space complies with the principles of ECLP policy Ret 6, in relation to the preferred location of entertainment, leisure and arts facilities in the city centre. The proposed use of the main hall for music concerts during weekends and non-term time would make a valuable contribution towards the City's cultural infrastructure through the provision of performance venues which could be a particular benefit during the festival period. These proposals accord with the principles of the Princes Street Development Brief for Block 10, in terms of providing a cultural and visitor destination.

There is also the potential for the proposed terraced garden on the west of the site and the function room at the west pavilion to be similarly made available. The opening of the listed Hamilton Building to the general public for public performance and related events, would provide access to this architecturally and historically renowned building, thereby providing further cultural benefits. However, as there is no means of assessing the frequency which these events would take place, it is difficult to establish the extent of such cultural benefits

The proposed use would make a positive contribution towards the city's educational provision, in accordance with relevant provisions of SPP. The proposals also accord with ECLP policy Ret 6, relating to the provision of entertainment, leisure and arts facilities in the central area of the city and accord with relevant principles of the PSDB.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 32 of 97 15/05662/FUL o) Surface Water Management

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency has no objections to the proposals for surface water management.

The submitted Surface Water Management Plan demonstrates that there is sufficient space within the site to allow for the drainage of surface water and storage of any surplus water run-off during periods of excessive rainfall. The proposed Sustainable Urban Drainage System measures include the provision of an underground storage tank, situated between the frontage of the Hamilton Building and Regent Road and the provision of green roofs above the new school accommodation.

However, it is noted that the drainage layout plans are based on an interpretation of levels rather than detailed measurements. A more detailed drainage design would therefore require to be approved at pre-construction stage. A suitable planning condition is recommended to ensure the submission of the finalised drainage levels, prior to commencement of development on site. p) Infrastructure requirements

To mitigate the impacts of the development, it is recommended a suitable legal agreement to secure the following contributions is formed:

i. the sum of £2,000 to promote a suitable order , if necessary to re-determine the section of footway and carriageway as appropriate , in order to allow for the implementation of the proposed scheme for public realm improvements on the north side of Regent Road; and ii. The sum of £ 2,000 if necessary to amend the controlled parking zone as it applies to the north section of Regent Road.

Although the application site is located with Edinburgh tram zone 3, the proposals will not incur a contribution towards the Edinburgh trams, as the most recent use of the site was as offices, with a floor area of approximately 3,500 square metres. This previous use would have incurred a significantly larger contribution than the proposed use (i.e. £161,000). The proposed use would have accrued a contribution of £95,220, which includes 6210 square metres of residential/ non residential institution floor space and 370 square metres of performance floor space (which has a zero contribution requirement). q) Environmental Impact Assessment

The submitted Environmental Statement provides a report on the potential environmental effects arising from the proposed development at this sensitive site.

The scope of the EIA is acceptable, the content comprehensive and the methodologies used for the landscape/townscape and visual assessment are considered appropriate.

Historic Environment Scotland has raised some concerns about the structuring and consistencies in terminologies used in the EIA and in the assessment of the scope of the setting. However, overall they have confirmed their agreement with the conclusions reached in the Environmental Asessment.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 33 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Scottish Natural Heritage has commented that they although recommended at the scoping stage that Geology should be included within the formal scope of the Environmental Assessment, this subject is not included in the formal scope. However, SNH has confirmed that it is satisfied that this subject has been dealt with conclusively in various parts of the Environmental Assessment.

Whilst the concerns of HES are acknowledged, the sufficient information has bee submitted in the Environmental Assessment to allow a balanced judgement to be made regarding resulting impacts. The overall conclusions of the Environmental Assessment in terms of the assessment of impacts are agreed. r) Sustainability

The applicant has complete form S1 of the Sustainability form. This development is a local development rather than a major development.

The proposals include the installation of a combined heat and power plant, with a connection to allow excess energy generated to supply the national grid and incorporation of green roofs to assist in addressing the impacts of increased surface run off.

This proposal accords with the requirements of Policy Des 6 of the ECLP and the Proposed Development Plan. s) Impacts on equalities and rights are acceptable;

An Equalities and Human Rights Impact Assessment has been undertaken in respect of this application. The relevant assessment is available to view on the online records for this application. The main impacts found are:

Equalities

The proposals include a fully access inclusive environment within both the school and performance space and in the gardens.

Concerns have been raised regarding the potentially 'elitist' nature of the proposed school, which serves the educational needs of musically gifted children, and is privately funded. Although not a matter which can be controlled through the planning function, it has been indicated that a range of financial assistance is available, such as provided at their existing school, which would allow access for suitably talented children access to such specialised educational facilities, from all sections of the community.

Human Rights

The proposed music school would support the right to an education, through the provision of additional educational facilities.

In terms of impact on 'Rights to Individual and Family Life', the proposals would result in a potential minor infringement of privacy to the garden of a neighbouring occupier on the eastern boundary of the site. However, as indicated in paragraph 3.3 i), this impact would not be significant. There would also be some potential for noise disturbance due

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 34 of 97 15/05662/FUL to noise break out from the proposed performance space at the listed building. However, as referred to in section 3.3 i) the risk of such disturbance would be controlled through the licensing regulations and is mitigated through the suggested condition. t) Representations have been considered.

Material Representations - Objection

Use issues - Inappropriate use for site - addressed in section 3.3 (a) and it is found that the proposed use accords with development plan policy and is acceptable; - Access rights to local community limited - addressed in section 3.3 (n) and (i) and it is found that the proposals include potential provision for wider public access, through the holding of public performances events and summer school and through the range of financial assistance available to pupils. However, as noted the extent of such access is not a matter which can be controlled through the planning function; and - Limited contribution to city's cultural life - addressed in section 3.3 (n) and it is found that the proposals would result in such benefits.

Economic issues - Questionable benefit to city's economy - addressed in section 3.3 (m) and it is found that the proposals would contribute to city's economy; - Restricted scope for job creation as relates to replacement of existing school - addressed in section 3.3 (m) and it is found that the proposals would generate additional employment opportunities; and - Limited benefit to local economy - addressed in section 3.3 (m) and it is found that the proposals would benefit the local economy.

Design Issues - Demolition of other listed buildings - addressed in section 3.3 (a) and in the relevant application for listed building consent and it is found that these proposals are justifiable; - Excessive scale and massing of proposed development - addressed in section 3.3 (b) (c) and (g) and it is found that the proposals are acceptable in this respect; and - Interventions, damaging to character and fabric of Hamilton Building - addressed in section 3.3(b) and under the relevant listed building consent and it is found that the use of planning conditions will exclude any alterations which are damaging to the character of the listed building.

Amenity Issues - Detrimental impact on local community - addressed in section 3.3 (I ) and it is found that the such impacts are acceptable, subject to use of appropriate planning conditions.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 35 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Non material issues raised in objections

- Limited entry rights to school - this is not an issue which is controlled through the planning function. However, measures for encouraging greater inclusiveness, through the provision of financial assistance to pupils, where required, are indentified in section3.3 (s) (Equalities); and - Potentially greater benefits to economy than previously proposed hotel use - each planning application must be considered in terms of its own merits.

Material representations in support

Use issues - Appropriate use for original school building - addressed in section 3.3 (a) and it is found that the proposed use at this location complies with relevant development plan policy; - Allows provision of enhanced facilities for existing school - addressed in section 3.3 (n) and this is confirmed; - Allows for restoration of vacant listed building - addressed in section 3.3 (b) and this is confirmed; - Contribution towards city's educational provision in accordance with development plan policy - addressed in section 3.3 (a) and (n) and it is found that the proposal would make such a positive contribution; - Use accords with ethos behind original development on Calton Hill as part of 'Age of Enlightenment' - the original use of the building is noted in section 3.3 (h) of the report; - Sensitive re-use of brown field site, in accordance with Strategic Development Plan strategy - addressed in section 3.3 (a) and it is found that the proposals comply with the sustainability development principles of Scottish Planning policy, which are embedded in the provisions of the Strategic Development Plan; - Compliance with principles of Princes Street Development Framework - addressed in section 3.3 (a) and it is found that the proposals comply with these principles; and - Provision of much needed performance space - addressed in section 3.3 (n) and it is found that the proposals include such provision.

Listed Building and setting issues - Allows for restoration and re-use of listed Hamilton Building, belvedere and gate house - addressed in section 3.1 and this aspect of the proposals is confirmed. - Safeguards character and setting of retained listed buildings on site - addressed in section 3.3 (b) and (g) and it is concluded that the overall impact of the proposals would result in no significant adverse impacts on the setting of such buildings, subject to the use of appropriate planning conditions. - Safeguards the setting of neighbouring listed buildings - addressed in section 3.3 (b) and it is found that the setting of such buildings would be safeguarded. - Safeguards Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage Site - addressed in section 3.3 (f) and it is found that the proposals support the OUV of the Edinburgh World Heritage site. - Reveals and enhances views of historic townscape and landscape - addressed in section 3.3 (e) and (g) and it is found that the majority of these views would be safeguarded or enhanced.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 36 of 97 15/05662/FUL

- Proposed landscaping enhances site's landscaped setting - addressed in section 3.3 (d) and (g) and it is found that the proposals safeguard the landscaped setting. - Safeguards setting of designed landscape on Calton Hill - this is addressed in section 3.3 (d) and it is found that this landscape is safeguarded. - Retention of site's heritage value - addressed in section 3.3 (b) (c) (d) and (f) and it is found that the proposals safeguard this value.

Design Issues - Appropriate design and scale of new buildings - addressed in section 3.3 (g) and it is found that the design of the new building is acceptable, subject to the removal of the octagonal roof features, which may be secured by planning condition.

- Creation of new vantage point at public open spaces to west - addressed in section 3.3 (d) and this impact is confirmed.

Cultural/ Economic Impacts - Use of residential accommodation during holiday periods beneficial to city's tourist economy - addressed in section 3.3 (m) and it is found that such impacts could potentially be realised, subject to the granting of further appropriate planning permission; - Enhances city's cultural infrastructure - addressed in section 3.3 (n) and it is found that this would be the case; - Potential public access to both concerts and weekend classes - addressed in section 3.3 (n) and it is found that this provision is included in the proposals although the frequency and extent of such provision cannot be enforced through the planning function; - Provision of much needed specialist educational accommodation - addressed in section 3.3 (n) and it is found that the proposals would provide such benefits, although the provision of this type of educational use cannot be enforced through the planning function; - Benefits to both local community and tourists resulting from provision of additional performance space - addressed in section 3.3 (m) and (n) it is found that the proposals have the potential to deliver such potential benefits; - Enlivens this area of city - addressed in section 3.3 (g) and it is found that the proposal has the potential to enliven this area; and - Financially viable scheme - addressed in section 3.3 (m) and it is found that the supporting evidence, helps to demonstrate the applicant's case regarding the scheme's financial viability.

Residential Amenity - Safeguards local amenity - addressed in section 3.3(i) and it is found that such impacts are acceptable, subject to use of appropriate planning conditions and the application of controls under the licensing regulations.

Other issues - Methodologies are proposed for excavation to ensure no risk to Calton Hill and railway tunnels - addressed in section 3.3 (l) and it is found that potential methodologies are available, the details of which will be agreed by means of planning condition;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 37 of 97 15/05662/FUL

- Improved security on Calton Hill - addressed in section 3.3 (i) and it is found that the proposals would have positive benefits in this respect; - Improvements to public access - addressed in section 3.3 (j) and it is found that no new footpaths are proposed outwith the site but works to improve the public footway on the site frontage will be secured under the legal agreement; - Minimal impacts identified in Environmental Impact Assessment - addressed in section 3.3 (q) and it is found that such impacts are acceptable; and - Accessible location - addressed in section 3.3 (a) and (j) and it is found that the site is located at an accessible city centre location.

Non material issues raised in representations of support

- Less impact on neighbouring amenity than alternative proposal for hotel - each application must be considered on its own merits; - Long term cultural legacy for future generations - the length of time the building is utilised for the approved purpose cannot be controlled through the planning function; - Accords with original remit for Royal High School to provide free school places - the planning function is unable to control access to the proposed use or whether it is chargeable; and - Effective public engagement process - public engagement is an essential part of the planning application process and its results help to inform the finalised proposals. However, quality of the engagement process is not a material consideration in the assessment of the finalised proposals.

Community Council Comments

New Town and Broughton Community Council (NTBCC) supports this application for the following reasons: - Safeguards character of conservation area - addressed in section 3.3 (c) and found to be acceptable; - Sensitive interventions to Hamilton Building - addressed in section 3.3 (b) and it is found that although most interventions are acceptable some are not and conditions are recommended to require their removal from approved plans; - Safeguards setting of listed Hamilton Building - addressed in section 3.3 (b) and it is found that on the whole the proposals safeguard the setting of the listed building; - Sensitive design of new build - addressed in section 3.3 (m) and it is found that the design of the new building is acceptable, subject to the removal of the octagonal roof features, which may be secured by planning condition; - Retention of listed entrance lodge - addressed in section 3.1 and it is confirmed that this building is proposed for retention; - Demolitions considered in accordance with Scottish Historic Environment Policy - addressed in section 3.3 (a) and in the relevant section of the report on the associated application listed building consent and it is found that these proposals accord with such provisions; - Positive impact on anti-social behaviour due to re-use of buildings - addressed in section 3.3 (i) and it is found that the proposals would have such potential benefits; - Consistent with aims of development plan and principles of Development Brief for Princes Street - addressed in section 3.3 (a) and it is found that the proposals

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 38 of 97 15/05662/FUL

comply with relevant development plan policies and Development Brief principles; - Positive contribution to city centre amenities and facilities for both residents and visitors - addressed in section 3.3 (m) and (n) and it is found that the proposals would be capable of delivering such potential benefits; - The proposed uses as performance space and school would provide for public access to this listed building - addressed in section 3.3 (m) and it is found that the proposed uses would be capable of delivering such benefits, although the extent to which the proposed performance space would be open for public performances cannot be controlled through the planning function; - Enlivening of Regent Road through provision of access to listed building, on this frontage - addressed in section 3.3 (m) and it is anticipated that such benefits would be delivered; - Retention of landscaping of open space to west - addressed in section 3.3 (m) and it is found that the proposals would provide an increased area of green space at this location; - Retention of railings - addressed in section 3.3 (m) and it is found that the majority of original railings would be retained, although those on the eastern boundary would be relocated on site; and - Safeguarding of setting of Calton Hill through provision of green roofs - addressed in section 3.3 (m) and it is found that the roof top of the new building would be surfaced with a mix of natural and artificial turf.

Other comments from Community Council: - Unclear mechanism for delivery of public realm - this is addressed in paragraph 3.3 (j) which explains that the works to the public realm, which will be restricted to those relating to the widening of the public footway on the Regent Road site frontage, will be carried out directly by the applicant and secured through the provisions of the relevant legal agreement.

Conclusion

The proposed performance space would make a potentially valuable contribution to the city's cultural infrastructure and provide opportunities for its use by the wider community.The location of the leisure, or entertainment venue at this accessible central area, accords with the provisions of relevant development plan policy. This proposed use also complies with the relevant principles of the Princes Street Block 10 Development Brief.

The proposals to create an improved school campus for this school support the principles of Scottish Planning Policy for sustainable development, in terms of its contribution towards educational infrastructure. The proposed school use further supports SPP principles through its beneficial impact on the city's economy, whilst the use as performance space offers similar potential benefits to the economy.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 39 of 97 15/05662/FUL

The design, scale and layout of this generally low profile, sensitively designed extension safeguards the overall character and setting of the listed Hamilton Building, the setting of surrounding listed buildings and monuments and the site's conservation area setting. The use of a condition requiring the re-design of the proposed cupolas will help safeguard views of the Old Town Conservation Area. The proposals comply with policy Des 1, Des 3, Env 3 and Env 6 of the ECLP and the Edinburgh Design Guidance in these respects.

Subject to recommended conditions, the proposed alterations to the listed building are considered acceptable and the proposal will comply with ECLP policy Env 4.

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Conditions:-

1. No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (Historic building recording, excavation, analysis, reporting and publication, interpretation and public engagement) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.

2. A detailed specification, including trade names where appropriate, of all the proposed external materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 40 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Planning Authority before work is commenced on site; Note: samples of all external materials will be required.

3. Prior to the commencement of the approved works on site, sample panels, to be no less than 1.5m x 1.5m, shall be produced, demonstrating each proposed external material and accurately indicating the quality and consistency of future workmanship, and submitted for written approval by the Planning Authority.

4. A sample of masonry work, indicating courses, surfacing finish and pointing, shall be prepared for inspection on site and shall be approved in writing by the Planning Authority, before work commences on site.

5. The approved landscaping scheme shall be fully implemented within the first planting season of the completion of the development; and thereafter shall be maintained by the applicants and /or their successors to the entire satisfaction of the Planning authority; maintenance shall include the replacement of plant stock which fails to survive for whatever reason, as often as required within the first 5 years of the occupation of the proposed hotel, to ensure the establishment of the approved landscaping scheme.

6. A tree protection plan providing full details of all measures to be put in place to safeguard existing trees on the boundary of the application site prior shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before works commence on site and the approved measures shall be adhered to at all times during the course of development works.

7. A rock extraction management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of development, giving full details of the pre-development survey and assessment results and the proposed finalised methodology programme.

8. The methodology programme for rock extraction, approved under the terms of condition no. 7 above, shall be implemented on site, as part of the proposed Construction and Demolition Management Plan, and no alternative method of rock extraction shall be used without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority.

9. Prior to the occupation of the development, details demonstrating that noise from all plant (including air source heat pump system) complies with NR 25 within the nearest residential property (with windows partially open for ventilation purposes) shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority.

10. The following noise protection measures to the proposed school and performance space, as defined in the Environmental Statement - Technical Appendix 6 'Noise and Vibration' report (Ref TA6) dated December 2015:

Glazing units with a minimum sound reduction level of RW=35dB, with no open windows facing the existing residential properties shall be installed on the external doors and windows of the performance space and classrooms within the new building in accordance with the details shown on drawing number LL- 02-10 (received 23rd May 2016).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 41 of 97 15/05662/FUL

11. Full details of the proposed external lighting strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of development; and shall be implemented on site, in accordance with the approved details.

12. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed surface water management plan, based on finalised site levels, shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority and the approved plan implemented on site, as part of the approved development..

13. Notwithstanding the details included on drawing number AL/04/01- A) (CEC reference 21b) the proposed glass balustrade to the central front portico of the category 'A' listed Hamilton building is not approved and revised details for the balustrade shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of development.

14. Notwithstanding the details included on drawing number AL/02/04- A),(CEC reference 17 b) the proposed glazed slot on the flagstone floor of the central, front portico on the category 'A' listed Hamilton Building is not approved.

15. Notwithstanding the details provided on drawing number AL/04/01 b and AL/04/02 b (CEC drawing numbers 20 b and 21 b), the proposed octagonal shaped cupolas at the octagonal shaped teaching room accommodation to the rear of the listed 'Hamilton' building are not approved; and no development shall commence on site until revised design for the roof lights at these locations, with a maximum height of 0.5 metres, are submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority.

16. Full details of the cycle parking provision proposed at the site, including the specifications for the cycle racks and means of enclosure, shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.

17. No development shall take place until details of the chimney for the gas powered energy plant have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the planning authority. The chimney details shall include its location, height, size and materials.

Reasons:-

1. In order to safeguard the interests of archaeological heritage.

2. In order to enable the planning authority to consider these matters in detail.

3. In order to ensure the adequacy of external building materials.

4. In order to enable the planning authority to consider this matter in detail.

5. In order to ensure that the approved landscaping works are implemented on site.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 42 of 97 15/05662/FUL

6. In order to ensure that existing trees within the site and on the site boundary are adequately safeguarded throughout the course of development works on site.

7. In order to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are taken during the proposed rock extraction process, to safeguard the special interests of the adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest, at Arthurs Seat Site of Special Scientific Interest.

8. In order to safeguard the special interests of the adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest, at Calton Hill and protect local railway infrastructure.

9. To safeguard neighbouring amenity

10. In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

11. In order to allow the planning authority to consider these matters in detail.

12. In order to ensure that the proposals for surface water management are implemented on site in accordance with an approved fully detailed surface water management plan.

13. In order to safeguard the character of the listed building and the New Town Conservation Area.

14. In order to safeguard the character of the listed building.

15. In order to safeguard the character of the New Town Conservation Area and avoid obstruction of views to the Old Town Conservation Area.

16. In order to ensure that the full details of the proposed cycle facilities are satisfactory.

17. In order to enable the planning authority to consider this/these matter/s in detail.

Informatives:-

It should be noted that:

1. Consent shall not be issued until a suitable legal agreement, including those requiring a financial contribution payable to the City of Edinburgh Council, has been concluded in relation to transport infrastructure:

a) Carry out footway improvement works to the footway on the north side of Regent Road adjacent to the development at no cost to the Council. Detailed drawings must be submitted and agreed in writing by the Head of Planning and Transport, prior to commencement of work on Regent Road. The applicant should note that this may require details of lighting, drainage, Sustainable Urban Drainage, materials (including a survey of existing materials and their retention), structures, layout, specification, etc;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 43 of 97 15/05662/FUL

b) Contribute the sum of £2,000 to promote a suitable if necessary order to re-determine sections of footway and carriageway as appropriate (i.e. if the existing kerb line is adjusted);

c) Contribute the sum of £2,000 to promote a suitable order if necessary to amend the controlled parking zone order as it applies to Regent Road;

The legal agreement should be concluded within 6 months of the date of this notice. If not concluded within that 6 month period, a report will be put to committee with a likely recommendation that the application be refused.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

3. No development shall take place on the site until a 'Notice of Initiation of Development' has been submitted to the Council stating the intended date on which the development is to commence. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of planning control, under Section 123(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

4. As soon as practicable upon the completion of the development of the site, as authorised in the associated grant of permission, a 'Notice of Completion of Development' must be given, in writing to the Council.

5. This consent is for planning permission only. Work must not begin until other necessary consents, eg listed building consent, have been obtained.

6. The Environmental Statement has been taken into consideration in the making of this decision as required under Regulation 3 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999.

7. For the avoidance of doubt, the Council does not support or approve any reduction in parking provision on the south side of Regent Road at this time. Any reduction of on-street parking on the north side of Regent Road will require approval in writing from the Head of Planning and Transport and contributions as set out in the legal agreement.

8. The applicant should be informed that prior to carrying out any works to the footway or carriageway, a roadwork's consent must be applied for and secured. The footway improvement works as agreed in writing by the Head of Planning and Transport must be agreed prior to the application for road works consent;

9. Any gate or doors must open inwards onto the property.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 44 of 97 15/05662/FUL

10. All disabled persons parking places should comply with Disabled Persons Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009. The Act places a duty on the local authority to promote proper use of parking places for disabled persons' vehicles. The applicant should therefore advise the Head of Transport if he wishes the bays to be enforced under this legislation. A contribution of £2,000 will be required to progress the necessary traffic order. All disabled persons parking places must comply with Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 regulations or British Standard 8300:2009 as approved by the Head of Planning.

11. It should noted that there is no current Council budget provision with respect to the 'inspirational public realm enhancement' works (see Richard Murphy Architects Dwg.AL/02/01, dated 10/12/15). The applicant should be advised that the granting of planning permission will not commit the Council in any way to contribute to, or carry out, any public realm improvements on Regents Road.

12. An electric vehicle charging outlet should be of the following standard shall be installed at the proposed taxi rank: (70 or 50kW (32 Amp) DC with 43kW (32 Amp) AC unit. DC charge delivered via both JEVS G105 and 62196-3 sockets, the AC supply by a 62196-2 socket. It must have the ability to be de-rated to supply 25kW to any two of the three outlets simultaneously.

13. All boilers must be fitted with secondary abatement technology.

14. The applicant is advised to liaise with the Council, in order to agree a suitable design solution for the acoustic attenuation of windows and doors at the proposed performance space within the listed Hamilton building, as identified on drawing number LL-02-10 (dated 10 May 2016) and to apply for listed building consent in relation to the relevant scheme of attenuation.

15. Construction Noise:

To minimise the level of noise to which sensitive receptors will be exposed, the construction work will be conducted in accordance with a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP).

These measures will include the following:

- Careful selection of plant and construction methods. Only plant conforming to relevant national, EU or international standards, directives and recommendations on noise and vibration emissions - should be used. - Design and use of site enclosures, housing and temporary stockpiles, where practicable and necessary, to provide acoustic screening at the earliest opportunity. - Where practicable, doors and gates should not be located opposite occupied noise-sensitive buildings. The mechanisms and procedures for opening doors/gates will minimise noise, as far as - reasonably practicable. - Choice of routes and programming for the transport of construction materials, spoil and personnel.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 45 of 97 15/05662/FUL

- Careful programming so that activities which may generate significant noise are planned with regard to local occupants and sensitive receptors. - All vehicles and mechanical plant shall be fitted with effective exhaust silencers and shall be maintained in good and efficient working order and operated to minimise noise emissions. - All compressors and generators shall be 'sound reduced' models fitted with properly lined and sealed acoustic covers which shall be kept closed whenever the machines are in use, and all pneumatic percussive tools shall be fitted with mufflers or silencers of the type Recommended by the manufacturers. - All machines in intermittent use shall be shut down in the intervening periods between works or throttled down to a minimum. Lorry engines will be switched off, as soon as practicable, when vehicles are stationary. - Noise emitting equipment which is required to run continuously shall be housed in a suitable acoustic enclosure. - Temporary noise barriers will be used to reduce noise levels where appropriate and practicable Such measures can be particularly appropriate for stationary or near-stationary plant such as pneumatic breakers piling rigs and compressors. Barriers should be located as close to the plant as possible and, in order to provide adequate attenuation and should have a mass per unit area of at least 7 kg/m2. - Plant and equipment liable to create noise and/or vibration whilst in operation will, as far as reasonably practicable, be located away from sensitive receptors and away from walls reflecting towards sensitive receptors. - Materials for night-time working shall be delivered, where practicable, during normal hours of working and be placed as close as possible to the work area for which they are required. - Where reasonably practicable, fixed items of construction plant shall be electrically powered in preference to combustion engine driven. - Doors on plant and equipment will be kept closed.

It should be noted the local authority has powers under the Control of Pollution Act (1974) to control noise from construction sites.

16. Construction Dust Mitigation

1. All mobile plant introduced onto the site shall comply with the emission limits for off road vehicles as specified by EC Directive 97/68/EC. All mobile plant shall be maintained to prevent or minimise the release of dark smoke from vehicle exhausts. Details of vehicle maintenance shall be recorded.

2. The developer shall ensure that risk of dust annoyance from the operations is assessed throughout the working day, taking account of wind speed, direction, and surface moisture levels. The developer shall ensure that the level of dust suppression implemented on site is adequate for the prevailing conditions. The assessment shall be recorded as part of documented site management procedures.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 46 of 97 15/05662/FUL

3. Internal un-surfaced temporary roadways shall be sprayed with water at regular intervals as conditions require. The frequency of road spraying shall be recorded as part of documented site management procedures.

4. Surfaced roads and the public road during all ground works shall be kept clean and swept at regular intervals using a road sweeper as conditions require. The frequency of road sweeping shall be recorded as part of documented site management procedures.

5. All vehicles operating within the site on un-surfaced roads shall not exceed 15mph to minimise the re-suspension of dust.

6. Where dust from the operations are likely to cause significant adverse impacts at sensitive receptors, then the operation(s) shall be suspended until the dust emissions have been abated. The time and duration of suspension of working and the reason shall be recorded.

7. This dust management plan shall be reviewed monthly during the construction project and the outcome of the review shall be recorded as part of the documented site management procedures.

8. No bonfires shall be permitted.

17. In the preparation of the proposed Rock Extraction Management Plan, required under the terms of condition no. 7 and 8 of this planning permission, the applicant should consult with Scottish Natural Heritage, as well as other relevant stakeholders, including the British Geological Survey and Network Rail, in order to reach agreement regarding the proposed details.

18. Network Rail has advised that:

i. Any demolition or refurbishment works must not be carried out on the development site that may endanger the safe operation of the railway, or the stability of the adjoining Network Rail structures. The demolition of buildings or other structures near to operational railway infrastructure must be carried out in accordance with an agreed method statement. Approval of the method statement must be obtained from Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineer before development can commence.

ii. Construction works must be undertaken in a safe manner which does not disturb the operation of the neighbouring railway. Applicants must be aware of any embankments and supporting structures which are in close proximity to their development.

iii. Details of all changes in ground levels, laying of foundations/piling works, and operation of mechanical plant in proximity to the Calton Railway Tunnels must be submitted to Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineer for approval prior to works commencing on site. Where any works cannot be carried out in a 'fail-safe' manner, it will be necessary to restrict those works to periods when the railway is closed to rail traffic i.e. by a 'possession' which must be booked via Network Rail's Asset Protection

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 47 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Engineer and are subject to a minimum prior notice period for booking of 20 weeks.

The developer must contact Network Rail Asset Protection Engineers regarding the above matters.

19. Construction works must be undertaken in a safe manner which does not disturb the operation of the neighbouring railway. Applicants must be aware of any embankments and supporting structures which are in close proximity to their development.

- Details of all changes in ground levels, laying of foundations/piling works, and operation of mechanical plant in proximity to the Calton Railway Tunnels must be submitted to Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineer for approval prior to works commencing on site. Where any works cannot be carried out in a 'fail-safe' manner, it will be necessary to restrict those works to periods when the railway is closed to rail traffic i.e. by a 'possession' which must be booked via Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineer and are subject to a minimum prior notice period for booking of 20 weeks.

The developer must contact our Asset Protection Engineers regarding the above matters.

20. The developer will be required to carry out a pre-construction survey of proetected species, as identified in the applicant's Construction and Demolition Environmental Management Plan, in order to comply with relevant European Directives and UK law.

21. A programme of public engagement in relation to the archaeological works should be undertaken.

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

The application is subject to a legal agreement for developer contributions towards the promotion of the relevant road traffic orders required to allow for the proposed footway widening scheme.

The proposed alterations to the layout of the public footway required under the relevant legal agreement would result in some loss of revenue to the Council as a result of the removal of parking spaces on the site frontage on the north side of Regent Road.

The application site is owned by the Council. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 48 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. The impacts are identified in the Assessment section of the main report. Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

A Proposal of Application Notice was submitted and registered on 21 May 2015. Copies of the Notice were also issued to all ward councillors, as well as New Town and Broughton Community Council, Old Town Community Council, the Edinburgh World Heritage Trust, Historic Trust, Historic Scotland, Scottish Civic Trust, The Lord Cockburn Association, Regent Royal and Carlton Terraces and Mews Association, the City Centre Neighbourhood Partnership and the MSP and MPs for Edinburgh Central.

A Community consultation events was held on 18 June 2015 at Cannon Gate Church, with a further exhibition held at the public bar at the Queens Hall, for members of the music community on 22 June 2015. Meetings were also held with a number of public bodies including the New Town and Broughton Community Council (11 May 2015) and the Lord Cockburn Association (10 November 2015). Pre-application meetings were also held with Edinburgh World Heritage Trust on 3 November and Historic Environment Scotland on 2 November 2015.

Full details of these events can be found in the Pre-Application Consultation report, which sets out the findings from the community consultation. This is available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Online services.

The proposal was presented to the Urban Design Panel Review meeting on 20 October 2015. The report of the review panel is included in the Consultations section of this report.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 24 December 2015. A total of 534 letters of representation were received on this application, 545 of which were in favour, four of which were objections and three of which raised comments which were neither in support or against the proposals.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 49 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Comments in support of the application were received from, India Street Residents Association, the West End Community Council, New Town and Broughton Community Council (which is also a consultee), Portobello Amenity Society, Lord Cockburn Association, the Scottish Civic Trust, the Architectural Society of Scotland and Sarah Boyak MSP. The Regent Terrace Gardens Residents Association also commented on the listed Building consent application, its comments also relate to the planning application.

The four objections received to the application were all from members of the public.

The application was re-advertised on 29 April 2016 following receipt of revised drawings and supporting information. Fourteen letters of representation were received, all of which were in favour of the application.

The application was further advertised on 24 June 2016, following the receipt of an additional Report on Impacts. Four representations were received, all of which were in favour of the proposals.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 50 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Background reading/external references

To view details of the application go to;  Planning and Building Standards online services

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 51 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision Within the adopted Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP) and the Second Proposed Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP), the site is located in the Central Area and in the New Town Conservation Area.

The Site is also included within the Old and New Towns of Edinburgh World Heritage Site.

The application site is included within the Princes Street Development Brief Block 10.

The land at Calton Hill immediately to the north of the application site is a nationally designated, Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Calton Hill is also included within the Inventory of Designed Gardens and Historic Gardens, and is partially included within a Local Nature Conservation Site, as designated in the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Calton Hill is also proposed as a Candidate Special Landscape Area, in the Second Proposed Edinburgh Local Development Plan.

The Calton Hill Conservation Plan - adopted by the Council Executive at its meeting on 7 November 2000, underpins the Council policies for the use and regeneration of Calton Hill.

Date registered 10 December 2015

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01,02a-07a,08, 09a,10,11a,12a-13,14b-23b,24-43,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 52 of 97 15/05662/FUL

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Carla Parkes, Senior Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 3925

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 53 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Links-Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Policy Ca 1 (Central Area) sets criteria for assessing development in the Central Area.

Policy Com 3 (School Development) sets criteria for assessing sites for new school development.

Policy Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) sets general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated.

Policy Des 3 (Development Design) sets criteria for assessing development design.

Policy Des 5 (External Spaces) sets criteria for assessing landscape design and external space elements of development.

Policy Des 6 (Sustainable Design & Construction) sets criteria for assessing the sustainable design and construction elements of development.

Policy Des 7 (New Pedestrian Routes in the City Centre) relates to the creation of new pedestrian routes in the City Centre.

Policy Des 10 (Tall Buildings) sets out criteria for assessing proposals for tall buildings.

Policy Des 11 (Alterations and Extensions) sets criteria for assessing alterations and extensions to existing buildings.

Policy Env 1 (World Heritage Site) protects the quality of the World Heritage Site and its settings.

Policy Env 2 (Listed Buildings - Demolition) identifies the circumstances in which the demolition of listed buildings will be permitted.

Policy Env 3 (Listed Buildings - Setting) identifies the circumstances in which development within the curtilage or affecting the setting of a listed building will be permitted.

Policy Env 5 (Conservation Areas – Demolition of Buildings) sets outs criteria for assessing proposals involving demolition of buildings in conservation areas.

Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas.

Policy Env 7 (Historic Gardens & Designed Landscapes) establishes a presumption against development that would be detrimental to Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 54 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Policy Env 9 (Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance) sets out the circumstances in which development affecting sites of known or suspected archaeological significance will be permitted.

Policy Env 11 (Landscape Quality) establishes a presumption against development which would adversely affect important landscapes and landscape features.

Policy Env 12 (Trees) sets out tree protection requirements for new development.

Policy Env 14 (Sites of National Importance) identifies the circumstances in which development likely to affect Sites of National Importance will be permitted.

Policy Env 15 (Sites of Local Importance) identifies the circumstances in which development likely to affect Sites of Local Importance will be permitted.

Policy Env 16 (Species) sets out species protection requirements for new development.

Policy Env 17 (Flood Protection) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on flood protection.

Policy Env 18 (Air, Water and Soil Quality) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on air, water and soil quality.

Policy Hou 8 (Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas) establishes a presumption against development which would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of nearby residents.

Policy Hou 10 (Student Housing) supports provision of student housing on suitable sites.

Policy Os 3 (Open Space in New Development) sets out requirements for the provision of open space in new development.

Policy Ret 6 (Entertainment and Leisure Developments – Preferred Locations) identifies the Central Area, Leith & Granton Waterfronts and town centres as the preferred locations for entertainment and leisure developments.

Policy Ret 12 (Food and Drink Establishments) sets criteria for assessing the change of use to a food & drink establishment.

Policy Tra 1 (Major Travel Generating Development) supports major travel generating development in the Central Area, and sets criteria for assessing major travel generating development elsewhere.

Policy Tra 2 (Planning Conditions and Agreements) requires, where appropriate, transport related conditions and/or planning agreements for major development likely to give rise to additional journeys.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 55 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Policy Tra 3m (Tram Contributions) requires contributions from developers towards the cost of tram works where the proposed tram network will help address the transport impacts of a development.

Policy Tra 5 (Private Cycle Parking) requires cycle parking provision in accordance with levels set out in supplementary guidance.

Policy Tra 6 (Design of Off-Street Car and Cycle Parking) sets criteria for assessing design of off-street car and cycle parking.

Relevant policies of the Proposed Local Development Plan.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Del 1 (Developer Contributions) identifies the circumstances in which developer contributions will be required.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Del 2 (Retrospective Developer Contributions) identifies developer contributions will be sought for the tram network and other infrastructure identified in the Action Programme.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Del 3 (City Centre) sets criteria for assessing development in the city centre.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) sets general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Des 2 (Co-ordinated Development) establishes a presumption against proposals which might compromise the effect development of adjacent land or the wider area.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Des 3 (Development Design - Incorporating and Enhancing Existing and Potential Features) supports development where it is demonstrated that existing and potential features have been incorporated into the design.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Des 7 (Layout design) sets criteria for assessing layout design.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Env 1 (Old and New Towns World Heritage Site) protects the quality of the World Heritage Site and its setting.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Env 2 (Listed Buildings - Demolition) identifies the circumstances in which the demolition of listed buildings will be permitted.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Env 3 (Listed Buildings - Setting) identifies the circumstances in which development within the curtilage or affecting the setting of a listed building will be permitted.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Env 4 (Listed Buildings - Alterations and Extensions) identifies the circumstances in which alterations and extensions to listed buildings will be permitted.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 56 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Second Proposed LDP Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas - Development) sets out criteria for assessing development in a conservation area.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Env 7 (Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes) protects sites included in the national Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes and other historic landscape features.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Env 8 (Protection of Important Remains) establishes a presumption against development that would adversely affect the site or setting of a Scheduled Ancient Monument or archaeological remains of national importance.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Env 9 (Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance) sets out the circumstances in which development affecting sites of known or suspected archaeological significance will be permitted.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Env 11 (Special Landscape Areas) establishes a presumption against development that would adversely affect Special Landscape Areas.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Env 12 (Trees) sets out tree protection requirements for new development.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Env 14 (Sites of National Importance) identifies the circumstances in which development likely to affect Sites of National Importance will be permitted.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Env 15 (Sites of Local Importance) identifies the circumstances in which development likely to affect Sites of Local Importance will be permitted.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Env 16 (Species Protection) sets out species protection requirements for new development.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Env 20 (Open Space in New Development) sets out requirements for the provision of open space in new development.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Env 21 (Flood Protection) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on flood protection.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Env 22 (Pollution and Air, Water and Soil Quality) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on air, water and soil quality.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Hou 7 (Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas) establishes a presumption against development which would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of nearby residents.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Ret 6 (Entertainment and Leisure Developments - Preferred Locations) identifies the City Centre, at Leith and Granton Waterfront and town centres as the preferred locations for entertainment and leisure developments.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 57 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Second Proposed LDP Policy Tra 2 (Private Car Parking) requires private car parking provision to comply with the parking levels set out in Council guidance, and sets criteria for assessing lower provision.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Tra 3 (Private Cycle Parking) requires cycle parking provision in accordance with standards set out in Council guidance.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Tra 4 (Design of Off-Street Car and Cycle Parking) sets criteria for assessing design of off-street car and cycle parking.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Tra 8 (Cycle and Footpath Network) prevents development which would prevent implementation of, prejudice or obstruct the current or potential cycle and footpath network.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines.

Non-statutory guidelines on Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing gives guidance on the situations where developers will be required to provide affordable housing and/or will be required to make financial or other contributions towards the cost of, providing new facilities for schools, transport improvements, the tram project, public realm improvements and open space.

Non-statutory guidelines - EDINBURGH STREET DESIGN GUIDANCE - Edinburgh Street Design Guidance supports proposals that create better places through the delivery of vibrant, safe, attractive, effective and enjoyable streets in Edinburgh. It sets out the Council's expectations for the design of streets and public realm.

NSESBA - Non-statutory guidelines Part A of 'The Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Building' requires new development in Edinburgh to reduce their carbon emissions in line with the current Building Regulations

Non-statutory guidelines ‘LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS' provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

Non-statutory guidelines on 'PARKING STANDARDS' set the requirements for parking provision in developments.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 58 of 97 15/05662/FUL

17th-century town houses; the consistent and harmonious height and mass of buildings; the importance of stone as a construction material for both buildings and the public realm; the vitality and variety of different uses; and the continuing presence of a residential community.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 59 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Appendix 1

Consultations

City Archaeologist

The nationally important A-listed Royal High School (New Parliament House) building was designed by Thomas Hamilton and opened in 1829. The school occupied the site until 1968, with a range of buildings being added to Hamilton's original design reflecting the growth and new demands of the school principally as follows; Gate Lodge 1885, Gymnasium 1885 (1894), Luncheon Block 1935 (1948) and the class room Block in 1946. A full history of the school its development is contained within the Heritage Statement produced by Simpson & Brown in support of this application. Prior to the Royal High School's construction the site occurred on the edge of the medieval burgh of the Canongate. No earlier remains have been recorded from the site, however prehistoric activity on Calton Hill is expected, with prehistoric pottery having been found in antiquity close to this site.

Accordingly this application must be considered under terms Scottish Government's Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) and also CEC's Edinburgh City Local Plan Policies ENV2, ENV4, ENV7, ENV8 & ENV9. The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.

Historic Buildings

The proposed scheme proposes the demolition three listed buildings namely the Gymnasium, Classroom Block and Luncheon Block. Such actions must be considered as clearly having significant adverse impacts upon these listed structures as it would lead to their complete loss. That said the loss of the two 20th century buildings (Luncheon Hall and Classroom Block) in archaeological terms could be seen as acceptable provided that a detailed (level 2) programme of historic building recording (annotated plans and elevations, photographic and written description and analysis) is undertaken prior their demolition.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 60 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Of greater concern is the loss of the 19th century Gymnasium given its longer association with the sites former use as a school. If consent is granted for its demolition it is essential that a detailed (level 3) programme of historic building recording (annotated plans and elevations, photographic and written description and analysis) is undertaken of them prior to demolition.

The alterations proposed to the main High School building in archaeological terms is considered to have an overall moderate impact, but in places one which may be considered to be significant. Accordingly it is essential that a detailed programme of historic building recording (annotated plans and elevations, photographic and written description and analysis) is undertaken of them prior to and during alterations/development.

If approved, the above archaeological historic building surveys will build upon the historic building analysis already undertaken by Simpson & Brown and others.

Setting It is clear that the proposed new development, if approved, will significantly alter the current setting of not only The Royal High School but also importantly, the adjacent Calton Hill, a Designated Historic Landscape. However it is considered that overall the new proposals (in particular to the east of the Royal High School) will have an overall moderate impact.

Buried Archaeology The proposals will require significant ground breaking works, principally in regards to the demolition of the proposed of the ancillary buildings and proposed new constructions and landscaping. Such works have the potential to disturb archaeological remains principally relating to the construction of the Royal High School in the 1820's. The potential for earlier remains surviving on site is however considered to be low. It is recommended that in addition to the historic building recording that programme of archaeological work is undertaken during ground breaking works, in order to record, excavate and analyse any significant remains affected.

Interpretation & Public Engagement Given the significance of the Royal High School to the history of Edinburgh it is essential that this rich heritage is interpreted within the final development. This should be undertaken also in collaboration with a programme of public/community engagement (e.g. site open days, viewing points, temporary interpretation boards) the scope of which will be agreed with CECAS.

In consented it is essential therefore that a condition be applied to any consent if granted to secure this programme of archaeological works based upon the following CEC condition;

'No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (Historic building recording, excavation, analysis, reporting and publication, interpretation and public engagement) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.'

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 61 of 97 15/05662/FUL

CEC Flood Prevention, Comments

In support of the above planning application the Flood Prevention Unit has reviewed Technical Appendix 2.4: Surface Water Management Plan.

CEC Flood Prevention has the following comments with respect to drainage.

1. Drainage layout should be provided which corresponds to the Microdrainage calculations and the surface water plan. Although exact invert levels and diameters of manhole are not required to be finalised an overall philosophy behind the proposed drainage should be conveyed including important information regarding tie in points to existing infrastructure, locations of Suds and flow control devices. 2. The applicant requests the 10 l/s is used as the maximum discharge rate from the site to the combined sewer as opposed to 4 l/s. CEC Flood Prevention would request that the applicant attenuate flows in line with our guidelines, subject to use of minimum pipe diameters as specified in Sewers for Scotland. Once the drainage layout has been provided then consideration could be made for allowance of more than one minimum diameter connection into the combined network. 3. The applicant must provide Microdrainage calculations pre-determination as this informs the decision. Therefore, please provide microdrainage outputs for all underground pipework including rainfall data, manhole and pipe schedules (to mAOD), and pipe surcharge report for all underground pipe connections. The manholes in the calculation should be cross-referenced to the drainage drawing to enable interpretation. The results should include the 30yr, 200 year and 200 yr plus climate change results. Should the model identify flood or flood risk in the system then drawings will be required to indicate where exceedence flow will be directed, how it will be contained within the site and lastly how it will be drained once the event has subsided. 4. Please identify existing and proposed surface water flow paths on a drawing prior to determination. Surface water should be dealt with by analysing the existing and proposed flow paths and depths for surface water runoff. This should include runoff from outwith the site, from unpaved areas within the site, and from paved areas in events which exceed the capacity of the drainage system. Existing surface water flow paths should be over-marked on the topographical survey of the site to compare with the post-development flow paths.

Flood prevention, further comments

The proposals are generally acceptable however, the applicant should consider the following modifications at detailed design stage to be in line with CEC requirements:

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 62 of 97 15/05662/FUL

The surface water design should utilise two number hydro brakes of 75mm diameter (one for east network, one for west). This is as per Sewers for Scotland v3 and incorporates good design. Hydro brakes of diameter 62mm and 59mm are more susceptible to blockage and as a result may result in flooding. CEC Flood Prevention are accepting of the discharge rates that would pass through a 75mm hydro brake to the combined network- this is typically in the order to 3l/s dependant on head.

The increased aperture and subsequent discharge rate will ensure that the attenuation storage required to be provided on site will be reduced. As the applicant has demonstrated that the site has sufficient space to accommodate the larger amount of attenuation storage within their site, the flood prevention have no further comment on this application.

CEC Environmental Assessment, Comments: 23/12/15

Environmental Assessment have assessed the submitted reports on noise and local air quality and deem the information submitted to be insufficient.

Noise It is suggested in the supporting reports that specific instruments will be used in certain classes based on the level of noise they produce. This is not something which may be conditioned. Assurance must therefore be sought that the classes nearest the sensitive receptors are capable containing the noise from the noisiest instruments.

Specific mitigation details are required, for example regarding the exact specifications for the glazing and acoustic ventilation requirements. This should be accompanied by a plan showing where the specific mitigation measures will be required, in order to meet the prescribed noise criteria.

Local Air Quality The specific details of the energy plant should be provided, in order to allow a full assessment of this impact.

Environmental Assessment - further response 19 May 2016 The proposed development is bounded to the south and west by Regent Road (A1) and to the east by residential premises. There are also residential premises and student halls to the south of the development, beyond the A1 road. Environmental Assessment raised several issues which required to be addressed before we could support the application. This included noise and potential local air quality impacts.

Noise

Environmental Assessment raised concerns regard the potential noise impacts this proposed development may have on nearby residential amenity. Environmental Assessment recommended that a noise impact assessment should be submitted to support the application. The areas requiring attention relevant to the noise and vibration are demolition, construction and operational noise. The applicant has submitted a supporting noise impact assessment which has addressed all the concerns raised.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 63 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Construction

The applicant has included details of the potential risk of likely effects from construction during activities that involve heavy demolition and piling. The site is located on hard bedrock (below existing buildings), therefore there are potential impacts of noise and vibration arising during excavation and breaking.

Construction noise and vibration is normally addressed and regulated under The Control of Pollution Act 1974 which gives City of Edinburgh Council Environmental Health Officers the powers to control noise and vibration pollution from construction sites, using primarily two mechanisms: British Standard 5228 Code of practice for noise and vibration on construction and open sites. Under the above primary legislation the site working hours are regulated which allows noisy construction works to take place only from Monday to Saturday between 07:00 and 19:00.

Any works requiring to be undertaken outside the daytime hours will require permission from the City of Edinburgh Council as specified in ain the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

There would be a requirement to demolish three buildings on site - the gymnasium, luncheon hall and classroom block. The Belvedere Tower would be retained. A Construction and Demolition Environmental Management Plan would be developed before works on site commenced. This would outline measures which would be followed to minimise potential environmental impacts at this stage. It would include, for example, management plans relating to noise, vibration and dust minimisation.

With regards to construction ground works, the applicant has suggested various methods for the site: 'Hydraulic Breakering' and 'Rotary Bored Piling'. Environmental Assessment is satisfied that either method can used and regulated under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to ensure disturbance is minimised. The applicant has further advised that it is envisaged that rock removal will be mainly be removed through hand tool breakout techniques to minimise damage to the historic building. The applicant has confirmed that all techniques adopted will ensure that vibrations at the existing building are kept below the British Standard 5228:2009+A1:2014 - Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites levels.

An informative will be recommended regarding construction noise.

Plant Most of the building services will be centralised in a plant room with several additional plant spaces. There will also be an external chillers compound at the east end of the building and potentially kitchen supply/extract plant on the roof of the existing school, on either side of the central roof dome.

The assessment of mechanical services plant is based on the intrusive noise within nearby residential properties. The applicant has advised that it will be able to achieve the required noise criteria of NR25 within the neighbouring residential properties allowing for their windows to be open. It is not uncommon for developers not to have the specific details of all the plant. Mitigation of plant noise is straightforward and it is recommended that a suitably worded planning condition defining allowable noise limits (NR25).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 64 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Operational Noise Sound insulation performance of the building envelope (including glazing and ventilation) for performance space and music class rooms, are the mostly areas where noise breakout may occur. Environmental Assessment has advised that noise breakout must not be audible within any of the nearby residential properties. The applicant's noise impact assessment has addressed this issue and provided details on how the development will be designed to ensure that break-out noise levels meet the strict criteria.

Environmental Assessment is satisfied that the worst case scenario has been considered in the noise impact assessment. The performance space is enclosed within other rooms and so breaking-out noise would be reduced by the attenuation provided by internal partitions and the external building envelope. In order to achieve inaudibility in closest residential property the outer partition performance should be at least Rw=35dB with no open windows facing the residential properties. Environmental Assessment accepts the findings of this report and shall recommend conditions to ensure amenity is protected.

Deliveries The applicant has advised that a service management plan will be prepared by the operator that will detail how the deliveries will function, however based on the existing use Environmental Assessment have no concerns regarding noise from the proposed deliveries.

Local Air Quality It has been highlighted to the applicant that the site is located adjacent to the City Centre Air Quality Management Area which has been declared for exceeding Nitrogen Dioxide levels, caused mainly by traffic emissions.

Planning Advice Note (PAN) 51: Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation 3 sets out the Scottish Executive's core policies and principles with respect to environmental aspects of land use planning, including air quality. PAN 51 states that air quality is capable of being a material planning consideration where a large scale proposal is inside, or adjacent to, an AQMA

The planning system has a role to play in the protection of air quality, by ensuring that development does not adversely affect air quality in AQMAs or, by cumulative impacts, lead to the creation of further AQMAs where air quality standards are not being met, and for which remedial measures should therefore be taken.

Breaches of air quality standards in the city's AQMAs are largely due to road congestion. The Council's Air Quality Action Plan contains a range of measures to reduce emissions both within these areas and beyond. Reducing the need to travel and promoting the use of sustainable modes of transport are key principles identified in the second Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LPD). The LDP acknowledges that growth of the city based on car dependency for travel would have serious consequences in terms of congestion and air quality. An improved transport system, based on sustainable alternatives to the car is therefore a high priority and continued investment in public transport, walking and cycling are central tenets of the City of Edinburgh Council's Local Transport Strategy 2014-19.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 65 of 97 15/05662/FUL

The City of Edinburgh Council's Parking Standards for Development Control document, dated December 2009, is used to determine the appropriate level of car parking for new developments.

The applicant does propose installing a relatively small gas powered energy plant. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with the Clean Air Act with supporting chimney height calculation ensuring the correct sized chimney is consented. As the applicant is including car parking they must consider the provision of rapid electric vehicle charging points for staff and visitors. At least one Charging outlet should be of the following standard:

70 or 50kW (32 Amp) DC with 43kW (32 Amp) AC unit. DC charge delivered via both JEVS G105 and 62196-3 sockets, the AC supply by a 62196-2 socket. Must have the ability to be de-rated to supply 25kW to any two of the three outlets simultaneously.

An informative will be recommended for construction dust.

Therefore Environmental Assessment offers no objections subject to the following conditions;

1. The following noise protection measures to the proposed hotel, as defined in the Environmental Statement - Technical Appendix 6: Noise and Vibration' report (Ref TA6), dated December 2015:

- Glazing units with a minimum sound reduction level of Rw=35dB with no open windows facing the existing residential properties shall be installed for the external doors and windows of the performance space and class rooms, in accordance with drawing number LL-02-10 received on 23 May 2016 shall be carried out in full and completed prior to the development being occupied.

2. Prior to occupation of the development, details demonstrating that noise from all plant complies with NR25 shall be submitted for written approval by the Head of planning and Building Standards

Details required

Prior to occupation of the development, details demonstrating that noise from all plant (including air source heat pump system) complies with NR25 within the nearest residential property (with window partially open for ventilation purposes) shall be submitted for written approval by the Head of planning and Building Standards.

3. Charging outlet should be of the following standard shall be installed at taxi rank: 70 or 50kW (32 Amp) DC with 43kW (32 Amp) AC unit. DC charge delivered via both JEVS G105 and 62196-3 sockets, the AC supply by a 62196-2 socket. Must have the ability to be de-rated to supply 25kW to any two of the three outlets simultaneously.

4. All boilers must be fitted with secondary abatement technology.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 66 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Construction noise informative To minimise the level of noise to which sensitive receptors will be exposed, the construction work will be conducted in accordance with a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP).

These measures will include the following: - Careful selection of plant and construction methods. Only plant conforming to relevant national, EU or international standards, directives and recommendations on noise and vibration emissions should be used. - Design and use of site enclosures, housing and temporary stockpiles, where practicable and necessary, to provide acoustic screening at the earliest opportunity - Where practicable, doors and gates should not be located opposite occupied noise-sensitive buildings. The mechanisms and procedures for opening doors/gates will minimise noise, as far as reasonably practicable - Choice of routes and programming for the transport of construction materials, spoil and personnel - Careful programming so that activities which may generate significant noise are planned with regard to local occupants and sensitive receptors - All vehicles and mechanical plant shall be fitted with effective exhaust silencers and shall be maintained in good and efficient working order and operated to minimise noise emissions - All compressors and generators shall be 'sound reduced' models fitted with properly lined and sealed acoustic covers which shall be kept closed whenever the machines are in use, and all pneumatic percussive tools shall be fitted with mufflers or silencers of the type recommended by the manufacturers - All machines in intermittent use shall be shut down in the intervening periods between works or throttled down to a minimum. Lorry engines will be switched off, as soon as practicable, when vehicles are stationary - Noise emitting equipment which is required to run continuously shall be housed in a suitable acoustic enclosure. - Temporary noise barriers will be used to reduce noise levels where appropriate and practicable Such measures can be particularly appropriate for stationary or near-stationary plant such as pneumatic breakers piling rigs and compressors. Barriers should be located as close to the plant as possible and, in order to provide adequate attenuation and should have a mass per unit area of at least 7 kg/m2 - Plant and equipment liable to create noise and/or vibration whilst in operation will, as far as reasonably practicable, be located away from sensitive receptors and away from walls reflecting towards sensitive receptors - Materials for night-time working shall be delivered, where practicable, during normal hours of working and be placed as close as possible to the work area for which they are required - Where reasonably practicable, fixed items of construction plant shall be electrically powered in preference to combustion engine driven - Doors on plant and equipment will be kept closed

It should be noted the local authority has powers under the Control of Pollution Act (1974) to control noise from construction sites.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 67 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Construction Dust Mitigation

5. All vehicles operating within the site on un-surfaced roads shall not exceed 15mph to minimise the re-suspension of dust.

7. This dust management plan shall be reviewed monthly during the construction project and the outcome of the review shall be recorded as part of the documented site management procedures.

8. No bonfires shall be permitted.

CEC Transport

No objections to the application, subject to the following being included as conditions or informatives as appropriate:

1. Consent should not be issued until the applicant has entered into a suitable legal agreement to:

a. Carry out footway improvement works to the footway on the north side of Regent Road adjacent to the development at no cost to the Council. Detailed drawings must be submitted and agreed in writing by the Head of Planning and Transport, prior to commencement of work on Regent Road. The applicant should note that this may require details of lighting, drainage, Sustainable Urban Drainage,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 68 of 97 15/05662/FUL

materials (including a survey of existing materials and their retention), structures, layout, specification, etc; b. Contribute the sum of £2,000 to promote a suitable if necessary order to re- determine sections of footway and carriageway as appropriate (i.e. if the existing kerb line is adjusted); c. Contribute the sum of £2,000 to promote a suitable order if necessary to amend the controlled parking zone order as it applies to Regent Road;

2. For the avoidance of doubt, the Council does not support or approve any reduction in parking provision on the south side of Regent Road at this time. Any reduction of on-street parking on the north side of Regent Road will require approval in writing from the Head of Planning and Transport and contributions as set out in 1.c. above; 3. The applicant should be informed that prior to carrying out any works to the footway or carriageway, a roadwork's consent must be applied for and secured. The layout etc. referred in 1.a. above must be agreed prior to application for road works consent; 4. Any gate or doors must open inwards onto the property; 5. All disabled persons parking places should comply with Disabled Persons Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009. The Act places a duty on the local authority to promote proper use of parking places for disabled persons' vehicles. The applicant should therefore advise the Head of Transport if he wishes the bays to be enforced under this legislation. A contribution of £2,000 will be required to progress the necessary traffic order. All disabled persons parking places must comply with Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 regulations or British Standard 8300:2009 as approved by the Head of Planning.

Notes- a) It should noted that there is no current Council budget provision with respect to the 'aspirationial public realm enhancement' works (see Richard Murphy Architects Dwg.AL/02/01, dated 10/12/15). The applicant should be advised that, should you be minded to recommend approval, the granting of planning permission will not commit the Council in any way to contribute to, or carry out, any public realm improvements on Regents Road; b) The Council's Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing Consultation Draft states that tram contributions will be required for change of use. These will be based on the tram contribution for the proposed use, minus the tram contribution based on the use of the existing building. The existing use is understood to be 3,500m2 GFA offices and the proposed use to be a mix of non- residential and residential institution but with a reduced floor area (due to demolition of some parts). This results in a negative sum and therefore it is considered that a tram contribution is not applicable in this case.

Economic Development - response dated 22/12/2015

The following are comments from the City of Edinburgh Council's Economic Development service which relate to the planning application 15/05662/FUL for the adaptive reuse of the former Royal High School as a music school.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 69 of 97 15/05662/FUL

In adherence with Capital Coalition Pledge 17 - Continue efforts to develop the City's gap sites and encourage regeneration the City of Edinburgh Council is committed to supporting development across the city. The Edinburgh 12 initiative was introduced by the Council in 2013 to assist with the progression of developments on strategic gap sites within Edinburgh's city centre. 12 sites were identified as having the greatest economic impact and which could be delivered within the next five years within the city centre. The former Royal High School is one of these sites. It is estimated that the Edinburgh 12 could collectively directly support over 18,000 full-time equivalent end use jobs upon completion.

Commentary on existing uses The site in question is currently occupied by the former Royal High School (FRHS), an A-listed former secondary school. The FRHS constitutes a complex of seven buildings five listed 19th century buildings and two unlisted 20th century buildings (along with boundary walls, gateposts, railings and a belvedere tower, all of which are also listed):

1) The 1825 Hamilton Building (net internal area estimated at 1,831m2); 2) The 1825 West Pavilion (NIA 72m2); 3) The 1825 East Pavilion (NIA 72m2); 4) The 1885 Gate Lodge to the far west of the Hamilton Building (NIA 62m2); 5) The 1894 Gymnasium Block northeast of the Hamilton Building (NIA 649m2); 6) The 1924 Luncheon Hall southeast of the Hamilton Building (NIA 216m2); and 7) The 1946 Classroom Block west of the Hamilton Building (NIA 126m2).

The FRHS was designed by Thomas Hamilton in the Greek Revival style and originally built between 1825 and 1829. It is frequently cited as a leading example of Scottish Greek Revival architecture and as an important element of Edinburgh's World Heritage Site. The building occupies a prominent location at the base of Calton Hill below the National Monument. The building was listed in 1966. Works undertaken in the late 1970s saw many of the original interior elements altered or removed.

The Royal High School relocated to a new building in 1968, leaving the building empty. In the late 1970s, extensive internal works were undertaken to convert the school into a debating chamber for the proposed Scottish Assembly. Edinburgh District Council resumed ownership of the FRHS in 1993. Thereafter, a number of uses for the building were mooted, including a civic building; a sixth form college; a museum; a music conservatoire; and a boutique cinema. None of the proposals materialised, with a recurring theme being a requirement for a large upfront capital grant and ongoing public sector financial support. The FRHS was utilised intermittently by the Council as office space until being largely mothballed in 2010 as a cost reduction exercise. The FRHS is currently in a state of dilapidation with erosion of the stonework and vegetation growth to the exterior and water damage to the interior as a result of roof leaks. This reflects in part the extensive energy, maintenance and security costs associated with the building (approximately £250,000 per annum), leaving limited budget for major repair works. The Gate Lodge is currently occupied by the Council, supporting a negligible number of jobs, while the other buildings are vacant. The

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 70 of 97 15/05662/FUL property agent DTZ has advised that all buildings other than the Gate Lodge are not fit for occupation due to their condition.

The FRHS complex is located on Regent Road, placing it within Edinburgh city centre. As set out in the Strategic Development Plan for South East Scotland, Edinburgh city centre performs a broad range of regional and national functions including shopping, office, leisure, culture, tourism and government and is the principal city centre for South East Scotland. The Princes Street Development Brief for Block 10 states that "the block has the potential to deliver a cultural and visitor destination and become a key connection between the existing and emerging developments within the Old Town and the St James Quarter. The retail and leisure offering of the city centre to the east of Princes Street is sporadic, with major breaks in the active frontage at Regent's Bridge and the Old Calton Burial Ground wall. At present, the offering comes to an abrupt end at Howies Restaurant at the eastern extent of Waterloo Place, with no clear demarcation of the end of the city centre and nothing to draw footfall onward. As identified in the Princes Street Development Brief for Block 10, Regent Road is an underutilised area of the city centre. Calton Hill, Jacob's Ladder, and the New Calton Burial Ground are unwelcoming environments prone to antisocial behaviour. The area is generally in need of an asset that will draw additional footfall to the area (particularly in the evening) and catalyse further regeneration.

Commentary on proposed uses The applicant the Royal High School Preservation Trust proposes to convert the former Royal High School into a music school. It is proposed that the school would be operated by the St Mary's Music School, which currently occupies premises at 25 Grosvenor Crescent, Edinburgh with a roll of 83 students 49 day and 34 boarding). The music school would provide education facilities along with residential facilities for staff and pupils and three performance spaces. The Hamilton Building, East and West Pavilions and Gate Lodge would be retained and restored, albeit with extensive renovation of the interiors (to include the restoration of "as much as is possible" of the original features removed in the 1970s). A portion of the South Terrace wall of the Hamilton Building would be removed to create a new entrance at ground level. The Classroom Block, Luncheon Hall and Gymnasium Block would be removed and replaced with a new building containing classrooms, practice rooms and student bedrooms. The grounds of the FRHS would be extensively landscaped.

The application has been made speculatively, with the applicant possessing no material interest in the site; as a result, the prospective timescale for delivery of the proposals is unclear.

The application suggests that the development as proposed complies with the Development Brief for Princes Street Block 10. The vision for the block as set out in the brief is for a world class visitor destination set within a high quality public realm with key linkages to Calton Hill, Princes Street and the Old Town. The development principles states that proposals should provide a range of uses, such as cultural, visitor and leisure uses" and deliver "improved accessibility to the campus and main building. While it is recognised that there are public-facing elements of the development, it is uncertain whether a music school can genuinely be considered a visitor destination.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 71 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Class 8 Residential Institution The proposed development would deliver bedrooms for 70 students boarding at the school (24 single, 20 twin, and two triple), along with a dining room, sitting room, and kitchen facilities.

This represents an increase of 36 bedrooms on the School's existing building. As it can be assumed that boarders will typically live outwith Edinburgh, this could be expected to bring a small amount of additional expenditure to Edinburgh during term time via additional spending by pupils in the local economy on recreation, dining out, clothes, etc. The scale of this expenditure is challenging to quantify but is unlikely to be significant.

St Mary's Music School currently rents out 40 bedrooms in the months of July and August and the application indicates that the bedrooms in the development would similarly be rented out. The development could provide approximately 4,340 bed-nights of visitor accommodation per annum. Given an average occupancy rate in Edinburgh of approximately 80%, this would represent 3,472 additional visitor nights in Edinburgh. Daily visitor expenditure in Edinburgh averages £93. This suggests the development could support an additional £0.15 million of visitor expenditure in Edinburgh each year (£0.32 million, less the £0.17 million currently supported). This could be expected to (directly and indirectly) support approximately 2 new jobs and £0.07 million of gross value added per annum (2013 prices) in tourism-related sectors in Edinburgh.

Class 10 Non Residential Institutions The proposed development would deliver a music school. This would comprise 41 teaching rooms/classrooms/etc and 23 practice rooms, along with a recording suite, common room and offices/administrative space.

Data from the Scottish Council of Independent Schools indicates that independent schools on Scotland employ on average one member of staff for every 4.1 pupils. A review of the St Mary's Music School prospectus indicates that it employs approximately 79 members of staff (a 1:1 staff to student ratio). Multiplier effects could be expected to support a further 21 jobs across Scotland, giving a total employment impact of 100 jobs. Based on average levels of productivity for employees in the "education, human health and social work activities", this could be expected to directly support gross value added of £1.42 million, along with a further £0.59 million through multiplier effects, giving a total economic impact of £2.01 million of gross value added per annum (2013 prices).

A key consideration is the extent to which this impact would be displaced from elsewhere in Edinburgh. The applicant's submission suggests that the St Mary's Music School would simply be relocated from Grosvenor Crescent to Regent Road, meaning there would be no overall increase in economic output. However, it is noted that the application refers to the School having outgrown its present location and suggests that the School could use the new premises to expand to 120 pupils. This could be expected to deliver an increase in the employment and output of the School of approximately 50%. This would equate to 50 new jobs and an additional £1.00 million of gross value added per annum (2013 prices). Given the specialised nature of the School it is assumed there will be limited displacement from elsewhere in Scotland.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 72 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Class 11 Assembly & Leisure The proposed development would deliver a 250-seat concert hall in the central chamber of the Hamilton Building and a smaller performance space to the west. The West Pavilion would also be converted into a function room, while the garden created in the former western playground would be available for outdoor events.

The application suggests that the spaces could be used by organisations such as the National Youth Choirs of Scotland, National Youth Orchestra of Scotland, and National Youth Orchestra of Great Britain, along with visiting youth music groups, small-scale choral music and Edinburgh Festival acts. This space could therefore help contribute to the shortage of creative space in Edinburgh.

The application refers to the spaces hosting "evening concerts in term-time. It is suggested that there may be some practical challenges associated with regularly hosting evening events within a boarding school, particularly if the venue is licensed. The performance spaces could potentially attract additional visitors to Edinburgh. To more robustly assess this, it would be necessary to understand how frequently events would be held and to what extent the performances would reasonably be expected to attract visitors to the city.

The proposed development would also deliver a bar within the foyer level of the Hamilton Building. It is unclear whether this would be permanently staffed.

SUMMARY RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION It is calculated that the development could directly and indirectly support a total of 52 new jobs and an additional £1.07 million of gross value added per annum (2013 prices) by enabling St Mary's Music School to expand its pupil roll and hire out additional bedrooms during the summer vacation. There could potentially be additional impacts associated with increased expenditure by boarders in the local economy; expenditure in the local area by people visiting Edinburgh to attend performances being held within the development; and employment within the leisure elements of the development.

As highlighted in the Princes Street Development Brief for Block 10, the FRHS is located in an underutilised area of Edinburgh prone to antisocial behaviour, presenting a requirement for a "world class visitor destination to enliven and animate the area. It is unclear to what extent the development would fulfil this requirement. While it is recognised that the development would incorporate performance space open to members of the public, it is not specified how intensively this space would be utilised; there is therefore a lack of clarity as to how frequently the building will be accessible to the public. There are also uncertainties around whether a licensed performance venue could practically routinely operate within a boarding school during term time. It is suggested that it would be useful to have greater clarity on how the performance space would operate to help determine whether it would deliver the increase in vitality needed.

Economic Development - Addendum received 1/7/16 In June 2016, BOP Consulting published an 'Impact Statement' for the development on behalf of the applicant. This addendum reviews the elements of the impact statement pertaining to the projected economic impact of the development.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 73 of 97 15/05662/FUL

The impact statement suggests that the development could directly and indirectly support between 35 and 49 new jobs and £0.70 million and £1.11 million of gross value added per annum. These figures are of a similar magnitude to those independently arrived at by the City Strategy and Economy service and are considered to be realistic.

Additionally, the impact statement suggests that the development would represent £38.5 million of capital expenditure. This could be expected to directly and indirectly support a total of 272 jobs and £19.6 million of gross value added over the duration of the construction period.

Scottish Natural Heritage

The proposed development is situated in a sensitive location adjacent to Calton Hill, which is an important and prominent landform and an iconic landmark within the City of Edinburgh.

It is also adjacent to one section of the Arthurs Seat Volcano Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), notified in part for Carboniferous - Permian Igneous geology. We strongly support the production of a rock extraction management plan, and advise that if the mitigation regarding this, set out within the Environmental Statement and outlined below, is taken forward, then these interests will not be affected by the proposal. It is for the planning authority to determine, within the context of your own policies, whether planning conditions are necessary to secure this mitigation.

Background Calton Hill, as an important context for the proposed development, is characterised by its rugged natural form of exposed rock, gorse and tree cover, juxtaposed with buildings and monuments which fringe the hill and punctuate its summit. Within this context the application site occupies an important position on the southern platform of the hill, with the hill and the site itself offering spectacular views of the city centre and other key landscapes within the city and beyond. The hill has a particularly strong physical relationship to Arthur's Seat and Salisbury Crags, which are related geological features. The value of the hill is widely recognised in the multiple designations that apply to the hill and its immediate surroundings.

At the scoping stage, we advised that due to the location of the development site immediately adjacent to the Arthurs Seat Volcano SSSI, geology should be 'scoped in' to the Environmental Impact Assessment. We considered that the level of detail provided within the scoping report was not sufficient to conclude that the risk of damage to the geological features of the SSSI would be avoided. The applicant did not alter their decision regarding the scope of the assessment; however the level of information provided within general chapters of the ES is sufficient to enable us to complete our appraisal.

Advice to Council:

Geology Volume 2 Chapter 8 of the ES, the 'Schedule of Mitigation', states that the exact measures to be included within the Construction and Demolition Environmental Management Plan (CDEMP) would be subject to agreement with the City of Edinburgh

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 74 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Council and other consultees, and such agreement would be ensured by appropriately worded planning conditions. We therefore recommend that the following is included as a planning condition in any planning permission granted:

A Rock Extraction Management Plan must be drawn up and included within the CDEMP to mitigate any effects which may arise from rock extraction on the Arthurs Seat Volcano SSSI.

As noted in section 8.1.4, this should include consultation with specialists and stakeholders, including the British Geological Survey (BGS) and SNH, to establish a preferred method and for the monitoring and recording of the work. The ES Technical Appendix 2.1, the Draft CDEMP, section 2.2.3 'Substructure' contains a Working strategy for rock excavation' which we advise should be adhered to in order to ensure that the natural heritage interests of national importance adjacent to the site will not be affected by the proposal.

We wish to continue to be consulted regarding the outcomes of any assessments and potential impacts of rock extraction. There may be positive or negative implications for the SSSI rock exposures, so it is important that dialogue continues as the development progresses. We welcome the involvement of the BGS in observing and recording temporary rock exposure during excavation, and we are pleased to note the potential to incorporate an element of interpretation where it is possible to retain new exposures, or where features of interest are found and documented (ES Vol. 2 - 2.6.23).

Landscape We note and broadly agree with the findings of the ES, as set out in the Townscape, Landscape and Visual assessment, that activity at the site will be most notable during the demolition and construction phases. During the demolition and construction works large machinery / cranes will appear visible against and breaking the skyline of Calton Hill. However, we agree that these effects are temporary and reversible in nature, and that most of the work will only be visible within a short range. Once construction is complete, the low elevation of the proposed new building and its location behind the Hamilton Building is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the existing landscape character of Calton hill, or the views towards or from the landform. However, given the changes proposed for this sensitive site we would advise that methods of securing tree protection and new planting as landscape mitigation within the site are secured, and that detailed consideration is given to matters put forward in the night time lighting strategy.

Ecology Based on the results of the ecological survey detailed in the Ecology Report (Technical Appendix, section 2.3), we are content with the stated requirement for pre-construction surveys detailed in the draft CDEMP section 3.5.6.

Scottish Natural Heritage - comments dated 27/4/16 (Re: Supplementary environmental Information) Scottish Natural Heritage has no further comment to make at this stage.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 75 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Historic Environment Scotland

Your council has consulted us in regard to 3 separate consultations for St Mary's Music School's proposal, namely: 15/05662/FUL, the planning application regarding setting of various assets; then 15/05665/LBC, the listed building consent; and finally, 15/05662/FUL, the Environmental Impact Assessment. For clarity and ease of reference we enclose a consolidated single response.

Historic Environment Scotland has reviewed your consultation, and we consider the proposals do not raise issues of national significance, so we can confirm that we do not object. While we do not object, we do, however, have detailed comments on the applications which are provided the enclosed Annex which your Council should take into account under the terms of Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.

Annex This consolidated response addresses the 3 consultations sequentially, as follows: 15/05662/FUL - the planning application regarding setting of various assets; 15/05665/LBC - the listed building consent 15/05662/FUL - the Environmental Impact Assessment. 15/05662/FUL - (DMPR) Planning Permission The following comments address your council's request to consider the possible impacts of the proposed development on the following:

Setting of Category A Listed buildings: - Old Royal High School - St Andrew's House - Regent Terrace - Burns' Monument - Monuments on Calton Hill - Setting of Scheduled Monuments: Holyrood Palace, Abbey and Gardens - New Town Gardens: Historic Gardens/ Designed Landscape - Inventory Site (Calton Hill and Holyrood Palace Gardens and Regent Terrace Gardens) - Outstanding Universal Value ('OUV') of Edinburgh Old and New Towns World Heritage Site ('WHS')

The Royal High School The proposed new teaching/accommodation block on the eastern portion of the site has been designed to sit low within the majority of the eastern area, its stepped massing and form taking its design cue from the natural topography of the hill. The inclusion of planting and green roofs anchor the building into its wider landscape context, giving it a recessive foil in contrast with the powerful classical language of the main Thomas Hamilton-designed building (including its pavilions, 'sub-structure', staircases, walls and railings, etc) (henceforth 'the Hamilton building'). We note that the proposed development would be lower than the existing gymnasium block which currently occupies the site.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 76 of 97 15/05662/FUL

The development also proposes a new practice room range to the north / 'rear' of the Hamilton building. In preliminary discussions with your council and the applicant's agents in November 2015, it was noted that this area of the site was sensitive to change, and presented challenges in terms of any development appropriately addressing its setting and character. Whilst we recognise this area is the 'rear' of the Hamilton building, it is nonetheless highly significant, not only because of its careful detail and articulation, but also because it is historically the main entrance to the building, and articulated accordingly. There is a clear visual progression of sequences from the gate piers and gates at Regent Road to the gate lodge, moving to the main building where the rear elevation slowly reveals itself.

We remain concerned in regard to the potentially adverse impact this proposed building may have on the setting of the Hamilton building. As currently designed, this proposed new building would prevent the north façade being read coherently, with octagonal pavilions introducing an uncharacteristic series of interlocking spaces. Development here would also prevent the creation of an open communal space, a 'breathing space' for the north side, enclosed as it is by the original retaining wall and over-sailing green space of Calton Hill above it.

An options appraisal was made available to us following our initial comments in November 2015, whereupon a joint Council / HES response was issued back to the agent's Design Team. We are therefore disappointed that the design has reverted back to the previous concept which did not receive strong support. We believe there could be real merit and scope in your council re-opening a dialogue with the agent's Design Team on this issue. This is borne out by the previous discussions which demonstrated that the practice rooms can be absorbed into the teaching/ accommodation block on the east of the site without unduly unbalancing the design, appearance, and, importantly, the height of the proposed development. Historic Environment Scotland would welcome being part of any future discussions regarding this area of the site.

The New Town Gardens Inventory Designed Landscape The Royal High School is located on the southern flank of Calton Hill, which forms a significant and visually prominent element of The New Town Gardens Inventory designed landscape. It has outstanding historical, architectural and scenic value as well as outstanding value as a work of art.

We consider the proposals would maintain the carefully-planned setting and relationship between the hill and the former school complex. As previously noted, the teaching and accommodation block sits low within the site. Its stepped massing takes its design cue from the natural topography of the hill. The inclusion of planting and green roofs further anchors the building into its wider landscape context. The demolition of the later classroom block behind the lodge would return this area of the site to its open aspect as envisaged by Hamilton. The proposed landscaping, whilst bold and contemporary, respects the setting of the hill. Calton Hill is prominent and visible from a wide range of locations, its monuments giving it emphasis and a characteristic form. The proposed development, due to its design, massing and materials, would not have an adverse impact on the series of important views of Calton Hill. Furthermore, the uncovering of the impressive original Hamilton-designed retaining wall with terminating Belvedere will bring significant benefit to the wider city views of Calton Hill and its iconic picturesque composition.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 77 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Setting of other Category A Listed buildings We consider that the proposals would not have an adverse impact on any of the following Category A-listed buildings/ structures - St Andrew's House, Monuments on Calton Hill, Burns Monument. Similarly, they would not have an adverse impact on the Royal Park or Holyrood Palace, Abbey and Gardens, a Scheduled Monument.

World Heritage Site Both the former Royal High School and Calton Hill have great importance within the Old and New Towns of Edinburgh World Heritage Site. The former school is also within the New Town Conservation Area whose Conservation Area Character Appraisal identifies it as an integral component within the ensemble of monuments and buildings on Calton Hill. The Management Plan recognises the 'dramatic topography' of Calton Hill and its 'collection of nationally important monuments'. It also notes the care taken to maximise 'long views and the picturesque quality of the site' in its original early nineteenth century development. We consider the proposals, due to their design, massing, and materials, would maintain the carefully-planned setting and relationship between the hill and the former school.

15/05665/LBC Listed Buildings Consent The international importance of Category A, listed Thomas Hamilton's Royal High School is undisputed. It is arguably the most significant and accomplished Greek Revival building in the UK, and has claims to be amongst the finest on a worldwide stage.

This proposal represents varying degrees of impact and change on the site, ranging from sensitive repair to demolition. The Design Access Statement notes the intent of the proposals to provide a new home for St Mary's Music School, including the formation of a new performance space in the main hall. This is supplemented by the Conservation Statement: December 2015 which identifies a hierarchy of significance to the various elements of the Hamilton building and site at large. In a section titled 'Strategy, Resolution and Vision' (p.81) it affirms 'A firm resolution to act in a conservation-led way should be set out to ensure the principles of 'informed conservation' are key elements of its future'.

As noted above, the applicant proposes to adapt the main hall (currently laid out as a debating chamber) to a publically accessible performance space. This proposed new use brings with it a number of challenges, particularly in terms of adequate access and circulation. To alleviate the applicant's perceived tension of using the existing access arrangement to the main hall, particularly in regard to the sensitive functions of the school, it is proposed to create a new entrance set beneath the portico. Associated works including the formation of a large subterranean foyer, new staircases and full DDA compliance is proposed to support this new use. Given the extensive nature of these proposals there are a number of points to consider.

External works We note that the railings which run along the retaining wall are proposed to be removed. Although the railings may not appear in Hamilton's known artistic visions for the Royal High School, they do appear original to the building's construction and appear in a calotype image of 1843. As they are rare survivals, presumably original; and of both architectural and historic significance, the presumption should be to retain them. Their removal would also seem to be at odds with Policy 18 of the Simpson and

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 78 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Brown Conservation Statement: December 2015 to retain and restore all railings and lamps.

New entrance and access from Regent Road We welcome the re-use of the pylon gatehouses on Regent Road which will provide suitably impressive entry points into the building. It is acknowledged that the original circulation route here is convoluted, and was never intended for day-to-day use, instead, inspired by Grecian ceremonial ideals. As a way to rationalise the complex access route, the design team proposes to create a terrace behind the central retaining wall. This would provide an access point into a new foyer underneath the entrance hall. The main intervention here is the proposed formation of a wide entrance into the building below the portico. The information supplied suggests that the new entrance and terrace would be masked by the retaining wall and would not be visible from Regent Road. Further assurances on this may be useful. Besides the visibility, the extent of historic fabric proposed for removal is of concern. It may be beneficial to have further dialogue regarding the dimensions of the opening or whether a stone pier is retained. The expansive width supported by a prominent steel beam is a radical architectural and structural treatment, and there may be scope to retain the facing of the original stone to cover the steel. This could bring the stone level neatly down to the existing plinth in this position and reduce further any potential views of the opening.

Once entering through the new opening, a large undercroft is designed to house a new foyer supporting the concert hall. In order to create this expansive new space, considerable ground/ rock excavation will need to be carried out. There will also be considerable loss of many of Hamilton's original, and characterful, network of passages and stone vaulting. In regard to the methodology and works to excavate a significant amount of ground, including bedrock, the applicant will need to convince your council that this structural work can be carried out without causing damage to the building. In addition, any of Hamilton's structural work that can be retained will be welcome.

The principle of this substantial re-working is justified by the applicant in terms of the significant benefits they identify the proposals will bring to the site at large, particularly in terms of the conservation-led reinstatement works, and the proposed sustainable re- use of the site. Furthermore, we are asked to take into account the cultural gain of promoting the principal parts of the building as being accessible to the public as a series of performance spaces with a dedicated new entrance and foyer accessed from Regent Road.

Works to main hall The main hall is the most important space within the building, one that was at the heart of the school throughout its history. We therefore welcome that it is proposed to reuse this space as a dynamic cultural hub which will be publicly accessible. It is also within this space that the applicant proposes significant conservation work, including returning key architectural and decorative features. The re-opening of the portico door, recreation of the Greek ceremonial doorpiece, return to original configuration of balconies and stairs, and re-instatement of missing decorative features from the ceiling are all to be greatly welcomed. However, further consideration and dialogue should be continued regarding the cast iron balcony supports. We note it is proposed to replace them with console brackets that Hamilton showed on early drawings. Although elegant and appropriate, without knowing why Hamilton did not proceed with the brackets, the presumption should be to retain an original feature of the building he oversaw.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 79 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Works to portico It is proposed to remove the entire floor of the portico and replace it with fritted glass. The design rationale for this is to allow daylight into the subterranean entrance space and add interest allowing a view upwards to the coffered pediment ceiling. The applicant's statement of significance identifies the entire portico as outstanding. The character of a portico is something solid, robust and self-contained, and we would argue that the entire removal of its fine Craigleith stone flooring is inappropriate and should be opposed. There may be an opportunity to introduce a number of discreet light wells within the floor, giving permeability and light, whilst respecting the appearance and character of the portico. However, the daylighting achieved from under the portico may be overestimated and a better option may be to leave the portico alone and provide artificial lighting to the subterranean space instead. We recognise there will be the need for barrier protection at this level. Although glass has benefits, it will inevitably draw the eye as an alien feature under the south-facing portico. There may be scope to investigate less immediately-visible alternatives such as tensioned wire or railings.

Internal works elsewhere The majority of proposals for internal works to the former teaching wings and former library/ masters' room recommend re-instatement of lost fixtures and features, which is to be welcomed. Where this is not feasible or valid due to previous insensitive intervention, appropriate and mindful re-configuration and adaption of spaces are proposed. We do not object to the replacement of the later PSA stairs.

The refurbishment of the eastern and western wings and their reuse as teaching/ office facilities has negligible impact to the exterior. The only external change of any degree connected with these is the proposal to lower the eastern wing's northern ground floor window to a door. Further details of this would be useful but hopefully the fanlight can be retained. The rationale for this is to give connectivity from the reconfigured refectory housed in the basement/ ground floor of the Thomas Hamilton wing to the residential bedrooms of the school pupils. There are a number of minor internal adoptions proposed to the pavilions. However, it is understood that these buildings have undergone a number of internal changes, for instance the western pavilion was used as a swimming pool. As with the main building there are no external changes proposed which would cause us concern.

Demolition: Gymnasium / Classroom block and Luncheon block We believe that the level of information contained within the applicant's Planning Statement broadly meets the criteria for demolition of the above listed buildings. Throughout our consideration of the proposals for the building we have noted and understood the considerable costs or repair and reuse for the main focus of the listing - the Hamilton Building. We have therefore taken the view that the demolition of the above ancillary buildings (primarily the Gymnasium) covered by the overall listing may be acceptable provided it facilitated a conservation-based solution for the main building and its important setting. The scheme offers the welcome repair and reuse of the main Hamilton building together with the sensitive redevelopment of the footprints the above buildings occupy - and on the western playground removes a later building reinstating the historic relationship between lodge and school and retaining wall.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 80 of 97 15/05662/FUL

15/05662/FUL Environmental Impact Assessment - Environmental Statement

General comments The assessment of impacts in the ES is complex, which is inevitable given that there are a large number of designations covering this site. However, we do have some concerns with the level of information provided in the assessment. This mainly relates to the treatment of the issue of 'setting' and impacts on the world heritage (WHS) site and New Town Gardens GDL in the cultural heritage chapter. We also have some concerns with the methodology used in the Townscape and Visual chapter and the treatment of heritage assets within the assessment. These issues are discussed below. We note the description of potential alternative uses for the site and design options set out in chapter 3.

Cultural Heritage General comments: We welcome the inclusion within the ES of an assessment of the effects of the proposed development on cultural heritage. We note the inclusion of a conservation plan in technical appendix 5.1 and the assessment criteria as set out in paragraphs 5.3.6 - 5.3.11 and tables 5.1 - 5.4; and we note that paragraph 5.4.4 states that designations are described in detail in Technical Appendix 1.3. However, this amounts to a list of the various designations present on the site, with no discussion of their contribution to the character of the site and its setting. The New Town Gardens GDL is missing from this list and we note that there is no assessment of impacts on this heritage asset within this chapter.

Assessment of impacts Direct impacts: We note the conclusions reached for the effects of demolition, alteration of the listed buildings within the site and the existing landscaping, construction and operational effects. On the whole we agree with the direct effects identified for the demolition works in this chapter.

Impacts on setting: Comments in Table 1.3.1 in Technical Appendix 1.3 state that the assessment of impacts on setting relies on visualisations. Whilst we welcome their provision and acknowledge that they were helpful in understanding the impact of the development, their use in the assessment in this way implies that the issue of setting is primarily a visual issue. Whilst the visual envelope of the asset is relevant, it is not the sole consideration as our 'Managing Change' Guidance clarifies. The applicant's approach leads to some shortcomings within the assessment in section 5.5 of the ES, particularly in relation to the characterisation and analysis of setting which does not appear to be explained. We note that the issue of the setting of the building is touched on at various points in the conservation plan in Technical Appendix 5.1, although these findings are not drawn together.

We also have some concerns about the way in which the effects of the proposed development have been assessed for the Old and New Towns of Edinburgh WHS. It would have been helpful if the impact of the proposals on the Outstanding Universal Value [OUV] of the WHS had been described and assessed instead of focussing on a number of visualisations without explaining their relevance to OUV. We note that the OUV of the WHS is discussed in more detail in the townscape and visual chapter (Chapter 7) although we do not agree that the methodology used in that assessment is necessarily appropriate. Further details on this matter are provided under the relevant heading below.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 81 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Mitigation and residual impacts We note the list of mitigation measures set out in section 5.7 of the ES which have been included as part of the design process for the proposals at this site. We consider that the option being taken forward in the planning application does not fully mitigate the impact of the proposed new practice rooms. Our detailed comments on setting impacts can be found under the relevant heading above. In terms of the assessment of residual impacts of the demolition of the gymnasium, we do not accept that the measures identified in Table 5.5 would alter the level of the impact of demolition such that it changes the overall level of effect.

Townscape and visual assessment General comments: Whilst we welcome the inclusion of a townscape assessment into the Environmental Statement as a way of considering the site in relation to the overall urban environment, we do not consider that this successfully addresses the impact of the development on designated historic environment features. This is principally because we do not agree that the Old and New Towns of Edinburgh WHS and the New Town Gardens GDL should be considered as townscape designations but rather that they should be considered in terms of their cultural heritage significance.

There are also some issues with the methodology used in the assessment. We note that the term 'susceptibility' is explained in Technical Appendix 7.3, Tables 7.3.2 and 7.3.3. We do not agree that it is appropriate to apply a judgement of the susceptibility of an asset to a particular development when considering its sensitivity. For example, the assessment of the demolition of the gymnasium building states in paragraph 7.8.8 that although this building is to be removed, that its susceptibility to the development is 'medium'. In this case, the effect of its demolition would be permanent and adverse. Given the nature of this impact we would prefer to see this acknowledged in the assessment as it has been in the cultural heritage chapter. These issues can also be seen elsewhere in the assessment, such as in paragraphs for the WHS and the New Town Gardens GDL. That said, whilst the assessment raises some issues for our interests, overall we agree with the conclusions reached in the assessment.

Conclusion After careful assessment we consider the St Marys Music School proposals represent a measured reuse of a nationally and internationally important site and building. We welcome not only the proposed restoration and repairs to the listed building(s) on the site, but also the design of the new school accommodation blocks that, by their scale and positioning, firmly retain the primacy of the Hamilton building on the site. We would be happy to be involved in any further discussion over the listed building consent issues we have identified above.

Historic Environment Scotland - Further response 23 May 2016

Historic Environment Scotland have reviewed your consultation, and we consider the proposals do not raise issues of national significance, so we can confirm that we do not object. While we do not object, we do, however, have the following comments which your Council should take into account under the terms of Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 82 of 97 15/05662/FUL

This response should be read in conjunction with our previous consultation response dated 1 February 2016 which comprised of; 15/05662/FUL (Planning application regarding setting of various assets)

15/05665/LBC (Listed Building Consent) 15/05662/FUL (Environmental Impact Assessment) We have the following comments to make on the current consultations, again dealing with the Planning Permission, Listed Building Consent and Environmental Impact Assessment separately.

15/05662/FUL (DMPR) Planning Permission The Royal High School In our letter of 1 February we noted our support for the well-considered design principles for the new teaching/ accommodation wing on the eastern side of the site, particularly in regard to its stepped massing and inclusion of planting. This approach retains and reinforces the primacy of the main listed building and also reveals Hamilton's belvedere.

Following an options appraisal (2015) regarding the location of proposed new work on the site, we asked whether there would be scope to revisit the location of the new practice rooms proposed to the north or rear of the Hamilton Building. We considered that the impact on the setting of the Hamilton building could be improved by keeping this area open and re-siting the rooms elsewhere to the east. We note no change to this element, with the applicant reiterating their view that there are significant benefits to the functionality of the school in siting the rooms here. Whilst we still consider the rooms would be best located elsewhere we do not consider the harm to the setting of the building is significant.

The New Town Gardens Inventory Designed Landscape We would reiterate our comments from our consultation letter of 1 February 2016 (copy attached for ease of reference). Setting of other Category A Listed buildings We would reiterate our comments from our consultation letter of 1 February 2016.

World Heritage Site We would reiterate our comments for our consultation letter of 1 February 2016.

15/05665/LBC Listed Buildings Consent As noted in our previous response to your council, we had particular comments on the detailed treatment of the building. We will focus these comments on the outstanding elements of discussion.

External works We note that it is still proposed to remove the run of original or early railings located on the retaining wall directly underneath the portico. We consider these railings are an important and considered element of the composition and do not believe their removal has been properly justified. We would recommend that the further consideration of this element could be handled by an appropriate LBC condition. We would be happy to be part of any ongoing discussion regarding this matter.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 83 of 97 15/05662/FUL

New entrance from Regent Road As a way to rationalise the complex access route from Regent Road to the main Hamilton building it is proposed to create a terrace behind the central retaining wall with the formation of a wide entrance into the building below the portico. Although the opening is large we understand that this new subterranean public entrance requires a certain scale and vigour, and welcome the design team's confirmation that both the new entrance portal and terrace will be masked by the retaining wall, and will not be visible from Regent Road.

Works to main hall Universally accepted as the most important space within the building, we greatly welcome the proposed wide-ranging conservation works which would re-instate significant lost elements of the original design and appearance of this magnificent hall, including access to the portico.

We note that the applicant has not revised their proposal to remove the cast iron balcony supports and to replace them with console brackets modelled on Hamilton's original design intention. Should their removal be considered acceptable by your Council, we would advise an undertaking to relocate, and ideally reuse, them in a meaningful area of the site. We would be happy to be part of any ongoing discussion regarding this matter.

Works to portico Following on from our previous comments expressing concern regarding the proposed removal of the entire portico floor, and its replacement with fritted glass, we note the substantial revisions to this element of the proposal. It is now proposed to considerably reduce the size of this feature, detailing it as a narrow slit running behind the columns. We welcome this revision.

We accept the need for barrier protection on the reopened portico level. However, the currently proposed use of a glass balustrade will inevitably draw the eye as an alien feature under the highly-visible south-facing portico. We would therefore reiterate our suggestion that there may be scope to investigate less immediately visible alternatives such as tensioned wire or railings. Again this element could usefully form a condition of any listed building consent.

Conclusion The international importance of Category A-listed Thomas Hamilton's Royal High School is undisputed. It is arguably the most significant and accomplished Greek Revival building in the UK, and has claims to be amongst the finest on a worldwide stage.

Although there remains a number of outstanding points not fully addressed in this revised consultation, and whilst we consider there could still be discussion over, or conditioning of, these elements, we would take this opportunity to state that the overarching principles, vision, and design tenets of this application are fully supported and welcomed by Historic Environment Scotland.

The reuse of the site as a school and cultural / arts venue affords significant and meaningful benefits. These include a conservation-led repair of the Thomas Hamilton

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 84 of 97 15/05662/FUL building, restoring the building, and allowing its main assembly space to retain a public and vibrant use.

The proposals also guarantee a sustainable future for the remainder of the site, providing a low-scaled school building to the east whilst keeping the important western playground free of development.

Environmental Impact Assessment

Cultural Heritage chapter We note the revised chapter which has been submitted as part of this consultation and welcome the tracked changes document which was helpful in understanding the amendments made.

Whilst we welcome the changes which have been made to the structure of the chapter to draw out the impact of the proposed development on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the world heritage site (WHS), our comments made in our response of 1 February remain relevant in relation to direct impacts, impacts on setting and the approach to mitigation and residual impacts.

Landscape and Visual Assessment Chapter We note the response to our comments as submitted as Appendix 7 in the addendum. Our comments of 1 February still stand in relation to this assessment and we have nothing further to add.

Network Rail

Whilst Network Rail has no objections in principle to the proposal, due to its close proximity to the Calton Railway Tunnels, we would request that the following matters are taken into account, and if necessary and appropriate included as conditions or advisory notes, if granting the application:

Any demolition or refurbishment works must not be carried out on the development site that may endanger the safe operation of the railway, or the stability of the adjoining Network Rail structures. The demolition of buildings or other structures near to operational railway infrastructure must be carried out in accordance with an agreed method statement. Approval of the method statement must be obtained from Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineer before development can commence.

Construction works must be undertaken in a safe manner which does not disturb the operation of the neighbouring railway. Applicants must be aware of any embankments and supporting structures which are in close proximity to their development.

- Details of all changes in ground levels, laying of foundations/piling works, and operation of mechanical plant in proximity to the Calton Railway Tunnels must be submitted to Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineer for approval prior to works commencing on site. Where any works cannot be carried out in a 'fail- safe' manner, it will be necessary to restrict those works to periods when the railway is closed to rail traffic i.e. by a 'possession' which must be booked via Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineer and are subject to a minimum prior notice period for booking of 20 weeks.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 85 of 97 15/05662/FUL

The developer must contact our Asset Protection Engineers regarding the above matters. We would be grateful if Local Planning Authorities would provide a copy of the Decision Notice.

Police Scotland - Secure by Design

Due to it's positioning, The Old Royal High School site is naturally very secure. With the exception of the main vehicular entrance, the site is surrounded by substantial stone walls and railings, which easily prevent unauthorised access. Having viewed the plans and discussed the development. The following initial comments are offered:

- The proposed public park/garden area at the West end of the site should be locked and secured preventing public access at night. The front of the School building should not be accessible to members of the public from this point - It is noted that while access to the West car park area will be unrestricted, there is an intention to install a barrier/gate beyond the door to the proposed school reception. This will prevent unauthorised access into the heart of the school estate. This gate should be constructed in such a way as to prevent pedestrians from simply slipping by and entering the grounds without authorisation. - The retention of the gate lodge as staff accommodation is fully supported. This will provide valuable natural surveillance over the main entrance and public garden area to the West of the site.

From a child protection perspective, the separation of the performance spaces in the main school building from the day to day St Mary's Music School operations, is fully supported. Patrons attending performances in the performance spaces will enter and leave the building from the front entrances/exits on Regent Road. Access to the music school and boarding accommodation will not be permitted when the main building is being used for external performances.

- It is recommended that consideration be given to the installation of an electronic access control system. A system like this would allow access by use of individual pupil /staff proximity cards. As well as the obvious security benefits in terms of pupil safety and protecting the school estate from intruders, these systems allow the operator to: - Create authorised entry points within specified hours. - Limit access to contractors, visitors or parents. - Restrict access to certain areas for authorised users. - Create easily accessible audit trails to determine the movement of individuals in the event of an incident or fire. - Swiftly replace and de-activate lost access cards. - The extension of the public footway outside the school to the existing centre line of Regent Road is supported. The removal of parking permissions from the North and South carriageways of Regent Road here and the inclusion of Traffic calming measures will create a safer environment for pedestrians, school pupils and patrons of evening performances at the school. Drop off spaces could be created in front of the school building to facilitate drop offs for school pupils and evening performance patrons.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 86 of 97 15/05662/FUL

SEPA

We have no objection to this planning application. We recently commented on a separate application at the proposed site (15/03989/FUL, (Our Ref: PCS/142428). While we offered no objection to that application we did highlight some issues for the attention of the planning authority. Therefore, this response should be read in conjunction with the above referenced letter. If there is any matter which you require any further clarification regarding, please do not hesitate to get in contact.

This advice is given without prejudice to any decision made on elements of the proposal regulated by us, which may take account of factors not considered at the planning application stage.

New Town and Broughton Community Council

We welcome the early engagement and ongoing dialogue with the Royal High School Preservation Trust (RHSPT). The New Town and Broughton Community Council (NTBCC) have had the opportunity for several face to face discussions covering the Royal High School Preservation Trust's aspirations for this building in terms of providing facilities to enable it to be used to re-house St Marys Music School by relocating from Grosvenor Crescent; thereby re-developing the Old Royal High (New Parliament House) into a specialist music school and performance space. Regarding the principle of development, the New Town and Broughton Community Council has looked carefully at the scheme as it has developed and we are very supportive of it in terms of the educational use proposed (preserving its historic legacy) and the proposed conservation-based approach to redevelopment. We support the provision of a publically-accessible performance venue and support the improved public access both to the building but also to the undeveloped western terrace. We are also encouraged by the commitment by the Royal High School Preservation Trust (RHSPT) to ensure that sufficient funds have been committed for both the restoration of the listed building and the creation of world class facilities for the music school. In the longer term, we recognise that the proposed cultural function could generate sufficient revenue to support the upkeep of the building - resulting in a sustainable long term use for this important city asset.

2) NTBCC has always been supportive of a new, sustainable use for the building, given its deteriorating condition. NTBCC recognises and accepts that to accommodate any new use in the listed building, change and alteration on the site will be required. The key determining issue remains is whether the building and the site can accommodate the changes required without detrimental impact on the building, its setting, the wider conservation area and residential amenity.

Overall, NTBCC strongly believe that this proposal does achieve a sensitive adaptation for this building. We believe that the proposed design is fully consistent with the aims and policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan and the proposed Second Local Development Plan which seek to preserve, protect and promote Edinburgh's built heritage whilst allowing and encouraging continued development.

We believe that the proposal is acceptable in terms of the planning authority's policies covering Design Quality (Des 1), and the impact on local amenity (Des 11) whilst ensuring as far as possible that the relevant conservation policies are upheld. The

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 87 of 97 15/05662/FUL proposed low level design - continuing the horizontality of Hamilton's design, achieves the goals of a functioning school. The proposed new buildings - being lower than the buildings proposed for demolition - in our view, do not detract from the principal building but reinforces the primacy of the Hamilton building. The proposed interventions, whilst being modern and contemporary, sensitively achieve a workable access solution to ensure the future reuse of the building.

3) NTBCC supports the assertion made by the applicant regarding the Development Brief for Princes Street Block 10 This brief states that 'the block has the potential to deliver a cultural and visitor destination and become a key connection between the existing and emerging developments within the Old Town and the St James Quarter'. At present, there is a distinct break at the eastern extent of Waterloo Place with little to draw footfall further eastwards. Regent Road and the environs of the Old Royal High School (ORHS) is an underutilised area of the city centre and especially at night, is an unwelcoming environment prone to antisocial behaviour.

NTBCC agree with applicant's assertion that the development as proposed complies with the Development Brief for Princes Street Block 10. The vision for the block as set out in the brief is for a 'world class visitor destination set within a high quality public realm with key linkages to Calton Hill, Princes Street and the Old Town'. The development principles states that proposals should 'provide a range of uses, such as cultural, visitor and leisure uses' and deliver 'improved accessibility to the campus and main building'.

NTBCC believe that this proposal 'will contribute significantly to the facilities and amenity of the city centre' for both local residents and visitors to the city centre by ensuring significant, all year round, publically -accessible events in addition to the music school

4) Generally, from a Listed Building standpoint, the level of intervention proposed on the key south-facing façade is minimal, and the proposed alterations would add value to the structure and overhaul its setting fit for modern schooling and cultural events. Further comments on this have been submitted in our representation on the associated Listed Building Consent application (15/05662/LBC).

Of particular relevance is the aspiration to maximise public performances as they can be more easily accessed without disruption on the normal activities of the Music School. The proposed're-orientation' of the building with access to the front brings new life to this building and potentially to Regent Road without compromising the façade of the building.

5) NTBCC does not object to the proposed demolition of some buildings within the Old Royal High School site, including the gymnasium. Arguably the present Gymnasium block to the east does to some degree diminish both the setting and the focus of the main Thomas Hamilton building. ON balance, we believe that this is an acceptable price to pay to bring the Hamilton building back into use as a school and a public performance venue which would enable the people of Edinburgh (and visitors to Edinburgh) to be able to regularly access the main hall for the first time since its inception and appreciate the wonderful architecture and setting, consistent with the SHEP tests ( as 'the demolition of the building is essential to delivering significant benefits to economic growth or the wider community').

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 88 of 97 15/05662/FUL

We had objected to the proposed demolition of the entrance lodge in our representation to applications 15/03989/FUL & 15/03990/LBC as, although the lodge building is a later addition, its demolition did not meet any of the required SHEP tests. We therefore support retention of this and welcome that a new viable, economic use has been found - preserving the viewpoint from Waterloo Place towards Calton Hill. As noted by Police Scotland, this will also provide valuable natural surveillance over the main entrance and public garden area to the West of the site - which is to be welcomed.

6) The proposed education and accommodation extension is clearly necessary to ensure that the overall Music School proposal is viable. The proposed addition does not, in our opinion, detrimentally impact the setting. It takes advantage of the site's existing topography and will be largely out of sight when viewed from Regent Road. Furthermore, the developer has chosen to replicate the existing symmetry of the main Hamilton building, as the plans are near invisible from outside the boundary. In common with the statement by the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel, NTBCC support the proposed use of green roofs to the new buildings to allow for their effective reconciliation with the setting of the Hamilton building and Calton Hill.

7) NTBCC welcome the approach proposed for the western playground and the landscaped spaces on the site; previous concerns relating to the development including the potential loss of the playground and railings have been alleviated.

8) We note that as far as we are aware, there is no provision for parking on the developed site. We also note the comment in the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel report which stated that 'the project team were anxious that this should be discouraged and a reduced parking provision would be feasible given the accessibility of the site'. Although we believe that the requirements for parking should be minimal and we support the desire to minimise the amount of parking on the site, we would encourage the Planning Officer to explore this aspect further with the applicant and carefully integrated any requirements for parking e.g. by school staff etc. into the design.

9) We support the applicant's aspirations for public realm improvements. NTBCC believe that the public realm to the front of the building needs to be addressed as part of the project. It is stated that the project team would seek support from Edinburgh Council to enhance the accessibility and associated public realm including Regent Road. Regent Road does not serve the building well and the area to the front of the building needs to be re-energised., particularly the treatment of the road which would benefit from removal of the central railings and may benefit from traffic calming measures. The project team have stated that the creation of a more open environment would be integral part of returning the building to public use. However, the exact mechanism for achieving these improvements to the wider public realm is not clear at this stage. We would encourage the applicant to further liaise with relevant Council department to coordinate and manage these improvements to ensure that maximum benefit is obtained from this proposal.

In summary, NTBCC support the proposals put forward which offer not only a world class music school bringing additional talent and culture to Edinburgh, but also a public performance space which could provide a concert venue for musical events across the spectrum as well as and an available space for a wide variety of other events. These uses will make a significant contribution to the economic success and viability (with the associated increase in Edinburgh's GDP) through their use.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 89 of 97 15/05662/FUL

NTBCC believe that the proposed school and concert venue constitutes an appropriate and suitable use for the building and the site, and meets the council's objectives as they are contained in the Princes Street Block 10 Development Brief of 2008. This proposal will significantly enhance the amenity of this currently under-utilised and forgotten area for the residents of Edinburgh, but also attract a many new visitors to this area of the city, consistent with Edinburgh Council's development policies.

NTBCC believe that this proposal is considerably more appropriate than other recent applications due to its sympathetic reuse and complimentary redevelopment of the main Royal High building and its current setting. We support this application which provides a tangible and viable opportunity to protect and enhance this important city asset and secure a sustainable and long term future for this site.

Edinburgh Urban Design Panel Report - 28 October 2015

The proposal for review is the restoration and adaptation of the former Royal High School site at Regent Road, Edinburgh. The Panel welcomed the opportunity to review the proposal at this early stage of the design process. The Panel unanimously supported the general design strategy and approach, particularly that relating to the proposed use and adaptation of the original Hamilton building. It is noted that the designs are at an early stage of development, and recommendations are made in developing detailed proposals in relation to the new build elements to the rear and eastern parts of the site, the landscape setting of the proposed development in relation to Calton Hill, the integration of parking and design of public realm enhancements to Regent Road.

Main Report

1. Introduction 1.1 The application site is the former Royal High School with its grounds and ancillary buildings. The site occupies a prominent, elevated position on the north side of Regent Road on Calton Hill.

1.2 The primary building is category 'A' listed, and was designed by Thomas Hamilton, in 1825-1829. It is composed of a symmetrical of 'the principal Doric temple-pavilion, with flanking colonnades and subsidiary temples'. The listed building group, all category 'A' also includes a gate lodge on the north west side of the site (built in 1885) and a classical style, and a classroom block (built 1894) to the north east of the main building. The northern boundary of the former school grounds is bounded by a deep retaining wall which is also listed. This wall runs alongside the public walkway on Calton Hill, part of which is included in the site area. An area of informal landscaping, including small trees and shrubs, is located at the western end of the site next to the entrance to the old school and the walkway to Calton Hill. Edinburgh Urban Design Panel Report - The Old Royal High School - 28 October 2015 1.3 The site is located in the New Town Conservation Area on the edge of the Old Town Conservation Area and within the Edinburgh World Heritage Site.

1.4 The site and its surroundings are affected by a number of other designations. Calton Hill is a Site of Special Scientific Interest and is included in the Historic Scotland Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes. It contains a collection of

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 90 of 97 15/05662/FUL monuments, including the category 'A' listed, National Monument, Observatory and the Stewart monument designed by William Play air and the Robert Burns monument, designed by Thomas Hamilton. The category A listed Royal Terrace is situated immediately to the east of the site and the category A listed, St Andrews House is located to the south east, on the opposite site of Regent Road.

1.5 The site is located in the Central Area in both the Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP) and Second Proposed Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP).

1.6 This proposal envisages the restoration and adaptation of the site to provide a new home for the St Mary's Music School. This would allow for expansion of the school to 120 students and also include residential boarding facilities.

1.7 The original Hamilton building would be converted into a series of three music performance spaces contained within the principal rooms, these being served by a new foyer and staircases at the lower level of the building. School accommodation, including classroom, dining room and offices would be placed within the eastern and western wings of the building. The performance spaces, which would include a concert hall, would be accessible to the public and serve as a new cultural venue.

1.8 The proposal envisages that the existing classroom to the west of the original Hamilton building, and Gymnasium and Lunch blocks lying to the east would be demolished. These buildings are covered by the category 'A' listing and must be subject SHEP test to justify their demolition.

1.9 A largely single storey linear block with octagonal pavilion elements would be placed to the rear of the primary building. This would contain a series of small rooms for individual teaching and connect with an academic wing located to the eastern part of the site. This would be arranged around two courtyards, with an under level containing residential accommodation for the school. The area to the west of the original Hamilton building would remain an open landscaped space allowing for views to Calton Hill.

1.10 This is the first time that the proposals have been reviewed.

1.11 Declarations of interest were made by three panellists. Bob Bainsfair stated that his employer Ramboll Environ was involved in preparing ES/EIS data for the proposal although he had no personal involvement with the project and undertook to have no future role in respect of this submission. Dr Ola Udoku stated her child was a pupil at St Mary's School of Music and she was also a member of the School's Parent Teacher Association. Adam Wilkinson stated that William Gray Muir of the Royal High School Preservation Trust also sits on the board of Edinburgh World Heritage Trust. The nature of each declaration was discussed by the Panel and it was agreed that none were considered to represent a conflict of interest.

1.12 This report should be read in conjunction with the pre meeting papers which include an overview of the proposals, contextual and site analysis and preliminary design proposals.

1.13 This report is the view of the Panel and is not attributable to any one individual. The report does not prejudice any of the organisations who are represented at the Panel forming a differing view about the proposals at a later stage.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 91 of 97 15/05662/FUL

The Panel's View Edinburgh Urban Design Panel Report - The Old Royal High School - 28 October 2015 2. Proposed Uses 2.1 The Panel recognise that the former Royal High School represents one of the key buildings of the Scottish enlightenment and its international significance.

2.2 The project team outlined the aims of the project would be two fold. In addition to offering a new home for the St Mary's Music School, the building would also offer a performance venue which would be open to the public. This cultural function would generate revenue to support the upkeep of the building outside term time.

2.3 The Panel welcomed the proposal in that it would allow the building to be returned to productive, inspiring use, and to an educational purpose for which it was originally designed. The cultural performance venue would also offer a public face for the school. The Panel felt that the proposed uses would offer a sustainable long term future of the site and achieve a sensitive adaptation for an historic building of international significance.

2.4 The Panel noted the challenges of combining the proposed public use with an educational use, particularly for reasons of child protection. The Panel supported the proposed entrance strategy which will require separate entrances for the school and public performance venue. The internal spaces of the building will also need to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate such uses. However the design of the school accommodation to the eastern part of the site would also allow for enclosed, secure play areas to be created.

2.5 The Panel commented that the site would offer a highly accessible location for the proposed uses, being close to major transport facilities and strategically placed in relation to other cultural facilities in the city. The nature of the proposal would return the building to active use thus help improve public safety in the Regent Road area.

2.6 However, the Panel questioned whether any future expansion of the school needs would be possible, given the size and constraints of the site. The Panel also considered whether proposed accommodation to the eastern part of the site would offer a sufficient level of external space for the children to use. These are issues which the project team may wish to consider further in the development of their proposals.

3. Concept and impact upon historic assets including the Hamilton Building and Calton Hill.

3.1 The project team outlined their proposed entrance strategy for the Hamilton building. The proposed concert hall and performance spaces would be accessed via the existing southern steps at the base of the building on Regent Road, this in turn leading to a new foyer area and internal staircases. The external, side staircases leading to the terraces above would be retained in their original form. This arrangement would also allow separate circulation to be maintained for the operation of the school and as a public performance venue.

3.2 The Panel considered that the proposed entrance arrangements would acknowledge the ritualistic journey through the building and allow the original front entrance and staircases to be maintained as pieces of architectural sculpture.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 92 of 97 15/05662/FUL

3.3 The Panel noted that new glazed openings beneath the existing portico would allow natural light to enter the foyer space below. The height of the new opening would be carefully controlled to ensure minimal visual impact on the existing façade when viewed from the road. The Panel accepted that the proposed foyer would be critical to the long term re-use of the building and although parts of the existing terrace area would be removed this area is currently redundant and unused. The original Hamilton design envisaged a range of terraces and levels of the site will be maintained as existing. The Panel suggested that further dialogue needs to take place on the detail of new openings to the building.

3.4 Overall, the Panel were strongly supportive of the subtle level of intervention which would be required to the front elevation of the original Hamilton building. The composition and horizontality of the building would be retained and the proposed entrance strategy could offer an exciting experience to users of the building. However, notwithstanding the importance of the principal front elevation, the Panel also recognised the need to consider the building in the round. It was remarked that the rear elevation is also well detailed and important and this requires careful consideration as part of the overall design development.

3.5 The Panel noted that the existing classroom to the west of the original Hamilton building, Gymnasium and Lunch blocks lying to the east are proposed for demolition. The Panel felt that the loss of the listed buildings could be justifiable in that it would return the building to its original composition and greatly improve its landscape setting. The Panel felt that the proposed nature of development to the rear of the Hamilton building would be acceptable and would not compromise its setting.

3.6 The Panel felt that the design approach would respect the setting of Calton Hill, but remarked that the effect of lighting and potential light leakage need to be further considered. Particular impacts may arise with the proposed roof lights and these should be explored further.

3.7 The Panel enquired how DDA requirements might be achieved given the particular constraints of the historic building. The design team outlined that the DDA compliant access can be achieved from the front of the building via a passageway beneath the stairs with a lift then leading to the main performance level.

3.8 In summary, the Panel felt these represented exciting and innovative proposals offering an intuitive re-use of the building. The design was being progressed well and the overall concept would relate well to the site. The impact of the proposals on the setting of the Hamilton Building, Calton Hill and key views across the city would be negligible. Previous concerns relating to the development including the potential loss of the playground, railings and the breakthrough into the building from Regent Road have been alleviated.

4. Design of new build elements and landscape 4.1 The Panel were generally supportive of the design approach for the new buildings and landscaped spaces on the site, although recognised that their detailed design still requires further development. 4.2 The Panel remarked that the octagonal form of the pavilion elements make reference to the atria on the original Hamilton building and would encourage both this idea and other design architectural typologies to be further explored.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 93 of 97 15/05662/FUL

4.3 The Panel welcomed the proposed use of green roofs to the new buildings and it was recognised these could assist in reconciling the setting of the new buildings with Calton Hill.

4.4 The proposals must also consider the setting of the Hamilton belvedere to the north east of the site and seek to integrate this feature into the overall design.

5. Public Realm and Transport 5.1 The Panel commented the current environment of Regent Road does not serve the building well and the area to the front of the building needs to be re-energised. The public realm to the front of the building needs to be addressed as part of the project, particularly the treatment of the road which would benefit from traffic calming. In response to this, the project team stated that the creation of a more open environment would be integral part of returning the building to public use. The Trust views itself as being a quasi public body and would wish to team up with the Council in terms of managing the public realm.

5.2 The Panel also noted that the project would seek to re-animate the front of the building with a series of terraces, as envisaged in original architectural concept.

5.3 The Panel enquired as to how car parking would be accommodated within the proposals. The project team were anxious that this should be discouraged and a reduced parking provision would be feasible given the accessibility of the site. The Panel stated that any parking requirements, including those for buses and service vehicles must be carefully integrated with the design of public realm and should not dominate the exterior of the building.

6.1 Recommendations In developing the design, the Panel supports the following aspects and therefore advocates that these should remain in the proposals:

- The proposed concept for the scheme based around the Music School and a public performance venue

- The ingenuity and sensitive approach being adopted for the Hamilton building including the design strategy for the main entrance and the minimal level of intervention required to the principal façade

- The proposed use of green roofs to the new buildings to allow for their effective reconciliation with the setting of the Hamilton building and Calton Hill

- The proposed arrangements for disabled access to the original Hamilton building.

In developing the proposals the Panel suggests the following matters should be addressed: - The design and architectural language of the new build elements to the rear and eastern parts of the site

- The detailed landscape design proposals for the site including the terraces and courtyard areas for the school accommodation

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 94 of 97 15/05662/FUL

- The effect of lighting and light leakage both to the existing and proposed buildings needs to be further considered, particularly in relation to the landscape setting of Calton Hill.

- The design of public realm enhancements to Regent Road. These should be developed in close collaboration with the Council

- Seek to minimise the parking levels across the site with any essential parking requirements carefully integrated into the design

- The configuration and role of the proposed external courtyards in ensuring a sufficient level of external space for the children to use

- The proposals must also consider the setting of the Hamilton belvedere to the north east of the site and seek to integrate this feature into the overall design

- A strategy for any future expansion of the Music School which considers the size and particular constraints of the site.

Edinburgh World Heritage - response dated 17/02/2016

I write further to our letter of the l51h November, following our initial discussions with the Royal High School Development Trust's development team in relation to the relationship between the old Royal High School, its surrounding area and the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site

At the point of writing our last letter, it was clear that the RHSPT team had a clear understanding of the importance of Hamilton's Royal High Schoolbuilding and its relationship with it wider setting, and were prepared to ensure their plans to adapt the site for use by St Mary's Music School fully recognized this. Our advice to CEC was that the proposals were shaping up to support outstanding universal value.

Since our last letter, we have become aware of correspondence between UNESCO's World Heritage Centre and the Department for Culture. Media and Sport highlighting the importance of the Royal High School in relation to the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site. We believe that this makes it all the more important that the most sensitive approach to Hamilton's Royal High School is adopted by the building's owner in terms of its setting and use.

Having studied the applications, it is clear that the development team has continued with its approach to the building and site, and the result is a set of proposals that we have no hesitation in endorsing as an exemplary and thoughtful marriage of ancient end modern in the highly sensitive setting of Colton Hill.managing the relationship between Hamilton's building. its immediate and wider setting in a way to both conserve and enhance Hamilton's building. The proposals support the ambitions of the World Heritage Site Management Plan in terms of conservation and reuse but also in relation to the culture and sustainability of the city.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 95 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Edinburgh World Heritage - response dated 09/05/2016

Further to our letter of the 17th February, we note that there have been continued, relatively minor, refinements to the proposals. These do not impact on outstanding universal value, and our view remains that the scheme as a whole supports the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 96 of 97 15/05662/FUL

Location Plan

END

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 97 of 97 15/05662/FUL Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Application for Listed Building Consent 15/05665/LBC At New Parliament House, 5 - 7 Regent Road, Edinburgh Project proposes conservation of Thomas Hamilton designed former Royal High School building to form new premises for St Mary's Music School. Combined with demolition of later ancillary buildings, space to East is created for new residential, teaching + practice facility. To West, a new landscaped public garden is proposed. A new basement created located under the Main Hall to provide new foyer giving access to the public performance spaces above (as amended).

Item number Report number

Wards A11 - City Centre

Summary

The application complies with the Development plan and Non-statutory guidance. On balance, the proposals have no adverse impact on the architectural integrity and composition of the building ensuring that its special character is preserved. Bringing such an important category A listed building back into long term use and adopting a conservation based approach to the redevelopment of the Hamilton Building results in significant wider conservation benefits that outweigh the loss of listed buildings on site, as well as minor impacts to the setting of the listed building caused by the new build.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 1 of 28 15/05665/LBC Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITE3, CITE2, CITE4, NSG, NSLBCA,

this application

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 28 15/05665/LBC

Report

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below. Background

2.1 Site description

The former school and the buildings are category 'A' listed (LB ref 27987, 19 April 1966). The principal building was designed in the Greek revival style by Thomas Hamilton in 1825 - 1829. It is widely regarded as an exemplar of this type of architecture. It is composed of a powerful symmetrical grouping of the principal Doric temple-pavilion, with flanking colonnades and subsidiary temples. This is known as the Hamilton building.

The listed building group also includes the lodge on the north west side of the site (built in 1885) and a classical style, Gymnasium Building (built in 1894) to the north east of the main building. The northern boundary of the former school grounds is bounded by a deep retaining wall which is also part of this listing. This wall runs alongside the public walkway on Calton Hill. At the eastern end of this wall is a tower which is currently hidden from view by vegetation and the classroom block. There are also other buildings within the site that are listed because they were built before 1948 and are within the curtilage of a listed building. These include a block on the northern boundary to the north west of the Hamilton Building known as the Classroom block and a block to the south of the Gymnasium Building known as the Luncheon Hall.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 28 15/05665/LBC

The Hamilton Building, its pavilions, the Gymnasium Building and the lodge are on the Buildings at Risk Register for Scotland.

An area of informal landscaping, including small trees and shrubs, is located at the western end of the site next to the entrance to the old school and the walkway to Calton Hill. This area contains a car park which is largely screened by the planting. There is former playground space to the rear of the building and between the buildings at the eastern end. To the front, there are terraces and lawns which slope down towards the boundary wall on Regent Road.

The public park on Calton Hill, lies to the north of the site. The park is a Site of Special Scientific Interest and is included in the Historic Scotland Inventory of Gardens Designed Landscapes. It is identified as a Candidate Special Landscape Area, in the Second Proposed Edinburgh Local Development Plan It contains a collection of category A listed buildings, including:

The Robert Burns monument, designed by Hamilton is category A listed (LB ref 27801, 19 April 1966) and is located on the opposite side of Regent Road to the east of the Royal High School. The category A listed 1 Regent Terrace (LB ref 29618, 16 December 1965) is situated immediately to the east of the site. With the other buildings in Regent Terrace, it is part of the 'Calton A' group of listed buildings. The category A listed, St Andrew's House (LB ref 27756, 14 December 1970) is located to the south east, on the opposite side of Regent Road. There is a category B listed 'K6' telephone box (LB ref 49151, 19 March 2003) on the northern footway of Regent Road, just to the west of the site.

The site is within 800m of Holyrood Park, which is a royal park and a scheduled monument, (SM13032, 7 February 2013) . It is also within 800m of the Palace of Holyroodhouse which is a royal palace and category A listed building (LB Ref 28022, 14 December 1970). The associated Holyrood Abbey, precinct and remains is a scheduled monument (SM ref 13031, 7 Februrary 2013).

The application site is located in the World Heritage Site.

This application site is located within the New Town Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

17 November 1971 - Planning permission granted for change of use to an arts and cultural centre for the city (application number 1389).

22 September 1976 - planning permission granted for alterations to existing buildings to form accommodation for the Scottish Assembly (application number GD68/76).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 28 15/05665/LBC

7 March 2000 - Planning permission granted for alterations to form temporary district courts including the erection of a portacabin (application number 99/3131/CEC).

7 March 2000 - Listed Building Consent approved for alterations to form temporary district courts including the erection of a portacabin (application number 99/3131/CEL).

25 July 2002 & 19 March 2004 - Planning permission granted for the erection of a temporary portacabin (application numbers 02/00072/CEC & 04/00135/FUL).

21 January 2015 - A notice of a proposed application (PAN) was submitted for planning permission for the change of use, alterations to and restoration of principal former High School building and pavilions, demolition of ancillary buildings, including former gymnasium and gatehouse, new build development, new /improved pedestrian and vehicle access, landscaping, parking and public realm works to create a world class hotel of international standing. (PAN number 15/00223/PAN). The PAN was approved on 3 February 2015.

21 May 2015 - A notice of a proposed application was submitted for the conservation and adaption of former Royal High School building, to form new premises for St Mary's Music School and adaption and demolition of later ancillary buildings essential to form new residential and practice facilities for the school (Reference 15/02381/PAN). The PAN which was approved on 5 June 2015.

10 December 2015 - Application submitted for listed building consent for conservation of Thomas Hamilton designed former Royal High School building to form new premises for St Mary's Music School. Combined with demolition of later ancillary buildings, space to the East is created for new residential, teaching/practice facility. Proposed new landscaped public garden to West. New basement created under Main Hall to provide new foyer giving access to public performance spaces above. This application accompanies the planning permission application that is subject of this report (application number 15/05662/FUL).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 28 15/05665/LBC

16 January 2016 - an application for pre-application screening was determined in respect of a proposal for the conversion and adaption of the former Royal High School,, to form new public performance space/concert venue in conjunction with new premises for St Mary's Music School and demolition of later ancillary buildings essential to form new residential, teaching and practice facilities for the school (use classes 8, 10 and 11). It was determined that statutory pre-application consultation procedures were not required to be undertaken in respect of the relevant application, as the proposals did not meet the criteria specified under Section 35A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006.

Other Relevant Site History

1968 - The building was vacated when Edinburgh Royal High School was relocated to its current Barnton site.

September 2004 - A Conservation Plan for the former Royal High School was issued in accordance with a brief prepared by the Scottish National Photography Centre. Funding for the preparation of this Plan came from the Heritage Lottery Fund, as part of the Project Planning Grant and the Scottish National Photography Centre.

May 2008 - The Princes Street Block 10 Development Brief - Approved by Planning Committee sets out development principles for the Royal High School and its immediate surroundings. The three principles are:

1) to promote the viable re-use of the former Royal High School and campus buildings as a visitor facility and civic/cultural destination 2) to enhance movement and access to and from the former Royal High School campus and the Old Town 3) to respect and enhance key views to and from the area and protect the setting of the former Royal High School.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 28 15/05665/LBC

3.1 Description of the Proposal

Alterations to listed building

The existing lodge is to be converted to form ancillary accommodation for teaching staff.

The proposed performance space is located in the main hall of the Hamilton building.

The west pavilion is proposed for use as service space at lower ground floor level, with potential use as a function room or exhibition space at upper ground floor level involving a proposed new opening on the rear elevation.

Pedestrian and vehicular access is proposed from the existing entrance to the school to the west of the site on Regent Road with the existing entrance gates and railings altered to provide a pedestrian entrance.

An additional gateway is proposed between the north façade of the Hamilton Building and the new teaching accommodation to the north of the site to provide additional security for pupils using the residential accommodation.

The entrances to the school buildings are from the northern façade of the Hamilton Building and from the new teaching accommodation, to the north of the site.

Access to the proposed performance venue is proposed from a newly created entrance below the portico on the Regent Road façade of the Hamilton Building.

The proposed development results in the demolition of ancillary listed buildings, including:

- The classroom block to the north west of the Hamilton Building; - The gymnasium block to the north east of the Hamilton Building; and - The luncheon hall to the east of the Hamilton Building.

The Hamilton Building would be retained, along with the pavilions on its frontage, the gate lodge and the retaining wall and belvedere, to the north and north east of the applications site.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 28 15/05665/LBC

The proposed alterations to the principal former Royal High School building and pavilions comprise:

- the formation of a glass slot within the stone floor of the portico of the Hamilton building; - The formation of a glazed entrance, below the portico, on the south facing elevation; - The formation of a glass balustrade on the terrace to the portico; and - The formation of a new opening to create a glazed entrance doorway on the north elevation of the West pavilion.

The majority of the original walls and railing on the boundary of the site are to be retained. The exceptions being the existing railings at ground level on the eastern boundary, which are to be re-positioned to form the boundary of the roof-top playground and the proposed replacement of the remains of railing below the portico on the Regent Road frontage.

Internally, the main proposal involves the excavation of the basement area to form a new foyer space for the proposed concert hall. Other alterations include the formation of new stairs, the installation of a new lift to provide circulation to and from the main concert hall. Various minor slappings and sub-divisions are proposed at all levels. The main proposal within the Assembly Hall involves the removal of the existing tiered seating and floor within the main performance auditorium and installation of a new floor structure spanning the width of the room to support a retractable seating system. The removal of original columns and replacement with console brackets, (as shown on the original drawings by Hamilton but never implemented), is also proposed within the Assembly Hall.

New build

The northern element of the extension sits parallel to the rear elevation of the Hamilton Building. It is largely single storey however there are two octagonal shaped features which are two storey. These have octagon shaped cupolas on top of them. The northern element contains practice rooms.

The proposed external materials comprise natural sandstone, zinc cladding and glazing.

Scheme 1

The proposals constitute an amended scheme (scheme 2). The originally submitted proposals (scheme 1) included the following:

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 8 of 28 15/05665/LBC

- Slightly different design of the practice rooms and the octagonal building facades, to the north of the Hamilton building, including those relating to the glazing and roof edge detailing; - the design of the facade of the octagonal practice room to the east of the Hamilton Building was slightly different; - the railings on the boundary of the Western gardens were proposed for removal (while now these are to be retained); and - fewer details relating to landscaping, site levels and materials. (These have now been added to the sectional drawings and plans.)

3.2 Determining Issues

Section 14 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 states: 'In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works, the planning authority or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.'

Therefore:

Do the proposals preserve the listed building, its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest? If they do not, there is a strong presumption against granting listed building consent.

Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of consent

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether: a) The impact on the character of the listed building as one of special architectural or historic importance is acceptable; b) The impact on the setting of the listed building is acceptable; c) Demolition is acceptable; d) Impacts on equalities and rights are acceptable; and e) Public comments have been addressed. a) Impact on character of listed building

The Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement June 2016 (HESPS) sets out the context within which proposals for alterations to listed building must be assessed. HESPS is an important material consideration. HESPS replaces the Scottish Historic Environment Policy known as SHEP. The considerations in respect of listed buildings are similar. This document states:

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 9 of 28 15/05665/LBC

Where a proposal involves alteration or adaptation which will have an adverse or significantly adverse impact on the special interest of the building, planning authorities, in reaching decisions should consider carefully:

a) the relative importance of the special interest of the building; and b) the scale of the impact of the proposals on that special interest; and c) whether there are other options which would ensure a continuing beneficial use for the building with less impact on its special interest; and d) whether there are significant benefits for economic growth or the wider community which justify a departure from the presumption set out in paragraph 3.40 above.

HESPS states that buildings 'can be robbed of their special interest either by inappropriate alteration or by demolition. There is, therefore, a presumption against demolition or other works that adversely affect the special interest of a listed building or its setting. A number of significant interventions are proposed as part of the redevelopment proposals, including the demolition of a number of buildings on site. These are assessed below.

Historic Environment Scotland does not object to this application or the corresponding planning application stating that:

"After careful assessment we consider the St Mary's Music School proposals represent a measured reuse of a nationally and internationally important site and building. We welcome not only the proposed restoration and repairs to the listed building(s) on the site, but also the design of the new school accommodation blocks that, by their scale and positioning, firmly retain the primacy of the Hamilton building on the site."

However, it does raise a number of concerns relating to specific elements of the proposals affecting the listed building, such as the opening to the front elevation, the excavation to form the subterranean reception hall and the glass strip proposed at portico level.

Edinburgh World Heritage supports the proposals stating:

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 10 of 28 15/05665/LBC

The principal alteration to the main Hamilton Building is the new extension to the east of the site. The manner in which this new building connects to the main Hamilton Building is discreet and sensitively handled. A low level link from the basement of the Hamilton Building to the new extension would not be visible from outwith the site and would have no adverse impact on the architectural integrity or composition of the listed building, connecting old to new in a sensitive manner. The design of this extension is assessed in more detail in corresponding planning application, 15/05662/FUL, but is a large side extension to the A listed Hamilton Building. The extension is a significant increase in the footprint of building to the east in comparison to the existing buildings, covering the majority of the eastern side of the site with new build. The proposed new building is contemporary in design utilising a range of high quality, modern and traditional building materials.

There is simplicity to the design, creating a layered building that would sit sensitively in the context of the wider site. From long views the extension respects and complements the picturesque backdrop of Calton Hill. The footprint of the building results in a building larger than the main Hamilton Building. However, the layered approach to the design results in an extension that retains a sense of subservience.

The new practice rooms proposed at the rear interrupt views of the building on approach from the west of the site and from the path to Calton Hill. This prevents the north façade from being read coherently. Although this elevation is a rear elevation, it is highly significant, as historically it formed the main entrance to the school. It is a carefully detailed and proportioned elevation. The proposed two storey, octagonal shaped buildings on this aspect, would result in an uncharacteristic series of interlocking spaces close to the building façade, which would obscure views of this part of the building from within the site. However, as indicated in the submitted Design and Access statement the series of spaces created would also provide new visual interest in this area of the site.

Overall, it is considered that the benefits of bringing the building back into its original and appropriate long term use; the benefits to the wider landscape context of the site and setting of the building and the conservation based approach, subject to the conditions recommended, to the Hamilton Building represent significant conservation gain.

For the most part, a conservation based approach of repair, maintenance and improvement is proposed for the Hamilton Building. The main alteration to the building is to the south, principal elevation with the formation of a new opening, below the portico, to allow for an entrance into the foyer of the new concert hall. The alternative to this opening would be the addition of a new foyer to the rear of the building. Historic Environment Scotland indicated at pre-application stage that their preference would be to explore the possibility of an opening to the front, if a foyer space was to be a requirement of the redevelopment proposals. The concert hall is seen by the applicants as being an essential element of the long term viability of the project. This is because it allows the concert hall to function separately from the school when required.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 11 of 28 15/05665/LBC

The new entrance and terrace would be masked by the retaining wall and would not be visible from Regent Road. This is a significant intervention in to the listed building but does not result in the loss of a great deal of historic fabric. In addition, the discreet location and sensitive handling of the opening ensure that this alteration does not have an adverse impact on the character of the listed building.

As the portico would be accessible to the public from the main assembly hall, safety rails are proposed, to be located on the inside of the columns. These railings are shown as being glass sheets but given that these would be highly reflective of sunlight, a different approach to the design of these railings should be adopted. The omission of this aspect of the proposal would be secured through condition. Should the applicants require access to the portico, a further listed building consent application would be required to secure appropriate design and materials for any balustrading. In this regard, it is anticipated that metal railings would have a more visually recessive appearance.

It is proposed to remove a section of the floor of the portico and insert a glass slot. The design rationale for this is to allow daylight into the subterranean entrance space and add interest, allowing a view upwards to the coffered pediment ceiling. The character of a portico is of something solid, robust and self-contained, and the removal of a section of the Craigleith stone flooring has an unacceptable impact on the architectural integrity and composition of this important feature to the detriment of the character of the listed building. This element of the proposal is unacceptable. It is recommended the omission of this aspect of the proposal is secured through condition.

The proposed opening in the north side of the western pavilion is unacceptable. This would detract from the character of the building. The symmetry of the pavilions would be lost with this opening and there is no justification in relation to the use proposed. It is recommended the omission of this aspect of the proposal is secured through condition.

Internally, the building is mostly functional in character with the main space of value being the central Assembly Hall. The proposals for the music school and concert venue ensure that the character of the main hall will be retained. Modifications are required to turn this space in to the principal performance space. The existing tiered seating and floor within the main performance auditorium will be removed in its entirety. A new floor structure spanning the width of the room will be installed to support a retractable seating system. Although this would alter the character of the space, the alterations are seen as being essential to the functionality of the building and are supported in this instance.

Within the main hall, the applicants proposed to remove the original cast iron supports for the balcony area, replacing them with console brackets that Hamilton showed on early drawings. Although elegant and appropriate, it would result in the removal of an original feature of the building and the presumption should be to retain these original supports. As such, it is recommended that the existing brackets be retained and the omission of this aspect of the proposal secured through condition.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 12 of 28 15/05665/LBC

The excavation of the basement area is acceptable in principle. Although some original spaces remain, this would be a significant change to this level with little in the way of usable space at this time. The work would allow for a subterranean foyer space for the concert hall above and, though resulting in the loss of some original detail, would not have an adverse impact on the character of the listed building. It is worth noting that the basement was altered in the 1970s.

Other principal spaces within the Hamilton Building are largely retained and conserved with alterations limited to addressing previous alterations.

Local plan policy

The proposal complies with the requirements of ECLP Policy Env 4 or LDP Policy Env 4 in respect of alteration and extensions, as it, subject to the conditions recommended, would have no adverse impact on the character of the listed building.

The reuse of the site as a school and cultural / arts venue affords significant benefits. These include a conservation-led repair of the Thomas Hamilton Building, restoring the building, and allowing its main assembly space to retain a public and vibrant use.

Historic Environment Scotland's document 'Managing Change in the Historic Environment - Setting' states;

''Setting' is the way the surroundings of a historic asset or place contribute to how it is understood, appreciated and experienced.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 13 of 28 15/05665/LBC

The proposed new build has both positive and negative impacts on the setting of the listed building.

The new teaching/accommodation block on the eastern portion of the site has been designed to sit low within the majority of the eastern area, its stepped massing and form taking its design philosophy from the natural topography of the hill. The inclusion of planting and green roofs anchor the building into its wider landscape context, making it visually recessive in contrast with the powerful classical language of the Hamilton Building. The proposed development would be lower than the existing Gymnasium Building, which currently occupies the site. In this respect, due to the low scale of the new building, the planned relationship between buildings and landscape, which is of exceptional significance to the setting of the Hamilton Building, would be enhanced.

However, the development also proposes a new practice room range to the rear of the Hamilton Building. This area of the site is sensitive to change, and presents challenges in terms of any development appropriately addressing its setting and character. This area is the rear of the Hamilton Building but is highly significant, not only because of its careful detail and articulation, but also because it is historically the main entrance to the building, and articulated accordingly. There is a clear visual progression of sequences from the gatepiers and gates at Regent Road to the gatelodge, moving to the main building where the rear elevation slowly reveals itself. As currently designed, this proposed new building would prevent the north façade being read coherently, with octagonal pavilions introducing an uncharacteristic series of interlocking spaces. As such, the element of the building located directly to the rear of the main building has a degree of adverse impact on its setting.

A wider assessment of the impact of the development on surrounding buildings and monuments is included in the corresponding planning application. However, the benefits of the proposed development on the wider picturesque landscape outweighs the negative impact of building directly to the rear of the Hamilton Building. On balance, the proposals have no adverse impact on the setting of the listed building. c) Demolition

The former Royal High School is a category 'A' listed building. Within this listing are the main Hamilton Building, the lodge to the west of the main building and the Gymnasium Building to the east. There are also two additional buildings within the curtilage of the listed building that are listed by virtue of pre-dating 1948. Three of the four additional buildings are proposed for demolition.

The applicants argue for the demolition of the curtilage listings by virtue of Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) test a). SHEP is now superseded by HESPS and the considerations in respect of listed buildings remain the same. This test assesses the special interest of the buildings on site. It is accepted that the Luncheon Hall and Classroom Block, though listed by virtue of being with the curtilage of the listed building and pre-dating 1948, do not merit retention for their special architectural significance. SHEP test a) is not accepted as justification for the demolition of the Gymnasium Building which, as a category A listed building, is considered to have significance.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 14 of 28 15/05665/LBC

The applicants seek to justify, in part, the demolition of the gymnasium block against SHEP test c). This test requires the applicants to demonstrate that the demolition of the listed building is essential to delivering significant benefits to economic growth or the wider community. Whilst the proposed use would undoubtedly generate economic benefits for the city, the proposals do not go so far as to meet the requirements of SHEP test c) which sets the bar for demolition exceptionally high. Similarly, while there would be wider community benefit to the proposals, these are not significant enough to justify the demolition of the listed building in isolation. As such, while the proposals do go some way to meet the policy requirements of SHEP there is not a strong enough justification for the demolition of the Gymnasium Building block presented by the applicant through the SHEP test alone.

However, bringing a category 'A' listed building back into a long-term, sustainable future use is a significant conservation gain. The former Royal High School building has been unoccupied since 2012, with ongoing temporary uses. It is on the Buildings at Risk Register for Scotland. The applicants argue that accommodating the specialist facilities required by the music school would not be possible in the existing gym, classroom and luncheon halls. This stance is accepted. Demolition of the buildings and redevelopment of the east of the site would be necessary to allow for the accommodation and facilities required for the use as a school. Historic Environment Scotland previously indicated that a case for the demolition and redevelopment of the east of the site could be made if it enabled a conservation-based solution for the remainder of the site.

Subject to the conditions recommended, the proposals for the music school do adopt a conservation based approach to the main Hamilton Building, with one significant alteration, the new front entrance, proposed for operational purposes. The redevelopment of the site respects both the built and natural heritage having significant overall conservation gains as highlighted by both Historic Environment Scotland and Edinburgh World Heritage. The significant conservation benefits of bringing the building back in to its original use as a school with the added benefit of a new concert hall, to ensure the long term future of the building, is a strong justification for the demolition of the gymnasium block to the east of the site. Furthermore, no new development is proposed to the west of the site and the lodge building would also be retained as part of the proposals.

Given the above, demolition is justified in respect of HESPS.

Local Plan Policy

The aim of the national policy is reinforced by the Edinburgh City Local Plan policy ENV2 and policy Env 2 of the Second Proposed Local Development Plan which state:

Proposals for the total or substantial demolition of a listed building will only be supported in exceptional circumstances, taking into account:

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 15 of 28 15/05665/LBC

c) the merits of alternative proposals for the site and whether the public benefits to be derived from allowing demolition outweigh the loss.

Criteria a), b) and c) need to be considered together.

The value of returning the main Hamilton Building to a long term future use cannot be underestimated. To successfully deliver the requirements of the music school it is acknowledged that the demolition of the buildings to the east of the side would be required. As a conservation based approach to the main building would be adopted and no development is proposed to the west of the site. In this case, demolition of the listed building is justified. d) Equalities and Human Rights

The proposals have been assessed for impacts on equalities and human rights. The development would improve the accessibility of the building. Level access would be provided and there would be lifts to allow access to its various levels.

The proposed public realm works would improve accessibility, including those with mobility issues, on Regent Road.

Impacts on equalities and rights are acceptable. e) Representations

Material Representations - Objection

- Too large a quantum of development next to the Hamilton Building; - Alterations to Hamilton Building excessive and inappropriate; - New opening to principal elevation unacceptable; - New slot glazing in portico floor tasteless and inappropriate; and - Demolition unacceptable.

Material representations in support - Proposals ensure the future of the building; - The proposals are sympathetic and appropriate in terms of scale and design; - The proposals have a minimal impact on the setting of the building; - Positive retention of the gate lodge; - Demolition of the ancillary buildings acceptable; - Proposals reinforce primacy of Hamilton Building; - Proposals represent positive restoration; - Return building to its original use; and - New extension more appropriate than the gym block.

Conclusion

The re-use of the building is essential to its future survival and any proposed use must demonstrate how it can be accommodated sympathetically without impacting on the historic, cultural and architectural significance of the building. Cumulatively, the interventions outlined in the current proposals, represent a significant negative impact, failing to respect the architectural integrity and composition of the building, damaging

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 16 of 28 15/05665/LBC not only the historic fabric but failing to respect the huge cultural significance of the building, an essential element of its special interest.

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Conditions:-

1. Notwithstanding what is shown on drawing 28A, the glass balustrade to the central front portico is not consented.

2. Notwithstanding what is shown on drawing 21A, the glass slot in the flagstones of the central front portico is not consented.

3. Notwithstanding what is shown on drawing 29, the new opening in to the western pavilion is not consented.

4. Notwithstanding what is shown on drawings 36-43, the removal and replacement of the brackets in the Assembly Hall is not consented.

Reasons:-

1. In order to safeguard the character of the statutorily listed building.

2. In order to safeguard the character of the statutorily listed building.

3. In order to safeguard the character of the statutorily listed building.

4. In order to safeguard the character of the statutorily listed building.

Informatives:-

It should be noted that:

1. The works hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

The application site is owned by the Council Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 17 of 28 15/05665/LBC

Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights. Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application meets the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance.

Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 24 December 2015. A total of 125 letters of representation were received on this application, 123 of which were in favour, 1 of which was an objection and 1 which raised comments which were neither in support or against the proposals.

Comments in support of the application were received from, India Street Residents Association, the West End Community Council, New Town and Broughton Community Council (which is also a consultee), Portobello Amenity Society Lord Cockburn Association, the Scottish Civic Trust, and The Architectural Society of Scotland. Sarah Boyak, MSP, Right Honourable Lord Kenneth Osborne, Lord David Wilson of Tillyorn, Lady Jane Balfour of Burleigh, Laday Hilary Menzies, Lady Anne Dunmore and Lady Catherine Gill.

The main material points of support were:

- Proposals ensure the future of the building; - The proposals are sympathetic and appropriate in terms of scale and design; - The proposals have a minimal impact on the setting of the building; - Positive retention of the gate lodge; - Demolition of the ancillary buildings acceptable; - Proposals reinforce primacy of Hamilton Building; - Proposals represent positive restoration; - Return building to its original use; and - New extension more appropriate than the gym block.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 18 of 28 15/05665/LBC

The objection received to the application was from a member of the public. The main material points of objection being:

- Too large a quantum of development next to the Hamilton Building - Demolition unacceptable; - Alterations to Hamilton Building excessive and inappropriate; - New opening to principal elevation unacceptable; and - New slot glazing in portico floor tasteless and inappropriate.

The comment submitted raised concerns about the demolitions on site.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 19 of 28 15/05665/LBC

Background reading/external references

To view details of the application go to;  Planning and Building Standards online services

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 20 of 28 15/05665/LBC

The Site is also included within the Old and New Towns of Edinburgh World Heritage Site.

Date registered 10 December 2015

Drawing numbers/Scheme 1-3, 4A-12A, 13-18, 19A-23A, 24-26, 27A-28A, 29-33, 34A-35A, 36-43,

Scheme 2

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Euan Mcmeeken, Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 3989

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 21 of 28 15/05665/LBC

Links-Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Policy Env 3 (Listed Buildings - Setting) identifies the circumstances in which development within the curtilage or affecting the setting of a listed building will be permitted.

Policy Env 2 (Listed Buildings - Demolition) identifies the circumstances in which the demolition of listed buildings will be permitted.

Policy Env 4 (Listed Buildings – Alterations & Extensions) identifies the circumstances in which alterations and extensions to listed buildings will be permitted.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines.

Non-statutory guidelines ‘LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS' provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 22 of 28 15/05665/LBC

Appendix 1

Consultations

Historic Environment Scotland

The international importance of Category A-listed Thomas Hamilton's Royal High School is undisputed. It is arguably the most significant and accomplished Greek Revival building in the UK, and has claims to be amongst the finest on a worldwide stage.

This proposal represents varying degrees of impact and change on the site, ranging from sensitive repair to demolition. The Design Access Statement notes the intent of the proposals to provide a new home for St Mary's Music School, including the formation of a new performance space in the main hall. This is supplemented by the Conservation Statement: December 2015 which identifies a hierarchy of significance to the various elements of the Hamilton building and site at large. In a section titled 'Strategy, Resolution & Vision' (p.81) it affirms 'A firm resolution to act in a conservation-led way should be set out to ensure the principles of 'informed conservation' are key elements of its future'.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 23 of 28 15/05665/LBC

External works

We note that the railings which run along the retaining wall are proposed to be removed. Although the railings may not appear in Hamilton's known artistic visions for the Royal High School, they do appear original to the building's construction and appear in a calotype image of 1843. As they are rare survivals, presumably original, and of both architectural and historic significance, the presumption should be to retain them. Their removal would also seem to be at odds with Policy 18 of the Simpson and Brown Conservation Statement: December 2015 to retain and restore all railings and lamps.

New entrance and access from Regent Road

We welcome the re-use of the pylon gatehouses on Regent Road which will provide suitably impressive entry points into the building. It is acknowledged that the original circulation route here is convoluted, and was never intended for day-to-day use, instead, inspired by Grecian ceremonial ideals. As a way to rationalise the complex access route, the design team proposes to create a terrace behind the central retaining wall. This would provide an access point into a new foyer underneath the entrance hall.

The main intervention here is the proposed formation of a wide entrance into the building below the portico. The information supplied suggests that the new entrance and terrace would be masked by the retaining wall and would not be visible from Regent Road. Further assurances on this may be useful.

Besides the visibility, the extent of historic fabric proposed for removal is of concern. It may be beneficial to have further dialogue regarding the dimensions of the opening or whether a stone pier is retained. The expansive width supported by a prominent steel beam is a radical architectural and structural treatment, and there may be scope to retain the facing of the original stone to cover the steel. This could bring the stone level neatly down to the existing plinth in this position and reduce further any potential views of the opening.

The principle of this substantial reworking is justified by the applicant in terms of the significant benefits they identify the proposals will bring to the site at large, particularly in terms of the conservation-led reinstatement works, and the proposed sustainable re- use of the site. Furthermore, we are asked to take into account the cultural gain of promoting the principal parts of the building as being accessible to the public as a series of performance spaces with a dedicated new entrance and foyer accessed from Regent Road.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 24 of 28 15/05665/LBC

Works to main hall

The main hall is the most important space within the building, one that was at the heart of the school throughout its history. We therefore welcome that it is proposed to reuse this space as a dynamic cultural hub which will be publicly accessible. It is also within this space that the applicant proposes significant conservation work, including returning key architectural and decorative features. The re-opening of the portico door, recreation of the Greek ceremonial doorpiece, return to original configuration of balconies and stairs, and re-instatement of missing decorative features from the ceiling are all to be greatly welcomed.

However, further consideration and dialogue should be continued regarding the cast iron balcony supports. We note it is proposed to replace them with console brackets that Hamilton showed on early drawings. Although elegant and appropriate, without knowing why Hamilton did not proceed with the brackets, the presumption should be to retain an original feature of the building he oversaw.

Works to portico

It is proposed to remove the entire floor of the portico and replace it with fritted glass. The design rationale for this is to allow daylight into the subterranean entrance space and add interest allowing a view upwards to the coffered pediment ceiling. The applicant's statement of significance identifies the entire portico as outstanding. The character of a portico is something solid, robust and self-contained, and we would argue that the entire removal of its fine Craigleith stone flooring is inappropriate and should be opposed. There may be an opportunity to introduce a number of discreet light wells within the floor, giving permeability and light, whilst respecting the appearance and character of the portico. However, the daylighting achieved from under the portico may be overestimated and a better option may be to leave the portico alone and provide artificial lighting to the subterranean space instead.

We recognise there will be the need for barrier protection at this level. Although glass has benefits, it will inevitably draw the eye as an alien feature under the south-facing portico. There may be scope to investigate less immediately-visible alternatives such as tensioned wire or railings.

Internal works elsewhere

The majority of proposals for internal works to the former teaching wings and former library/ masters room recommend re-instatement of lost fixtures and features, which is to be welcomed. Where this is not feasible or valid due to previous insensitive intervention, appropriate and mindful re-configuration and adaption of spaces are proposed. We do not object to the replacement of the later PSA stairs.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 25 of 28 15/05665/LBC

There are a number of minor internal adaptions proposed to the pavilions. However, it is understood that these buildings have undergone a number of internal changes, for instance the western pavilion was used as a swimming pool. As with the main building there are no external changes proposed which would cause us concern.

Demolition: Gymnasium / Classroom block and Luncheon block

We believe that the level of information contained within the applicant's Planning Statement broadly meets the criteria for demolition of the above listed buildings. Throughout our consideration of the proposals for the building we have noted and understood the considerable costs or repair and reuse for the main focus of the listing; the Hamilton Building. We have therefore taken the view that the demolition of the above ancillary buildings (primarily the Gymnasium) covered by the overall listing may be acceptable provided it facilitated a conservation-based solution for the main building and its important setting. The scheme offers the welcome repair and reuse of the main Hamilton building together with the sensitive redevelopment of the footprints the above buildings occupy - and on the western playground removes a later building reinstating the historic relationship between lodge and school and retaining wall.

Edinburgh World Heritage - response dated 17/02/2016

I write further to our letter of the 15th November, following our initial discussions with the Royal High School Development Trust's development team in relation to the relationship between the old Royal High School, its surrounding area and the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site

Having studied the applications, it is clear that the development team has continued with its approach to the building and site, and the result is a set of proposals that we have no hesitation in endorsing as an exemplary and thoughtful marriage of ancient and modern in the highly sensitive setting of Colton Hill, managing the relationship between Hamilton's building, its immediate and wider setting in a way to both conserve and enhance Hamilton's building. The proposals support the ambitions of the World Heritage Site Management Plan in terms of conservation and reuse but also in relation to the culture and sustainability of the city.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 26 of 28 15/05665/LBC

Edinburgh World Heritage - response dated 09/05/2016

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 27 of 28 15/05665/LBC

Location Plan

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 28 of 28 15/05665/LBC Development Management Sub Committee

Report returning to Committee - Wednesday 17 August 2016

Application for Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions 14/05305/AMC At 65 West Harbour Road, Edinburgh, EH5 1PW Approval of matters specified in condition 2 of outline application 01/00802/OUT covering siting and height of development, design and configuration of public and open spaces, access, road layouts, footpaths and cycle routes (Scheme 5).

Item number Report number

Wards A04 - Forth

Recommendations

It is recommended that this application be Approved subject to the details below.

Background information

Summary of previous committee decision

On 21 December 2015, the Development Management Sub Committee agreed to approve this application (Scheme 4) subject to conditions, informatives and the conclusion of a legal agreement in relation to the provision of 293 affordable housing on plots 10 and 13A (also referred to as S1 and S2). As the application was recommended for refusal, the conditions and informatives agreed by Committee are not included in the previous report to Committee. These are summarised below.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 1 of 14 14/05305/AMC Conditions:-

1. This consent does not discharge any reserved matters in respect of the following:

(i) The private amenity space and car parking areas for the individual plots are shown on the plans for illustrative purposes only and do not form part of the development hereby permitted. These will be agreed as part of the detailed design for the individual plots and shall be in accordance with the Council's Edinburgh Design Guidance and Parking Standards.

(ii) Development or works relating to Middle Pier. These should be the subject of a further application(s) for the approval of matters specified in conditions which should address the needs of the sailing community for berths and storage facilities, etc.

2. No further development shall take place at the site until a revised flood risk assessment and surface water management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Transport. This shall then inform the detailed planning applications on the individual plots.

3. No development shall take place to construct the new berths within the marina until the extension to the Western Breakwater has been implemented.

4. The reserved matters covering siting and height of development, design and configuration of public and open spaces, access, road layouts, footpaths and cycle routes are not approved in respect of plots 12, 14, 15, 15A, 16 and 17 as shown on the masterplan drawings A-P-00-G7-001 revX1 and the proposed Plot Area and Accommodations Schedule Revision X-1.

5. Details of a suitable Waterfront cycle/ pedestrian route shall be submitted to and approved by the Head of Planning and Transport and shall give priority to the cyclists and pedestrians using this facility over side road traffic. The details shall include details of the connections to the promenade at the east and west sides of the site. The approved route shall be implemented as agreed by the Head of Planning and Transport.

6. The detailed design of a 5 metre wide cycle track for shared cycle/pedestrian use on West Harbour Road/Lower Granton Road shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Head of Planning and Transport. It shall be designed to give priority to the cyclists and pedestrians using this facility over the side road traffic. It shall also allow for suitable connections to the promenade at the east and west of the site.

Informatives:-

A number of informatives were agreed including that:

1. The decision shall not be issued until a suitable legal agreement has been concluded to secure land for the provision for 293 Affordable Housing units of an agreed tenure on Plots 10A and 13 as shown on master plan drawing A-P-00-G7-001 rev X1.

Condition 4 stated that the reserved matters covering siting and height of development, design and configuration of public and open spaces, access, road layouts, footpaths and cycle routes for plots 12, 14, 15, 15A, 16 and 17 were not approved. The reasons for this condition were that the proposed large retail/leisure/commercial centre was contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP) policies Ret 4, Ret 6, Des 1, Des 3, and Des 4 and proposal S5 and Second Proposed Local Development Plan (LDP) policies Ret 4 and Del 4 and proposal S2.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 14 14/05305/AMC The provision of 293 affordable housing units on Plots 10 and 13A (S1 and S2) was proposed by the applicant in Scheme 4. Based on the requirements of the section 75 agreement attached to the outline planning permission (01/00802/OUT) for 15% affordable housing across the site, 314 affordable units are required for the total proposed 2094 units. The applicant's proposals for 293 units on land in its ownership were welcomed as a means of addressing previous concerns about affordable housing provision. This represented 14% affordable housing provision for the site as a whole.

The wording of the original section 75 agreement relates to a total of 3,396 homes and is prescriptive in terms of timescales, phases and numbers for the delivery of affordable housing. These terms are now unachievable and it was therefore considered necessary to attach a separate legal agreement to this AMC approval to ensure delivery of the 293 affordable units proposed by the applicant on Plots 10 and 13A.

In line with standard Council procedure, the applicant was advised that the legal agreement should be concluded within six months of the date of the decision notice i.e. by 22 June 2016.

Progress since 21 December 2015

Following the minded to approve decision on 21 December 2015, the applicant entered into correspondence with the Council's Housing Service regarding the details of the affordable housing to be provided on Plots 10 and 13A (S1 and S2).

The proposal was to be for unsubsidised mid market rented (MMR) flats. The Council's Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing Guidance states that MMR tenure is "rents at below market rent levels in the city i.e. at a point below 100% of Local Housing Allowance". In this instance, the rents proposed by the applicant (including service charges) were too high and did not meet the definition of affordable housing. The applicant was advised that if agreement on rents or the delivery of other affordable tenures cannot be reached, an open book assessment could be undertaken. The applicant initiated such an assessment in March 2016. However, this exercise was not progressed.

In May 2016, the applicant submitted revised proposals which form Scheme 5. The main changes relate to the amount and location of affordable housing. A full description of the changes to the proposals, compared to Scheme 4 which was reported to Committee on 21 December 2015, is included in the main report sections below.

Summary of Representations and Consultations in relation to Revised Scheme

The application was subject to further notification procedures on 2 June 2016 and neighbours and previous contributors were re-notified. Four representations were submitted in respect of the revised proposals and these are addressed in the main report.

Reasons for return of application to Committee

The application has been revised since the previous minded to approve decision in December 2015. In addition, the applicant has advised that it does not wish to enter into a new legal agreement to secure the proposed affordable housing. A statement has been provided setting out their reasons for this and their intentions in relation to the existing legal agreement. This can be viewed on via Planning and Building Standards online services. The Committee needs to consider whether the proposed changes in relation to affordable housing and other matters are acceptable.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 14 14/05305/AMC Main report

Site History

Site history details are set out in the report to Committee on 21 December 2015. Since this date, two additional applications in relation to this site have been submitted by the same applicant as for this application.

10 March 2016 - Application submitted for approval of matters specified in condition 2 as attached to outline permission 01/00802/OUT covering siting and height of development, design and configuration of public and open spaces, access, road layouts, footpaths and cycle routes: Granton local shopping centre masterplan (16/01273/AMC). This application relates to revised proposals for plots 12, 14, 15, 15A, 16 and 17. A report on this application is on the agenda for this Committee.

7 June 2016 - Application submitted for approval of matters specified in condition 2 as attached to outline permission 01/00802/OUT covering siting and height of development, design and configuration of public and open spaces, access, road layouts, footpaths and cycle routes (16/02621/AMC). The application is for a revised master plan for the whole of the Granton Harbour site and is pending consideration.

Revised proposals

Revised versions of the masterplan (reference X-1a), massing site plan (X-1a) and schedule showing plot areas and accommodation (X-1a) were submitted on 12 and 16 May 2016. A copy of the X-1a Masterplan with the section 75 agreement phasing overlaid and a covering letter were also submitted on 12 May 2016.

The main changes from Scheme 4 are as follows:

- The total number of proposed residential units has increased from 2094 units to 2102 and the number of affordable units has changed from 571 units (293 on sites owned by the applicant) to 105 units, all on sites owned by the applicant. In terms of undeveloped land currently within the applicant's ownership, 989 units are proposed with 105 of these to be affordable. The level of proposed affordable housing represents 5% across the whole site and 10.6% on sites in the applicant's ownership. - Affordable housing no longer shown on Plots 3, 4, 7A, 26, 27 and 30. - No affordable housing proposed on Plots S1 and S2 (formerly referred to as Plots 10A and 13). - Affordable housing (105 units in total) now proposed on Plot 19A (49 units), Plot 20B (6 units), Plot 22 (10 units), Plot 23A (10 units) and Plot 23B (30 units). - Plot 19 B on master plan drawing now labelled as follows "Proposed buildings on Plot 19B are indicative and not part of this application - subject to detailed planning". - Plot 3 - number of units reduced from 130 to 104. - Plot S2 (10A) - number of units increased from 203 to 240. Indicative car parking numbers increased from 296 to 362 spaces. Siting of development, open space, access, road layouts and footpaths have been revised. Heights have been amended from all seven storey to two seven storey and two eight storey blocks. - Plot S1 (13) - number of units reduced from 90 to 87. Indicative car parking numbers increased from 134 to 147 spaces. Siting of development, open space, access, road layouts and footpaths have been revised. The proposal was for four blocks, all five storey. Now three blocks are proposed - five and six storey on West Harbour Road and seven storey on Hesperus Broadway.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 14 14/05305/AMC On 22 July 2016, the applicant submitted further revisions which show additional affordable housing locations within the applicant's ownership and provide an amended schedule which indicates a total number of 1974 units and 318 affordable units. This provides for 127 affordable units out of a total of 861 units (14.7%) on sites currently in the applicant's ownership. It should be noted that these plans have not been subject to further consultation and therefore can only be treated as further supporting documents at this stage.

Assessment of Revised Scheme

Consideration needs to be given to the revised proposals (Scheme 5) as to whether

a) The principle of development is acceptable; b) The proposal is acceptable in terms of impact on listed buildings; c) The design and layout is acceptable; d) Transport issues are addressed; e) Residential amenity issues are addressed; f) Other relevant considerations have been taken into account; g) Equalities and human rights implications have been assessed; h) Sustainability matters have been assessed; and i) Matters raised in representations have been addressed.

a) Principle of development;

The proposed range of uses remain as previously proposed. However an updated assessment is required for the following uses:-

Retail, Leisure, Commercial Uses and Hotel

The following three main elements are covered in turn:

i. A large retail/commercial/leisure centre (13,691 sqm new floorspace) at the south eastern corner of the site; ii. A smaller retail/leisure/commercial centre providing 1,500 sqm new floorspace (comprising 500 sqm of each use) on Plot 19B; and iii. A hotel and marina at the northern end of the site.

i. The large retail/commercial/leisure centre

No changes are proposed in Scheme 5. This part of the application was not supported by Committee on 21 December 2015 and was excluded from the minded to approve decision through condition 4. The reasons for this condition are set out in the background information section of this report. One of the reasons that this part of the application was not supported was that the applicant did not submit a retail assessment (RA) to enable the impact of the proposed centre on the vitality and viability of existing centres to be assessed. An RA has now been undertaken for application 16/01273/AMC and its full findings are reported in relation to that application.

However, in summary, the RA supports the level of retail use proposed and demonstrates that this will not have an unacceptable impact on the City Centre, Ocean Terminal or other local centres. The principle of the large retail/commercial/leisure centre on this part of the site can therefore now be supported. However the concerns in relation to the siting, height, layout and deisgn of the large centre set out in detail in the previous report remain valid.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 14 14/05305/AMC

ii. Smaller Retail/Commercial/Leisure Centre

The revised master plan (scheme 5) indicates that the proposed centre of 1,500 square metres on plot 19B aimed at providing local facilities for the residents of early phases of development is now indicative only and does form part of this application. Whilst these facilities are welcomed in the interests of sustainable development and good place-making, their potential loss would not justify a reason for refusal.

iii. Hotel and Marina

No changes are proposed in Scheme 5.

Housing

Scheme 5 proposes 2,102 residential units in total, an increase of eight units from Scheme 4. This change is as a result of an increase in the number of units on Plot S2 (10A) and a reduction in the number of units on Plots 3 and S1(13).This slight increase in the number of units is welcomed in terms of contributing towards meeting housing need and has no implications in terms of the overall mix and density of development across the site.

The further supporting documents submitted by the applicant in July 2016 indicate a lower number of 1974 residential units. Whilst it would be disappointing if the overall number of units was to be reduced, it is recognised that the actual number of units on each plot will only be determined when detailed proposals are submitted.

Affordable Housing

Outline planning application 01/00802/OUT was granted subject to a legal agreement which included a requirement for 15% affordable housing on six locations across the site.

Both the previously approved master plans for Granton Harbour (06/03636/REM submitted by Forth Ports and 13/04320/AMC submitted by Granton Central Developments) provided for 15% affordable housing on at least six plots across the site.

Scheme 4 considered by Committee on 21 December 2015 proposed 293 affordable units on two plots (10 A and 13) which equated to 14% of the overall housing numbers. This was supported subject to a legal agreement to secure land for the provision of affordable housing on these two plots as proposed by the applicant. Scheme 4 also showed affordable housing on plots 3, 4, 7A, 26, 27, 28 and 30. However for the reasons explained in the previous report, affordable housing on these plots was considered to be either not achievable or indicative only.

In Scheme 5, affordable housing is no longer proposed on plots 10A and 13, the affordable housing shown on plots 3, 4, 7A, 26, 27, 28 and 30 has also been removed. The revised proposals show 105 affordable units on five plots which equates to 5% of the 2102 total units across Granton Harbour. The required 15% provision is sought in line with the original legal agreement. In relation to the overall site, this would equate to 315 affordable units. In relation to the 989 units proposed on the applicant's land in Scheme 5, 148 affordable units are required.

The applicant was advised that the level of affordable housing proposed falls far short of the requirements of the legal agreement. In the interests of supporting the regeneration of Granton Harbour, Council planning and housing officers offered to work with the applicant to identify where further opportunities for affordable housing could be identified, including on sites not in the applicant's ownership.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 14 14/05305/AMC As a result of ongoing discussions, the applicant has submitted an updated plan and schedule to show an increased provision of affordable housing and a statement outlining its position in relation to this issue.

Legal advice taken by the Council indicates that this application should address the requirement for 15% affordable housing across the whole of the Granton Harbour site. On this basis, the full content of the applicant's statement is not agreed. However, the principle that the applicant can only secure affordable housing on land within its control is accepted. The amended schedule and masterplan (further supporting documents) indicates 127 affordable units out of a total of 861 (14.7%) on sites currently in the applicant's ownership.

The amended schedule and master plan also show 191 affordable housing units on plots 3, 4, 7A and 28. These sites are not in the ownership of the applicant and, as explained in detail in the previous report on 21 December 2015, this level of affordable housing cannot be secured on these sites. Plots 4 and 28 are already built with no affordable housing requirement. Plots 3 and 7A have extant planning permissions with no affordable housing requirement. The opportunity to secure affordable housing on these plots will only arise if new applications are submitted.

On the basis of the master plan drawing and schedule submitted as Scheme 5, the application is contrary to ECLP Policy Hou 7 as there is insufficient affordable housing provision. However, the applicant has confirmed in writing that it intends to fully comply with the terms of the existing section 75 agreement on the sites in its ownership and the further supporting documents show additional affordable housing sites including 15% provision on land in the applicant's ownership. Notwithstanding the outcome of this application, further detailed AMC applications will be needed for individual plots. This will provide the opportunity to secure affordable housing in line with the original legal agreement.

On this basis, it is accepted that the master plan can be approved without this matter being fully resolved and that a new legal agreement is not necessary at this stage. Informatives are proposed to make clear the Council's expectations in relation to the level of affordable housing and information that will be required with further submissions. The Council's Housing and Regulatory Service support this approach.

b) The proposal is acceptable in terms of impact on listed buildings;

The revised scheme raises no new issues in relation to impact on listed buildings

c) The design and layout is acceptable;

In agreeing to approve Scheme 4, a condition was attached indicating that the proposals in respect of plots 12, 14, 15, 15A, 16 and 17 were not approved because the siting, design and layout of the large retail/commercial/leisure centre are not acceptable. The proposals for the remainder of the site were supported subject to a condition that the private amenity space and car parking areas for the individual plots are for illustrative purposes and do not form part of the development hereby permitted.

The only changes to the siting, design and layout in Scheme 5 compared to Scheme 4 relate to Plots S1 and S2. The changes in relation to the revised siting, design and layout of Plots S1 and S2 have been assessed and a number of concerns identified.

Public green space - in Scheme 4 there was a total of 18,273 sq. metres of public green space with 4,087 sq. metres of this located on three distinct areas on plots 10A and 13 (now S1 and S2). No information is provided in Scheme 5 on the amount and type of open space on plots S1 and S2.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 14 14/05305/AMC Access - a road access is shown from West Harbour Road onto an area shown green on the master plan. The applicant has indicated that this is intended to provide an access to an underground car park. It is not possible to fully assess this arrangement at this stage. However, it is unlikely to be acceptable on road safety grounds taking account of the nature of West Harbour Road, proximity to a road junction and impact on the tram safeguard.

Road layout and Footpaths - the relationship between the road layout and footpaths within Plots S1 and S2 and the existing service road to the east is unclear. Proposals should address the potential to create east to west footpath and cycle links whilst avoiding conflict with service vehicles.

Car parking - the Schedule of Uses submitted in Scheme 5 refers to 507 car parking spaces for 327 flats on Plots S1 and S2. This is an increase from 430 spaces in Scheme 4. Although approval is not being sought for car parking in this application, this has implications for siting of development, open space, road layout etc, all of which this application is seeking approval of.

Heights

The height of the proposed flatted blocks in Plots S1 and S2 may be acceptable. But it is not appropriate to consider this matter in isolation from all others.

The applicant was requested to provide additional information to address these matters. However, this was not provided and the application has been assessed on the basis of the submitted drawings. The principle of housing use on these sites is accepted. However the concerns listed above mean that the proposals for S1 and S2 are potentially contrary to ECLP policies Des2 Co-ordinated development, Des3 Development Design and Des4 Layout Design. It is therefore recommended that Plots S1 and S2 are treated as indicative only and are not approved at this stage.

d) Transport issues are addressed;

The only transport changes from Scheme 4 are those relating to indicative car parking number, access road layout, footpaths and cycle routes in Plots S1 and S2. These are addressed in section 3.3 c) above.

e) Residential amenity issues are addressed;

The revised scheme raises no new issues in terms of residential amenity. The increase in the indicative number of car parking spaces from 3659 to 3738 is unlikely to be supported by Environmental Assessment because of impact on air quality. However, car parking is not one of the matters covered by this application.

f) Other relevant considerations have been taken into account;

The revised scheme raises no new issues in terms of other relevant considerations

g) Equalities and human rights implications have been assessed;

The revised scheme raises no new issues in terms of equalities and human rights implications.

h) Sustainability matters have been assessed;

The revised scheme raises no new issues in terms of sustainability matters.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 8 of 14 14/05305/AMC i) Matters raised in representations have been addressed;

Four representations were submitted following neighbour notification of Scheme 5. Three of these were objections and one was in support. Two of the objectors had submitted representations to previous schemes - the matters raised are addressed in the previous report. The additional objection relates to the multi storey car park which is addressed in the previous report. The additional supporting representation refers to economic benefits, job creation, provision of facilities for local residents and the need for suitable car parking provision. All of these matters are addressed in the previous report.

The representations submitted to Scheme 5 are in addition to those submitted to previous schemes and summarised in sections 3.3i) and 8.2 of the previous report on 21 December 2015.There were 46 representations to Scheme 1, 21 representations to Scheme 2, and nine representations to Scheme 4. (Scheme 3 was not subject to further notification).

Conclusion

The principle of mixed use development at Granton Harbour is supported. It accords with the development plan and the outline planning permission 01/00802/OUT approved in June 2003.

In December 2015, Committee was minded to approve Scheme 4 with the exception of plots 12, 14, 15, 15A, 16 and 17 and subject to a legal agreement in relation to affordable housing. The reasons why the proposals for plots 12, 14, 15, 15A, 16 and 17 were not supported are explained in the previous report and in the decision by Committee set out in the background information section in this report. The RA now provided by the applicant in support of application 16/01273/AMC demonstrates that a local centre of the scale proposed can be supported in principle. However, the proposed siting, layout, height and design of this centre are not agreed at this stage.

The applicant has made subsequent changes (Scheme 5) to the application which are assessed in this report. The revised scheme raises concerns in relation to the siting and layout of Plots S1 and S2 and it is therefore recommended that the details of the proposals for these plots are not approved at this stage.

Changes have also been made in relation to affordable housing. The applicant is no longer proposing 293 affordable units on Plots S1 and S2 which were to be the subject of a legal agreement. The proposals submitted under Scheme 5 do not meet the requirement for 15% affordable housing provision across the Granton Harbour. However, discussions with the applicant have resulted in the submission of further supporting information which indicates where additional affordable housing could be provided. This shows a provision of 14.7% affordable housing on land currently in the applicant's ownership.

In order to move matters forward, approval of this application is recommended on the basis that the applicant has confirmed in writing that it will meet the terms of the existing legal agreement in relation to sites in its ownership and the affordable housing requirement can be addressed when future AMC applications come forward on individual plots. On this basis, a new legal agreement is not necessary at this stage.

It is recommended that this application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives below.

Conditions:-

1. The reserved matters covering siting and height of development, design and configuration of public and open spaces, access, road layouts, footpaths and cycle routes are not approved in respect of plots 12, 14, 15, 15A, 16 and 17 as shown on the masterplan drawings A-P-00-G7-001 revX1a and the proposed Plot Area and Accommodations Schedule Revision X-1a.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 9 of 14 14/05305/AMC

2. The reserved matters covering siting and height of development, design and configuration of public and open spaces, access, road layouts, footpaths and cycle routes are not approved in respect of plots S1 and S2 as shown on the masterplan drawings A-P-00-G7-001 revX1a and the proposed Plot Area and Accommodations Schedule Revision X-1a.

3. This consent does not discharge any reserved matters in respect of the following:

4. No further development shall take place at the site until a revised flood risk assessment and surface water management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Transport. This shall then inform the detailed planning applications on the individual plots.

5. No development shall take place to construct the new berths within the marina until the extension to the Western Breakwater has been implemented.

6. Details of a suitable Waterfront cycle/ pedestrian route shall be submitted to and approved by the Head of Planning and Transport and shall give priority to the cyclists and pedestrians using this facility over side road traffic. The details shall include details of the connections to the promenade at the east and west sides of the site. The approved route shall be implemented as agreed by the Head of Planning and Transport.

7. The detailed design of a 5 metre wide cycle track for shared cycle/pedestrian use on West Harbour Road/Lower Granton Road shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Head of Planning and Transport. It shall be designed to give priority to the cyclists and pedestrians using this facility over the side road traffic. It shall also allow for suitable connections to the promenade at the east and west of the site.

Reasons:-

1. The proposals for these plots are contrary to policies Ret 6, Des 1, Des 3, and Des 4 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan, and policy Del 4 of the Second Proposed Local Development Plan because the siting of the buildings, and design and configuration of public spaces, roads and footpaths in the proposed large centre are unacceptable. These are not based on a comprehensive and integrated approach which draws upon the positive characteristics of the site's waterfront location to create a sense of place. In addition, the height, scale and form of the large centre will have a detrimental impact on the wider townscape and the layout of car parking spaces and pedestrian/cycle routes in this part of the site will not encourage walking and cycling.

2. The proposals for these plots are contrary to policies Des 2, Des 3 and Des 4 in the Edinburgh City Local Plan because there is inadequate information on public green space, road layout and footpaths and the access arrangements are unacceptable.

3. In order to define the consent herby permitted.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 10 of 14 14/05305/AMC 4. In order to minimise the risk of flooding.

5. In the interests of the safe operation of the marina.

6. In order to safeguard the interests of road safety and to provide suitable off road transport routes.

7. In order to safeguard the interests of road safety and to provide suitable off road transport routes.

Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of two years from the date of this consent or from the date of subsequent approval of matters specified in conditions, or fifteen years from the date of the outline planning permission, whichever is the later.

2. The additional affordable housing sites shown on supporting documents Granton Harbour Masterplan A-P-00-G7-001 X1c and associated schedule are noted. The Council requires that an updated plan for all of the land within the applicant's control is provided as a supporting document with all further submissions made for the approval of matters specified in conditions. The updated plan shall identify sites allocated for affordable housing on the applicant's land. The applicant is requested to enter into dialogue with Registered Social Landlords to deliver the affordable housing. The affordable housing will be required to include a variety of house types and sizes to reflect the provision of tenures across the wider site.

3. The Council's expectation that 15% of all residential units are affordable housing units across the master plan area in relation to the terms of the S75 agreement remains. For the avoidance of doubt, in the event that this cannot be achieved, it is accepted that the applicant is only expected to deliver a maximum of 15% of the housing provided on their land as affordable housing.

4. The new breakwater section to protect the marina will require separate consent from the Council under the Coast Protection Act 1949.

5. For the avoidance of doubt, the car parking numbers are not approved at this stage.

6. Tram: There are a number of issues which conflict with the current design and operation of the tram. These should be addressed in future application submissions:

- The boundaries of the development are on the Limits of Deviation and there is potentially a conflict if the two are constructed at the same time. - An additional road crossing is shown to the east of Chestnut Street which is not on the current tram design. - As a consequence of the above, the proximity of the road crossings to each other at this location gives cause for concern, particularly if they are signalised. - In addition, the developer will be required to amend the design to reflect the tram track or pay for the tram design to be amended. - The development drawing does not reflect the proposed position of Granton Tram stop and the adjacent tracks with overhead equipment, footway and soft landscaping. The detailed drawings will be required to reflect the proposed position of the platform.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 11 of 14 14/05305/AMC 7. A Quality Audit, as set out in Designing Streets, to be submitted at an early stage and prior to the grant of Road Construction Consent. Quality Audits may be phased if appropriate.

8. The applicant should note that new road names may be required for the development and this should be discussed with the Council's Street Naming and Numbering Team at an early opportunity.

9. Any off-street residential hard standing outside should be porous, to comply with 'Guidance for Householders' published in December 2012.

10. Prior to carrying out works to an existing road, whether adopted or not, appropriate permits must be applied for and secured.

11. All accesses must be open for use by the public in terms of the statutory definition of 'road' and shall be the subject of applications for road construction consent. The extent of adoptable roads, including footways, footpaths, access, cycle tracks, verges and service strips to be agreed. The applicant should note that this will include details of lighting, drainage, Sustainable Urban Drainage, materials, structures, layout, car and cycle parking numbers including location, design and specification.

12. No works shall be commenced until:

a) the design and full specification of all traffic controlled junctions, crossings and road layouts have been approved by the Head of Transport; b) the details of the surface water and drainage have been approved by the Head of Planning and Transport, including in relation to road construction consent; c) the details of hard and soft landscaping including street furniture as they relate to roads, have been approved by the Head of Planning and Transport, including in relation to road construction consent; d) appropriate road opening permits have been applied for and secured.

13. Electric vehicle charging outlets should be considered for this development which includes: dedicated parking spaces with charging facilities; ducting and infrastructure to allow electric vehicles to be readily accommodated in the future.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 12 of 14 14/05305/AMC Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITWA1, CITD1, CITD2, CITD3, CITD4, CITE3,

this application CITE9, CITE13, CITE14, CITE17, CITE18, CITOS3, CITD9, CITH2, CITH3, CITH4, CITR4, CITH7, CITD6, CITEM5, CITEM4, CITR6, CITT13, CITH2, CITD5, LDPP, OTH, NSGD02, NSMDV, NSP, NSOSS,

A copy of the original Committee report can be found in the list of documents at https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa- web/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NH1CC4EWIB400

Or Council Papers online

John Bury Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: David Cooper, Acting Service Manager E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 6233

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 13 of 14 14/05305/AMC Revised Housing and Regulatory Services Response dated 4 August 2016 1. Introduction

I refer to the consultation request from the Planning Department about this planning application. Services for Communities have developed a methodology for assessing housing requirements by tenure, which supports an Affordable Housing Policy (AHP) for the city.

- The AHP makes the provision of affordable housing a planning condition for sites over a particular size. The proportion of affordable housing required is set at 25% (of total units) for all proposals of 12 units or more. - This is consistent with Policy Hou 7 Affordable Housing in the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

2. Affordable Housing Provision

This proposal is for up to 2,102 units and as such the AHP will apply. The original outline application for this masterplan area was approved for up to 3,396 units (reference number 01/00802/OUT).

At the time the outline application was approved the AHP requirement was at a level of 15%. This level of provision was agreed at that time and forms the basis of the Section 75 legal agreement. As such the AHP requirement of 15% provision of approved affordable tenures remains extant for this AMC application.

The applicant has provided supporting information for this application which states an intent to comply in providing 15% affordable housing on land within their control. This would be delivered across five sites; 19A, 20B, 22, 23A and 23B. Accordingly, 127 (15%) of the 861 homes shown on land in the applicants control should be a recognised affordable housing tenure, as set out in “Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing”, approved by Planning Committee on 3 December 2015. Across sites within the masterplan area, 15% affordable housing will be sought through detailed consents.

We would request that the applicant enter into discussions with this department and registered social landlords in order to deliver a well integrated and representative mix of affordable housing.

The affordable housing will require to be provided on-site and consist of blind tenure homes which are well integrated and offer a representative mix of the market homes across the wider site.

3. Summary

The applicant has made a commitment to provide 15% on site affordable housing and this is welcomed by the department.

- The applicant is requested to enter into dialogue with Registered Social Landlords to deliver the affordable housing. - 15% of the homes delivered are required to affordable homes. - The affordable housing will be required to be include a variety of house types and sizes to reflect the provision of tenures across the wider site.

END.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 14 of 14 14/05305/AMC Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Application for Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions 16/01273/AMC At 62 West Harbour Road, 11 Granton Square, Edinburgh Application for approval of matters specified in condition 2 of outline application 01/00802/OUT covering siting and height of development, design and configuration of public and open spaces, access, road layouts, footpaths and cycle routes: Granton local shopping centre Masterplan.

Item number Report number

Wards A04 - Forth

Summary

The creation of a local centre is identified in the development plan to meet the convenience shopping needs of new and future residents. The submission of a retail assessment has enabled the impact of the proposed local centre to be considered and the principle of the land uses proposed is acceptable.

However, other aspects of this application are not acceptable. Insufficient information has been submitted to enable the matters listed in the application description to be approved.

The local plan supports the development of high quality, well designed arts, leisure and entertainment facilities and visitor attractions in Granton Waterfront. The detailed elements of this proposal are not considered of suitable quality and are therefore contrary to the local plan.

The design and configuration of the Masterplan encompassing the public spaces, roads and footpaths in the proposal are contrary to the development plan as they are not based on a comprehensive and integrated approach to creating a high quality place

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 1 of 37 16/01273/AMC and encouraging walking and cycling. The height, scale, form and layout will have a detrimental impact on the wider townscape in this part of the site.

It is recommended that the retail, leisure and commercial land uses proposed within the Granton Harbour Local Centre are approved but the masterplan, accommodation schedule and associated drawings are not approved for the reasons set out in this report.

Other material considerations have been taken into account, including Scottish Planning Policy, the Second Proposed Local Development Plan, Edinburgh Design Guidance, Waterfront Granton Masterplan and submitted representations. These either support the development plan position or do not outweigh this conclusion.

Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITWA1, CITD1, CITD2, CITD3, CITD4, CITE3,

this application CITE9, CITE13, CITE14, CITE17, CITE18, CITOS3, CITD9, CITR4, CITD6, CITEM4, CITR6, CITT13, CITD5, LDPP, PLDP04, PLDP64, NSG, NSGD02, NSGSTR, NSP,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Report

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below. Background

2.1 Site description

The application site extends to 3.6 hectares.

The east section of the site comprises a single large warehouse and vehicle service area, currently operating as a storage business. This part of the site also comprises a two storey office building fronting West Harbour Road. The west section of the site comprises a single warehouse currently operating as a storage business and a smaller 2 storey industrial business.

To the west of the site lies recently completed six and eight storey residential development and the Royal Forth Yacht Club. To the north lies five and seven storey residential development. To the south lies a series of business premises, extending to two and three storeys in height. To the north west lies a warehouse which currently is currently in retail use.

The site fronts onto Granton Square which creates a formal space at the entrance to the harbour. West Harbour Road is located to the west of the square and contains a number of buildings, many of them listed, related to uses connected with the harbour, including 11 West Harbour Road, Former Custom House (listed category B, reference number: 27651, listed on 12 December 1974), 1 West Harbour Road, Former Bonded Warehouse (listed category B, reference number: 29924, listed on 20 February 1985) and 1-4 (INCLUSIVE NOS) Granton Square, Including Railings (listed category B, Group A, reference number: 28930, listed on 14 December 1970).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 37 16/01273/AMC

2.2 Site History

20 June 2003 - Outline planning permission granted for the Granton Harbour Village, mixed use development comprising residential units, hotel and serviced apartments, shops and retail/services, restaurants/cafes, public houses, general business, leisure facilities and marina. This permission includes a legal agreement to secure contributions towards education and transportation infrastructure, 15% affordable housing, restrictions on future tenancies within Granton Industrial Estate and the long term maintenance and upkeep of the Western Breakwater (01/00802/OUT).

20 October 2003 - Permission granted for 91 flats at Plot 2 (02/03635/FUL).

29 April 2004 - Permission granted to construct new partial quay wall and landfill along south edge of new harbour (04/00191/REM).

11 June 2004 - Permission granted for the construction of new canals infrastructure (04/00415/REM).

28 July 2004 - Permission granted for the construction of new road, verge, footpath and cycleway infrastructure (04/00696/REM).

1 July 2005 - Permission granted for 295 flats at Plots 4 and 7A (03/01922/FUL).

21 July 2005 - Approval of reserved matters for 131 flats at Plot 3 (04/01662/REM).

5 October 2005 - Approval of reserved matters for 30 townhouses and 6 mews houses at Plot 29 Granton Harbour (04/04630/REM).

21 October 2005 - Permission granted for new roads and related infrastructure at Plots 29 & 30 Granton Harbour (05/00500/FUL).

1 March 2006 - Approval of reserved matters for 73 flats at Plot 30 (05/00228/REM).

18 March 2006 - Approval of reserved matters for 120 flats at Plot 28 (04/03604/REM).

31 May 2006 - Approval of reserved matters for 264 flats at Plots 26 and 27 (04/01661/REM).

12 December 2006 - Listed Building Consent granted for demolition of former transit shed (06/04029/LBC).

14 March 2009 - Approval of reserved matters to discharge the following reserved matters as attached to outline permission 01/00802/OUT (under condition 2): siting and height of development; design and configuration of public and open spaces; access, road layouts; footpaths and cycle routes; existing and finished ground levels in relation to ordnance datum (06/03636/REM).

27 March 2009 - Permission was granted for strengthening works to upper concrete wall forming part of the Western Breakwater (05/01604/FUL).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 37 16/01273/AMC

10 November 2010 - Permission was granted for upgrading Lochinvar Drive; forming a new square (Heron Square), converting, upgrading and extending the Gunpowder Store into a restaurant/bar (08/00098/REM).

30 August 2013 - Previous application to discharge matters specified in conditions as attached to outline permission 01/00802/OUT (under condition 2): siting and height of development; design and configuration of public and open spaces; access, road layouts; footpaths and cycle routes; existing and finished ground levels in relation to ordnance datum was withdrawn at the request of the applicant (13/01013/AMC).

31 January 2014 - Application approved for matters specified in condition 2 as attached to outline permission 01/00802/OUT: covering siting and height of development; design and configuration of public and open spaces; access, road layouts; footpaths and cycle routes. This was subject to a number of conditions including the requirement for a revised flood risk assessment and surface water management plan, no construction of new berths within the marina until the implementation of the Western Breakwater, landscape detailed design to be submitted for plot 12, detailed design of the proposed 4 metre wide cycle track on West Harbour Road/Lower Granton Road, restriction on the height of plot 35, and submission of detailed design of plot 12, reserved matters not including matters in connection with Middle Pier, storey heights being maximum heights, consent being for a maximum number of residential units with each plot having housing number and height being determined at detailed design individually, and residential amenity space not being included. An informative was also added which stated that the new breakwater section to protect the marina would require separate consent from the Council under the Coast Protection Act 1949 (13/04320/AMC).

21 December 2015 - application for revised master plan approved subject to a legal agreement in respect of affordable housing (14/05305/AMC). The approval excluded the area of the site where a local centre was proposed by condition 4 as follows:

The reserved matters covering siting and height of development, design and configuration of public and open spaces, access, road layouts, footpaths and cycle routes are not approved in respect of plots 12, 14, 15, 15A, 16 and 17 as shown on the masterplan drawings A-P-00-G7-001 revX1 and the proposed Plot Area and Accommodations Schedule Revision X-1.

The legal agreement has not been concluded. Scheme 5 proposals have now been submitted in relation to this AMC application and as a result this matter is being referred to Committee for further consideration.

Main report

3.1 Description of the Proposal

The purpose of the current application relates to part of the masterplan area and is to discharge a selected number of reserved matters which were attached to the outline planning permission (01/00802/OUT) under condition 2. These are:

- Siting and height of development; - Design and configuration of public and open spaces; - Access and road layouts; and

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 37 16/01273/AMC

- Footpaths and cycle routes.

The same matters were approved in 2009 under planning application 06/03636/REM (with the exception of existing and finished ground levels in relation to ordnance survey datum), and in 2014 under planning application 13/04320/AMC. If approved, this application will provide a revised Masterplan to guide the redevelopment of a part of Granton Harbour, through the creation of a local centre.

This applicant previously applied for a local centre as part of a wider application (14/05305/AMC). On 21 December 2015, the Development Management Sub- Committee decided to approve this application subject to a legal agreement with the exception of the local centre.

RETAIL, LEISURE, COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS USES

The current application comprises masterplan plots 12 and 14 to 17 with accommodation comprising;

Plot 12 - one leisure unit totaling 2,135 sqm Plot 14 - one leisure unit totaling 400 sqm Plot 15 - one leisure unit totaling 400 sqm Plot 15a- one leisure unit totaling 400 sqm Plot 16 - 16 Retail units totaling 3,077 sqm, Commercial/Business 508 sqm & Leisure 78 sqm. The plans only show retail units in this plot. Plot 17 - Retail 4,797 sqm, Commercial/Business 1,063 sqm & Leisure 105 sqm

This amounts to a total of 7,874 sqm retail, 1,571 sqm commercial/business and 3,518 sqm leisure.

There is no significant change to the overall amount of these uses from that which is proposed in application 14/05305/AMC. The main changes relate to the submission of a retail impact assessment and the siting of the uses which this application is seeking approval for.

The previous planning permission (13/04320/AMC) includes retailing at various locations throughout the masterplanned site. A local centre was approved in Hesperus Square at the heart of the development. Further retailing and leisure space was to be provided at the north end of the site next to the new marina and at the south next to West Harbour Road. Provision for retail units under flats at the entrance to Granton Square was also made. This application seeks an alternative development over part of the masterplan area.

HEIGHT OF DEVELOPMENT

This application is seeking approval of the height of the proposed development. A massing site plan has been submitted as part of this application. This shows the following heights:

Plot 12 - 3 storey Plot 14 - 3 storey Plot 15 - 3 storey

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Plot 15a- no height stated Plot 16 - 2 storey Plot 17 - 2 & 3 storey

ACCESS, ROAD LAYOUTS, FOOTPATHS AND CYCLE ROUTES

The proposal shows a central north to south road with a shared pedestrian/cycle route on the east edge. Development is set back from West Harbour Road to accommodate the proposed tram route and incorporates a shared pedestrian/cycle route. The north boundary to Hesperus Crossway incorporates a shared pedestrian/cycle route. The layout incorporates two service areas to the rear of the retail units and coach parking off Lochinvar Drive. The layout also incorporates an east west pedestrian route between plots 17 and 15A and extending into plot 16.

SUPPORTING STATEMENTS

The following documents have been submitted in support of the application:

- Planning Statement; - Transport Statement; - Retail Impact Assessment; and - Sketches.

These documents are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards online services.

3.2 Determining Issues

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?

If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 37 16/01273/AMC

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether: a) The principle of development is acceptable; b) The proposal is acceptable in terms of impact on listed buildings; c) The design and layout is acceptable; d) Transport issues are addressed; e) Residential amenity issues are addressed; f) Drainage and flooding matters are addressed; g) Matters raised in representations have been addressed; h) There are any equalities or human rights impacts; and i) Other material considerations are addressed. a) Principle of Development

The principle of the redevelopment of Granton Harbour for a mixed use development has been established through the granting of outline planning permission in 2003. The outline permission allows for a mix of uses comprising residential units, hotel and serviced apartments, shops and retail/ services, restaurants/ cafes, public houses, general business, leisure facilities, and a marina.

The conditions of the outline planning permission set the maximum threshold for the quantum of the various uses within the site. The main limitations are:

- residential units shall not exceed 3,396 units; - commercial/ business space shall not exceed 23,190 sqm; - public amenity and leisure uses shall not exceed 7,650 sqm; and - each retail unit shall not exceed 250sqms with the exception of one that shall not exceed 1,500 sqm. There was no limit on the overall amount of retail proposed at the site.

The Retail Assessment (RA) submitted in support of the application describes the proposal as "a local centre to meet the daily shopping needs of the new Harbour community but position itself so that it also serves the wider Granton area. It also seeks to provide a number of bespoke tourist/visitor shopping units based around the marina setting. It is intended that one unit extending to 1,500 sq m would be created and reserved as a local supermarket. All other units would not exceed 250 sq m. A total of 54 units are indicated.

Whilst the thresholds in the outline consent are not exceeded by the current proposals, the retail/ commercial/ leisure uses have the potential to raise concern in terms of the scale and type of development proposed and the concentration in one part of the site. This was not envisaged in the original outline permission.

ECLP shopping proposal S5 proposes the creation of two new local centres at Granton Waterfront.

ECLP Policy Ret 4 Local Centres states that "Planning permission for retail development in or on the edge of a local centre will be permitted provided the proposal:

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 8 of 37 16/01273/AMC

a) can be satisfactorily integrated into the centre b) is compatible, in terms of scale and type, with the character and function of the centre c) makes a positive contribution to the shopping environment and appearance of the centre d) would not have a significant adverse impact on the city centre retail core or any town centre. "

Para 8.22 of the ECLP states that Policy Ret 4 - applies to all local centres including those proposed at Granton Waterfront.

Para 8.8 of the ECLP states that "for larger developments of 2,500 sq m or above applicants will be required to demonstrate through a RIA, that there will be no threat to the vitality and viability of the centres listed in Table 8.1 as indicated in the relevant policy.

This proposal should also be assessed against the emerging Second Proposed LDP which is a material consideration, and is the most up-to-date policy position. LDP Policy Ret 4 is relevant. This adds to criteria d) of ECLP Ret 4 that the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on city centre retail core or any town or local centre. Proposal S2 of the Second Proposed LDP proposes the creation of a new local centre at Granton Waterfront and identifies its location on the proposals map. Table 11 Edinburgh Waterfront Development Principles applies to the Granton Waterfront. Proposals will be expected to: "meet the convenience shopping needs of new and future residents by implementing the proposed Local centre (Proposal S2)".

Economic Development has indicated that the proposal would create between 342 and 546 full time equivalent jobs.

Retail Assessment

The applicant has undertaken a retail assessment (RA) to demonstrate that it will not have a significant impact on any designated/protected retail centre. The previous application (14/05305/AMC) did not include a RA.

Retail impact assessments are useful in providing an indication of the likely impacts of development. They can only ever be indicative and are based on a number of assumptions about trading conditions in the area at present and in the future. An overall view must also be taken, giving consideration to interpretation of identified impacts and likely effects.

No occupiers are identified for the development therefore there is no certainty that the eventual development will reflect the proposed concept or mix of uses therefore there is a risk that the eventual composition could be different to that on which the assessment has been made.

The Retail Statement submitted in support of the application assessed 8,120 sq of retail use, 1,816 sq m of commercial/business use and 3,755 sqm of leisure use within the 'local shopping area'. The schedule accompanying the proposed plan shows lesser amounts of floorspace in relation to each of these uses.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 9 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Character and function of the proposal

Local centres are defined within the ECLP as shopping centres, usually of 10 units or greater, serving a local retail function. Within Edinburgh local centres vary in size and composition. Centres range in size from 1- 123 units. The average number of units is 21 and average floorspace at 2015 was 2,745 sq m. The majority of the local centres are below 2,500 sq m. There are six local centres which are in the range of 7,500 to 11,500 sq m. Most local centres are well established. More recently local centres have been created at Western Harbour and Waterfront Broadway.

The floorspace overview provided at Table 1 of the RA indicates that the proposal is for 54 units and refers to a total floorspace of 8,120 sq m gross. This would make it one of the larger centres in Edinburgh. In terms of units, only Easter Road and Broughton Street have more units. Both of these are within well established, densely populated parts of the city.

The RA and Supporting Statement indicate that the proposal will serve more than a local retail function as it would serve the wider Granton area and visitor/tourist market. The RA is based upon the wider anticipated catchment which extends to a 10 minutes drive time, well beyond that which would be expected for a local centre. Within this catchment there are eight local centres and Ocean Terminal which is identified in the ECLP and Proposed LDP as a Commercial Centre.

Accepting that the proposal is beyond a local centre, in terms of the amount and nature of the provision, the centre could still perform the role of meeting the day to day needs of the local population. A unit of 1,500 sq m is identified within the proposal which could provide for convenience needs and the other smaller units could provide further services/ retail uses to provide for local needs.

Capacity for retail within the catchment

As part of the Retail Assessment, a retail model has been provided which follows a standard approach. As with all models, this involves a number of subjective assumptions and therefore results can only ever be indicative. It assumes a 50/50 split between comparison and convenience shopping. The RA identifies a surplus of expenditure within the catchment which is not being serviced by existing retail floorspace. A key element in the calculation of this surplus is an assumption regarding the amount of expenditure which comes from outwith the area to be spent in centres within the catchment, 50% in the case of Ocean Terminal. While it appears that there is an excess of capacity in the catchment, any deficiency in provision should be considered in the context of the surrounding retail landscape. For comparison goods, it is expected that there will be overlaps in catchments. There are commercial centres close to the catchment boundary, for example Craigleith, which may be more attractive to those living close to the edges and would reasonably be expected to absorb some of this surplus expenditure.

There is no requirement to demonstrate that there is a quantitative deficiency in a local centre. However, if there is no deficiency or limited deficiency in provision then the impacts on other centres will be greater as there will be more reliance on taking trade from existing centres.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 10 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Retail Impact

The RA identifies a turnover of £24.36 million, of which £18.27million would derive from within the catchment. The remaining quarter of the proposal's gross turnover would come from visitors/tourists. The assessment of impacts is based upon this assumption and impacts identified would therefore differ if the nature of the proposal were to vary from that set out in the RA which is aimed at the local and visitor/tourist market as well as the local population.

The RA makes an assessment of the impact of the proposal on the centres within the catchment by applying assumed turnover ratios to floorspace of the centres. Assumptions are made about the amount of trade which would come from each of the centres to the proposal. This is then applied to the turnover of the centres resulting in a percentage impact on each of the centres.

It is estimated that 25% of the catchment turnover would derive from existing local centres, 13.5% from Ocean Terminal and 6% from out of centre locations. The remaining 55% of the proposals net turnover (all goods) is assumed to come from claw back of expenditure from destinations outwith the catchment or overtrading of existing stores. In other words, it is assumed that the impacts of the proposal will be limited due to availability of expenditure within the area which is being spent at centres outwith the catchment such as Fort Kinnaird, Craigleith and the city centre. Other than a reference to a busy car park and strong footfall, there is no real evidence to demonstrate over trading at the stores within the catchment area. The proximity of other commercial centres and the city centre to the catchment may mean that the ability to draw trade from these centres is limited.

A 'worst case scenario' has been included within the model. This assesses impacts based upon a higher turnover figure for the proposal and a slightly reduced level of visitor/tourist spend.

Impact on City Centre

Prioritising the city centre is a key objective of the development plan. The RA states that a proportion of the trade diverted from outwith the catchment would be from city centre stores but considers that the impacts would be negligible as it considers there is a surplus of comparison expenditure in Edinburgh. The proposal is intended to appeal to the tourist market (25% of the gross turnover is expected from this), some of which would be expected to have directed their spending to the city centre in the absence of the proposal. Unit sizes are relatively small and unlikely to attract large scale multi- nationals who may normally look to locate within the city centre. The scale of turnover of the proposal is relatively small in relation to the turnover of the city centre therefore any diversion would be result in a small numerical impact on the city centre.

Impact on Local Centres

There are no town centres within the catchment of the proposal. There are eight local centres.

Impacts should be considered on the individual centres. The RA sets out percentage impacts for each of the identified centres in the catchment.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 11 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Local Centre Retail Impact Retail Impact-'Worst case scenario' Boswall Parkway 9% 13.5% Muirhouse 7.4% 11.2% Ferry Road East 6.7% 10.2% Ferry Road West 4.3% 6.5% Davidson Mains 4.9% 7.4% Drylaw 6.3% 9.5% Western Harbour 4.3% 6.5% Waterfront Broadway 3.3% 5%

The percentage impact is useful in identifying the scale of impact. However, the effect of any percentage will vary depending on the centre concerned. Even small percentage impact could be significant to some centres if they are considered to be struggling already.

The qualitative assessment provided in the RA points to poor physical condition, poor comparison shopping and other factors in local centres which may indicate that they are in poor health and therefore more vulnerable to such levels of impact.

Vacancy rates can provide one indicator of viability of centres. Evidence from the Council's Edinburgh's Retail Survey 2015 shows that vacancy rates within the local centres range from 0%- 17%. The vacancy rate across all local centres in Edinburgh is 8%.

The local centres provide for the needs of their immediate area and are convenience based. The proposal would therefore be unlikely to compete to a significant extent with the existing local centres as its offering, as far as is set out in the RA, is different. It would be unlikely to draw those living within walking distance of their existing local centres and utilising them to meet their day to day needs. The proposal would therefore be unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the vitality or viability of local centres within the catchment of the proposal.

Impact on Ocean Terminal

An objective of the ECLP and Second Proposed LDP is to sustain the vitality and viability of existing centres. Ocean Terminal is identified within the network of shopping centres as a Commercial Centre. As with local centres, no assessment has been provided on the health of this centre and its ability to withstand any level of impact.

Ocean Terminal provides a range of retail and leisure uses. The centre has a total of 90 units and a floorspace of around 26,000 sq m. It is anchored by a department store and approximately one third of the units are more than 250 sq m gross.

The proposal as assessed - 8,120 sq m gross retail, limited to one unit of 1,500 sq m and other units not exceeding 250 sq m is of a different scale and type to Ocean Terminal and should perform a different role within the shopping hierarchy. However the prospect that the proposal - offering retail and leisure may compete to some degree with Ocean Terminal must be considered quite likely. The RA estimates that £2.48 million of the proposals turnover is expected to come from Ocean Terminal resulting in an impact of 3.2%. Under the 'worst case scenario', this rises to 4.9%.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 12 of 37 16/01273/AMC

As it is a large centre the impact of the proposal on Ocean Terminal appears quite small. Consideration must be given to overall impact on vitality and viability of the centre which should consider the effect the proposal may have on the attractiveness of the centre to investors and the number of people using the centre. The Retail Survey 2015 identified 20% of units within Ocean Terminal as vacant. This is high compared with other commercial centres and the city wide vacancy rate at that time of 9%. More than a quarter of the vacant units at that time were in excess of 250 sq m gross. The majority however were units of less than 250 sq m. The units within the proposal could therefore provide an alternative location for those who may otherwise have considered locating within Ocean Terminal leading to continued vacancies. Ocean Terminal is a covered mall with representation from national retailers combined with leisure uses and is of a scale in excess of that of the proposal. It is likely that the impact of the proposal would not be so significant as to affect the viability of the centre as the centres are most likely, on the whole, to be attractive to different types of occupiers. The proposal is intended to appeal to the tourist market. Ocean Terminal derives some of its footfall from the presence of the major visitor attraction of the Royal Yacht Britannia. It is not considered that the proposal would impact to any significant degree on this footfall.

Conclusion - Principle

The creation of a local centre at this location is identified in the development plan to meet the convenience shopping needs of new and future residents. The proposal indicates a role beyond that of a local centre.

In the form described the Commercial Centre at Ocean Terminal is the most likely centre to be affected. The level of impact on Ocean Terminal is not considered to be so adverse to weaken its vitality and viability. If the proposal were to incorporate adjacent areas and increase the concentration of retail and leisure in this area, then the impact on Ocean Terminal may be quite different.

The assessment of impact is based upon a floorspace of 8,120 sq m and a condition is recommended to restrict the maximum amount of retail floorspace. On this basis, the principle of this level and concentration of retail use is acceptable.

However, for the reasons set out below, the detailed elements of this proposal are not considered to be acceptable. The other uses proposed: business and leisure are also acceptable in principle. b) Setting of the Listed Buildings

The site does not contain any listed structures. A number of listed buildings lie to the south on West Granton Road. The information provided in respect of the siting of buildings and height demonstrates that, with the appropriate design treatment, the proposal will not harm the setting of the listed structures. c) Siting, Layout and Design

Layout

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 13 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Changes have been made to the siting, layout and design details that were shown in relation to application 14/05305/AMC. However there is still insufficient information to adequately asses these aspects of the application.

Granton Harbour is identified as a Waterfront Area of Change (WAC 2) in the Edinburgh City Local Plan (2010). Within this area, the Council supports a broad mix of uses and a finer grain of development, incorporating a high standard of design. ECLP para 11.6 states that development should have a strong urban form and scale, generating a permeable and legible perimeter block structure, in which buildings provide some kind of activity to all public ground floor frontages. ECLP para 11.10 supports a network of streets and paths which integrate with adjoining neighbourhoods and draw people to the water's edge. These principles are reflected in the approved Masterplan (13/04320/AMC), but would be compromised in the revised application for the following reasons.

Policy Wa 1b) of ECLP supports development which will contribute towards the creation of new urban quarters in the Waterfront Area of Change. In particular there is support in this area for the provision of a series of mixed use sustainable neighbourhoods that connect to the Waterfront, with each other, and with nearby neighbourhoods. Wa 1 a) requires development to be in accordance with an agreed masterplan and Policy Des 4 (layout design) seeks a comprehensive integrated approach.

The application is seeking approval of the design and configuration of public and private open space, access road layouts, footpaths and cycle routes across the site and relates to one part of the wider masterplanned site.

This proposal is not supported by any information to demonstrate how it connects or responds to the wider masterplan, recently developed sites or adjoining land. The proposal incorporates an east west pedestrian route through plot 17 but this route does not extend west beyond the application site to link with the adjoining planned development. The proposed route now terminates in a play area, adjoining a service yard, and is surrounded by extensive dead frontages. The proposed layout is not in accordance with the local plan and wider masterplan approach to achieve a permeable integrated urban form.

The applicant has submitted a layout plan showing the location of the areas of open space within these plots. The proposal incorporates two public spaces in the form of an area for public art and an area for play. This application seeks consent for the design of these spaces but no details are provided to demonstrate what would be in these spaces, how the spaces would be constructed, used or managed. It is not clear why they are so extensive and in the locations proposed. While the principle of a space for public art and a play space may be appropriate, there is insufficient information to demonstrate that these spaces are part of a cohesive masterplan, that there is sufficient need for these and that this is an appropriate location, given the relationship to the Waterfront itself. It is not appropriate to consent the design of these spaces without any detailed information.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 14 of 37 16/01273/AMC

The north east section of the application site is dominated by car parking fronting three roads. The extensive area proposed for public art and plot 16 are aligned to reflect the retention of the existing shed in plot 11 (Go Outdoors). This plan form does not represent a strong urban form and perimeter block structure. The proposed layout is more akin to an American shopping mall where the car is the dominant element and takes centre stage in front of the buildings. The proposed plan form does not accord with the general principles of policy Wa1 which seek to create a broad mix of uses and a finer grain of development nor does it create a logical perimeter block structure.

The layout is contrary to ECLP policy Wa 1 a) & b) and policy Des 4. The layout is also contrary to the Second Proposed LDP EW2c and policy Des 2.

Design and Height

Policy Des 1 states that 'design should be based on an overall design concept that draws upon positive characteristics of the surrounding area to create or reinforce a sense of place, security and vitality.'

The proposed siting and layout of the large retail/leisure/commercial centre does not draw upon the positive characteristics of the site's waterfront location. The masterplan layout drawing suggests that the development of the north will be dominated by surface car parking, the gable of two units and a multi level car park. This does not provide a positive perimeter development form and will create a poor quality environment adjacent to proposed residential development and at this gateway location. The proposal will not deliver the ECLP aspiration for an urban higher density character of development.

Supporting information submitted by the applicant in the form of street elevation/sketches do not fully reflect the layout drawings for the retail element. The sketches show three storey developments with a pitched roof form. The drawings submitted for approval show flat roof buildings with a single floor of accommodation. The proposed extensive flat roofs will not complement the adjoining buildings or the remainder of the consented masterplan. As the proposed plans only contain one level of floorspace, the upper floors will be dead elevations and provide no opportunity for passive surveillance. The design will not create the strong urban form and scale as was envisaged in the local plans and consented in the existing masterplan.

The proposed large retail/leisure/commercial centre will have a negative impact on its setting and the overall masterplanning of the area in terms of positioning of buildings, height, scale and form and is therefore contrary to ECLP policy Des 3 a).

The multi storey car park has been set back from the north boundary in comparison with application (14/05305/AMC). However, the proposal is contrary to policy Des 3c) due to the negative impact of the proposed multi-storey car park on the immediate outlook of the occupiers of plot 4. The proposal does not promote community safety by providing active frontages to more important thoroughfares and is not designed for natural surveillance in accordance policy Des 3 f). The proposal does not comply with policy Des 3 h) as the proposed multi-storey car park and surface car parking is visually obtrusive and not sensitively integrated into the design.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 15 of 37 16/01273/AMC

The proposal fails to meet Second Proposed LDP policies Des 1, Des 2, Des 4, Des 7 for reason stated previously. This proposal is also contrary to policy Des 5 b) as the development form does not provide for adaptability in relation to future capacity for alternative land uses.

It has not been demonstrated how the proposed large centre is integrated satisfactorily into its surroundings with attractive frontages to a high quality design that safeguards existing character. The proposal comprises a large commercial development which is not compatible with the vision for mixed use sustainable neighbourhoods. In terms of the proposed leisure uses, the proposal does not meet the requirements of clause a) of ECLP policy Ret 6 which supports high quality design.

In conclusion, the siting, design and layout of the proposed large centre represent a poor design solution and are not acceptable from a placemaking point of view being are contrary to a number of ECLP design policies. The Second Proposed LDP contains similar policies, the requirements of which are also not met.

The proposed design is contrary to ECLP policies Wa 1 a) and b), Waterfront Development Principles, Des 1, Des 4, Des 3 and Ret 6. The proposal is also contrary to Second Proposed LDP policies Des 1, Des 2, Des 4, Des 5 b) and Des 7.

The applicant was requested to submit information in support of the proposed height of the development. Condition 2 (01/00802/OUT) states that detailed plans and sections should be submitted. The applicant has only submitted a storey height diagram without any level information or dimensions. Without adequate detailed information it is not appropriate to consent the height of any development. d) Transport Matters

The application seeks the approval of access, road layout, footpaths and cycle routes.

The application has been amended to remove any potential conflicts with the Tram 'Limits of Deviation ‘and raises no issues in this regard.

The applicant has submitted a Transport Statement and plans showing car parking, car parking numbers and a multi-storey car park. It is noted that this application does not seek approval for the reserved matter of car and cycle parking. It is also noted that the outline planning permission does not include a multi-storey car park.

The applicant's Transport Statement states that the parking provision is in accordance with the approved masterplan. This statement is not accepted as the original consent (01/00802/OUT) reserves car parking, and subsequent applications (06,03636/REM, 13/04320/AMC and 14/05305/AMC) did not seek permission for car parking.

The applicant is of the view that relocating the majority of the retail, commercial and leisure uses into one large centre will encourage access by modes other that the private car. This statement is not accepted as a larger centre will potentially draw trade from a wider area encouraging increased car based travel as is indicated by the extensive surface parking and proposed multi level car park.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 16 of 37 16/01273/AMC

As approval of car parking numbers is not specifically being applied for, it is not appropriate to approve extensive surface car parking and a multi-storey car park.

The availability of car parking is a major influencing factor in how people choose to travel. This major regeneration of this area is based upon suitable future accessibility of good walking and cycling facilities and public transport. The level of parking proposed within the application drawings is not compatible with the Council's Transport Strategy.

In conclusion, the development does not accord with the ECLP Waterfront General Principles which seek development which reduces the influence of the car and encourages walking and cycling. The detailed elements of the development do not accord with ECLP policy Tra 6 and the Second Proposed ELDP Tra 4 because the siting and design of the proposed multi storey and surface car parking are unacceptable. e) Residential Amenity

The amenity of existing and future residents living adjacent to the site is a material consideration. This includes existing flats to the north and east and also a number of plots that have been consented for residential development to the north and west. There is also existing housing to the south of the site, in the vicinity of Granton Square.

In relation to the north boundary, the proposed structures are in excess of 30m from the boundary. At the height shown, two, three and four storey, the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on daylight or sunlight. The proposed multi level car park, surface car park and blank facades of the proposed structures will have a significant impact on visual amenity of the neighbouring residents and is therefore contrary to the Second Proposed ELDP Policy Des 5 a).

In relation to the east boundary, the proposed structures are in excess of 17m from the existing flatted properties on Lochinvar Drive. At the height shown, 3 storey, would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on visual amenity, daylight or sunlight, subject to a high quality design solution.

In relation to the south boundary, the proposed structures are separated from the existing properties on West Granton Road by the existing road and tram safeguard. At the height shown, two and three storey, the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on visual amenity, daylight or sunlight, subject to a high quality design solution.

On the west boundary, plot 12 is a three storey leisure building. The adjoining land is consented for residential development (13/04320/AMC) and proposed for housing in the current parallel application (14/05305/AMC). The applicant has provided no information in relation to the impact on daylight or overshadowing. The proposed three storey structure would cast a substantial shadow over any adjoining residential units or garden grounds. It is also likely that these elevations will be largely blank, due to the nature of the land use and the location of active frontages on dwg 03. Environmental Assessment has expressed concern about the proposed use in Plot 12 in relation to neighbouring residential.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 17 of 37 16/01273/AMC

The current proposal will not present a sensitive edge condition to the adjoining land to the west, is not in accordance with the approved master plan in this area and will present an inappropriate edge condition to future development.

Environmental Assessment has expressed concern regarding the air quality impact of the car parking levels. The previously consented Masterplan showed a total of 1,471 car parking spaces across the wider site. The current application does not seek approval for the car parking but shows a multi- storey car park and surface parking totaling 512 spaces. The applicant's planning statement indicates that there are 572 spaces but these are not shown on the application drawings. As this application does not seek approval for car parking it is not necessary to assess the cumulative impact on air quality at this point. It is also not appropriate to grant permission for any of the car parking shown on the proposed plans, or the multi-level car park structure, contained within the proposal.

The detailed elements of this proposal are not considered of suitable quality and it proposal is contrary to ECLP Des 2 as it may compromise the development of land to the west and ECLP Des 3 c) and the Second Proposed ELDP Policy Des 5 a) due to the detrimental impact on amenity. f) Drainage/ Flooding

The outline planning permission to which this application relates has a condition which requires that surface water drainage arrangements be approved prior to commencement of works on site. This application does not relate to this condition.

The outline planning permission to which this application relates has a reserved matter relating to floor levels with particular reference to flooding. This application does not relate to this reserved matter and no details of floor levels have been provided.

The previous 2014 approval contained a suspensive condition to the effect that no development could take place until a revised flood risk assessment has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Council. It is recommended that the same condition is attached to this permission. g) Matters Raised in Representations

The following points were raised in representations:

Material objections/comments

Design matters - these are addressed in section 3.3 (c) - buildings represent an improvement; and - multi storey car park will impact on views.

Transport matters - these are addressed in sections 3.3 (c) and (d) - parking problems including increased pressure on street parking; - level of parking resulting in greater congestion; and - will enhance pedestrian and cycling experience along the waterfront.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 18 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Amenity issues - these are addressed in section 3.3 (e) - multi storey car park will obstruct sunlight and impact on amenity through noise and disturbance; and - loss of privacy, overlooking, loss of light and sunlight, overshadowing.

Non-material comments

- effect on loss of private view; and - building 7a does not have permission. h) Equalities and Human Rights

The application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. No significant impacts were identified. An Equalities and Human Rights Assessment is available to view on the Planning and Building Standards online services. i) Other Material Considerations

The application description requests masterplan consent and is supported by a minimal amount of information. Condition 2 (01/00802/OUT) specifies that detailed plans, section and elevations shall be submitted for each phase shall be submitted. This information has not been provided and the applicant has declined to submit additional information stating that they are seeking masterplan approval only, at this point.

It is noted that condition 3 (01/00802/OUT) requires any reserved matter application to be accompanied by site survey, investigation and potential remediation measures. This application does not include this information.

Conclusion

However, other aspects of this application are not acceptable. Insufficient information has been submitted to enable the matters listed in the application description to be approved.

The local plan supports the development of high quality, well designed arts, leisure and entertainment facilities and visitor attractions in Granton Waterfront. The detailed elements of this proposal are either not provided or are not considered of suitable quality and are therefore contrary to the local plan.

The design and configuration of the Masterplan encompasing the public spaces, roads and footpaths in the proposal are contrary to the development plan as they are not based on a comprehensive and integrated approach to creating a high quality place and encouraging walking and cycling. The height, scale, form and layout will have a detrimental impact on the wider townscape in this part of the site.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 19 of 37 16/01273/AMC

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Conditions:-

1. The approved land uses shall comprise a maximum of 8,120sqm retail floorspace (GFA) and the gross floor area of each retail unit will not exceed 250 sqm, with the exception of one retail unit which shall not exceed 1,500sqm (GFA).

2. For the avoidance of doubt, this consent does not discharge any reserved matters or conditions.

3. No further development shall take place at the site until a revised flood risk assessment and surface water management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Transport. This shall then inform the detailed planning applications on the individual plots.

Reasons:-

1. In accordance with the level of development assessed within the supporting information and the limitations on retail unit size, contained within the outline permission.

2. To enable the Plannning Authority to consider the reserved matters in accordance with the level of detail specified with outline consent 01/00802/OUT.

3. In order to minimise the risk of flooding.

Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. The details of matters specified in conditions, including the siting, height of development, design and configuration of public open spaces, access, road layouts, four storey car park structure, footpaths and cycle routes contained in drawings numbers 2b,3,4, 5 and 6 are not approved:-

Reasons:-

a. The proposed layout is contrary to policies Wa1 a) and b) and Des 4 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan, and policy Des 2 of the Second Proposed Local Development Plan because the siting of the buildings, and design and configuration of public spaces, roads and footpaths in the proposed large centre are unacceptable. These are not based on a comprehensive

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 20 of 37 16/01273/AMC

and integrated approach which draws upon the positive characteristics of the site's waterfront location to create a sense of place. In addition, the height, scale and form of the large centre will have a detrimental impact on the wider townscape and the layout of car parking spaces and pedestrian/cycle routes in this part of the site will not encourage walking and cycling.

b. The proposed design is contrary to ECLP policies Wa 1 a) and b), Des 1, Des 4, Des 3, Ret 6 and the Waterfront General Principles. The proposal is also contrary to the Second Proposed LDP policies Des 1, Des 2, Des 4, Des 5 and Des 7.

c. The proposal is contrary to ECLP policy Tra 6 and Second Proposed LDP policy Tra 4 as the siting and design of the proposed multi storey and surface car parking are unacceptable.

d. The submission does not contain adequate information to consider the matters for which consent as applied. The minimum level of information required is set out in condition 2 (01/00802/OUT) which specifies that detailed plans, section and elevations shall be submitted for each phase shall be submitted.

e. The detailed elements of this application represents a breach of condition 3 (01/00802/OUT) which requires any reserved matter application to be accompanied by site survey, investigation and potential remediation measures. This condition dictates that the AMC stage is the only stage when this information can be required and as this application does not include this information it is not appropriate to approve the matters applied for at this stage. Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

There are no financial implications to the Council. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low. Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. The impacts are identified in the Assessment section of the main report.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 21 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

One pre-application discussion took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 25 November 2016. The proposals have received five representations, three of which are objections one is in support and one raises non-material points. A full assessment of the representations can be found in the Assessment section of the report.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 22 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Background reading/external references

To view details of the application go to;  Planning and Building Standards online services

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 23 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 24 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Statutory Development Plan Provision The Development plan comprises the Strategic Development Plan for Edinburgh and South East Scotland (SESplan), which was approved by Scottish Ministers on 27 June 2013, and the Edinburgh City Local Plan which was adopted by the Council on 28 January 2010.SESplan identifies the Edinburgh Waterfront as one of the city's four Strategic Development Areas (SDAs).

The Edinburgh City Local Plan identifies the site as the Waterfront Area of Change (WAS 2). This part of waterfront regeneration area is allocated for mainly housing and includes a proposal for a local shopping centre (S5) in the south east corner of the site and a safeguarded cycleway/ footway is shown along the north, east and west site boundaries (coastal Promenade). The coastal areas adjacent to the east and west of the site are allocated as nature conservation sites of international and national importance.

The Second Proposed Local Development Plan identifies the site as Edinburgh Waterfront . Proposal EW 2c (Granton Area) sets out the development principles for this part of the Waterfront is for a housing- led mixed use development. A local centre is indicated as proposed S2 for a new local centre. A transport route (T8) runs along some boundaries of the site to provide various off road cycle/footpath links. The route along the southern boundary is safeguarded as a tram route.

Other relevant guidance is provided by the 'Waterfront Granton Masterplan' (WGM) prepared by Llewelyn Davis and approved as Supplementary Planning Guidance in January 2001. This provides the vision and framework for the area including detailed guidance for the four main urban quarters that make up the area including Granton Village and Harbour.

Date registered 10 March 2016

Drawing numbers/Scheme 1,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 25 of 37 16/01273/AMC

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: David Cooper, Acting Service Manager E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 6233

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 26 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Links-Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Policy Wa 1 (Waterfront Areas of Change) sets criteria for assessing development in the Granton and Leith Waterfront Areas of Change.

Policy Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) sets general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated.

Policy Des 2 (Co-ordinated Development) establishes a presumption against proposals which might compromise the effective development of adjacent land or the wider area.

Policy Des 3 (Development Design) sets criteria for assessing development design.

Policy Des 4 (Layout Design) sets criteria for assessing layout design.

Policy Env 3 (Listed Buildings - Setting) identifies the circumstances in which development within the curtilage or affecting the setting of a listed building will be permitted.

Policy Env 9 (Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance) sets out the circumstances in which development affecting sites of known or suspected archaeological significance will be permitted.

Policy Env 13 (Sites of European Importance) identifies the circumstances in which development likely to affect Sites of European Importance will be permitted.

Policy Env 14 (Sites of National Importance) identifies the circumstances in which development likely to affect Sites of National Importance will be permitted.

Policy Env 17 (Flood Protection) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on flood protection.

Policy Env 18 (Air, Water and Soil Quality) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on air, water and soil quality.

Policy Os 3 (Open Space in New Development) sets out requirements for the provision of open space in new development.

Policy Des 9 (Waterside Development) sets criteria for assessing development on sites on the coastal edge or adjoining a watercourse.

Policy Ret 4 (Local Centres) sets criteria for assessing proposals in or on the edge of local centres.

Policy Des 6 (Sustainable Design & Construction) sets criteria for assessing the sustainable design and construction elements of development.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 27 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Policy Emp 4 (Employment Sites and Premises) sets out criteria for development proposals affecting business & industry sites and premises.

Policy Tra 13 (Cycle and Footpath Network) prevents development which would prevent implementation of, prejudice or obstruct the current or potential cycle and footpath network.

Policy Des 5 (External Spaces) sets criteria for assessing landscape design and external space elements of development.

Relevant policies of the Proposed Local Development Plan.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Del 4 (Edinburgh Waterfront) sets criteria for assessing development in Granton Waterfront and Leith Waterfront.

Second Proposed LDP Policy Ret 4 (Local Centres) sets criteria for assessing proposals in or on the edge of local centres.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines.

Non-statutory guidelines on 'PARKING STANDARDS' set the requirements for parking provision in developments.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 28 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Appendix 1

Consultations

Environmental Assessment response – dated 16 March

Environmental Assessment have provided a consultation response for the ‘scheme 4’ (14/04320/AMC) proposal. The application boundary was far larger and did cover the application site now under consideration.

Environmental Assessment has also commented on similar applications/schemes one of which was subsequently withdrawn (13/01013/AMC) and another approved (13/04320/AMC). We have also made comments in relation to the original outline application under the 06/03636/REM application.

Planning permission has recently been consented for the ‘scheme 4’. The quantum of various uses was established as a condition of the initial outline consent (01/00802/OUT). There have been several other applications submitted since this was consented.

The 2014 (13/04320/AMC) approval accepted an overall reduction of housing from the previous 2009 consented masterplan (06/03636/REM) 3,396 units and the outline planning permission (3,284 units) to 1980 units. The latest application for the ‘scheme 4’ is for a total of 2094 residential uses.

The previously consented masterplan provided a total of 1,471 car parking spaces. The ‘Scheme 4’ proposal has increased this to a potential for a total of 3,659 spaces for the various use classes (including existing development) although the ‘Scheme 4’ application was not seeking the approval of car parking, it was taken into account when assessing the siting and layout considerations. This is the same situation for the current application albeit on a smaller plot. This application site does contain a very high level parking provision.

It was the understanding of Environmental Assessment that plot-specific issues would be addressed through detailed development processes (assuming the Masterplan delivers no major shift in the content or context of the outline approval, including development phasing). This is the first plot specific detailed application received and there has been no supporting noise or air quality impact assessments submitted.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 29 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Noise

Environmental Assessment has concerns regarding the proposed location of the commercial uses in the Pickford storage depot. This is located within an area next to where residential properties are located and proposed therefore we would require a full noise impact assessment to be carried out when more detailed plans are submitted.

The outline application (01/00802/OUT) addressed noise from existing industrial/commercial uses on the site and the phasing-in of the new noise sensitive uses in the form of a legal agreement. Environmental Assessment will require clarification weather this is enforceable and that it will not be possible to have residential units partial developed out then left next to commercial/industrial uses. We will require updated information on the phasing taking into account the changes proposed in the latest AMC application.

Land contamination

This Department had received information regarding the outline consent for Granton Harbour (01/00802/OUT). This Department will require this information to be updated.

Air Quality

Environmental Assessment had previously stated for previous schemes that we were satisfied with the overall reduction in residential density from the outline application. However it was highlighted that the minimum level of parking should only be provided in accordance with the Councils Transport Parking Standards. Justification for the then deemed overall high levels of proposed car parking (1,471 ) was requested specifically regarding concerns with the previous schemes hotel and multi storey car park. The ‘scheme 4’ application has consent for potentially up to 3,659 car parking spaces it should be noted that this was not something Environmental Assessment supported. The applicant must provide electric vehicle charging facilities throughout all the commercially managed car parking spaces. Environmental Assessment recommends that several of these charging units are 50Kw rapid charging point.

General

Planning conditions were recommended in the outline application (01/00802/OUT). These issues will still be required to be addressed at the detailed planning stages for each future application. Information in the form of a noise impact assessment is required upfront. This will ensure that an acceptable level of amenity in relation to noise/vibration (operational, entertainment, plant and machinery), hours of operation, odour (cooking) and light pollution can be achieved.

Overall Environmental Assessment recommends that this latest plot within the ‘scheme 4’ application is refused. The change in siting and massing clearly facilitates the number of car parking spaces substantially increasing. The likely level of parking will have an adverse impact on local air quality.

However if consented it must be subject to the conditions and legal agreement recommendations from 01/00802/FUL planning application being carried forward.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 30 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Economic Development response – dated 4 April 2016

Edinburgh's economic strategy, “A Strategy for Jobs 2012-17” aims to achieve sustainable economic growth through supporting the creation and safeguarding of jobs in Edinburgh. A key element of delivering jobs-driven economic growth is the provision of an adequate supply of workplaces.

Commentary on existing uses

The site in question is a 3.59 hectare plot lying between West Harbour Road and Hesperus Crossway, to the east of Chestnut Street. The site is currently occupied by the following buildings:

- 62 West Harbour Road: a 927m2 workshop (leased to Hepburn Fabrication Services Ltd) and 338m2 office (leased to IT Professional Training Ltd as a training centre). - 62A West Harbour Road: a 4,060m2 warehouse (leased to Pickfords Move Management Ltd and in use as a self-storage unit). - 63B West Harbour Road: a 9,867m2 warehouse (leased to Len Lothian Ltd and in use as a self-storage unit). - 63C West Harbour Road: a 21m2 kiosk (leased to Mr Derek Wilkins and in use as a snack bar). - 11 Granton Square: a 316m2 office (leased to Autism Initiative UK).

Based on average employment densities, the existing buildings could be expected to support a total of 250 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs if fully-let. The majority (174) would be within the warehouses. It is recognised that, as the warehouses are currently used for self-storage (an activity with low employment density), current employment levels are likely to be considerably lower. If it is assumed that employment within the self- storage units is negligible, this would reduce the estimated employment that could be supported by the site to 76 FTE jobs.

The site forms part of the wider Granton Harbour mixed-use redevelopment, which was minded to grant “with the exception of the large retail/leisure/commercial centre, subject to… conditions, informatives and a legal agreement” in December 2015 (14/05305/AMC). The position of the applicant is that the retail/leisure/commercial centre is necessary for the wider development to be viable and successful and that the remainder of the development cannot proceed in the meanwhile.

Commentary on proposed uses.

The development as proposed would deliver a total of 8,120m2 of class 1 (shops) space, 3,755m2 of class 3 (food and drink) space, and 1,816m2 of class 4 (business) space, along with 572 parking spaces (a net increase of 492).

Class 1 – Shops

The development as proposed would deliver 8,120m2 of class 1 (shops) space. This comprises a single unit of 1,500m2 and a further 53 units averaging 125m2. If fully let, this could, based on average employment densities, be expected to directly support between 406 and 541 full-time equivalent jobs.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 31 of 37 16/01273/AMC

It is relevant to note that the retail units at plot 11, 65A to D West Harbour Road (currently occupied by Go Outdoors, Poundstretcher, and M&M Furniture), which total 5,094m2, would also be retained as part of the wider redevelopment. The retail space within the contiguous local centre would therefore total 13,214m2. There would be a further 500m2 of retail space on plot 19B (west of Hesperus Broadway) and 300m2 at plot 8A (on the waterfront).

The emerging Local Development Plan identifies Granton Harbour as a new “local [shopping] centre”. A key theme in the determination of the Granton Harbour development has been the scale and layout of the retail elements and whether this is consistent with a local centre. In August 2015, a reason provided for the recommended refusal of planning consent was that “the scale and type of retailing is not consistent with the role and function of the proposed local centre at Granton Harbour and the proposed retail/leisure/commercial centre could potentially have a significant adverse impact on the city centre or other town centres.” The position of the applicant is that “there is sufficient capacity within the catchment…the proposal is capable of co-existing with all identified centres within the catchment”.

The emerging LDP defines a local centre as “a shopping centre, usually of 10 units or greater, serving a local retail function”. There is no upper limit on what constitutes a local centre; for example, the “Waterfront Broadway” local centre comprises a supermarket with 6,800m2 of sales space, whereas the “Wester Hailes” local centre incorporates the 15,800m2 Westside Plaza shopping centre. Additionally, it is noted that the existing retail offering in North Granton is weak and the existing residents are therefore underserved. While the proposed retail centre would clearly be one of the largest local centres in Edinburgh, it is unclear whether the scale of the retail elements can be said to be excessive given the scale of what has been accepted as a local centre elsewhere. The question of whether the retail elements would serve “a local retail function” or would rather draw custom from further afield – therefore competing with other retail centres – is challenging to address. It is noted that the supermarket that constitutes the “Waterfront Broadway” local centre was approved with a condition that “the proportion of floorspace devoted to comparison goods in the supermarket shall be no more than 25% of net floor area”. This condition requires that at least 75% of the sales space within the supermarket be reserved for convenience goods. A similar condition could be applied to ensure the retail elements of Granton Harbour retain a local function.

The applicant has provided a retail impact assessment prepared by Ferguson Planning. The RIA appears to conclude that expenditure within the retail centre within the new development will total £24.4 million (table 4), with £18.2 million (75%) coming from expenditure by people living in the “catchment” (identified as the area within 10 minutes drive of the development) and £6.2 million (25%) coming from visitors. Of the £18.2 million, 26.1% is expected to be displaced from other local centres within the development’s “catchment”, 13.6% from Ocean Terminal, 2.8% from “out of centre supermarkets”, and 57.4% from “overtrading within catchment stores or clawed back from destinations found beyond the catchment”. The RIA suggests that the current retail offer within the “catchment” is inadequate, resulting in overtrading.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 32 of 37 16/01273/AMC

It is important to note that the RIA assumes that the population of the “catchment” will increase by only 1,724 people between 2016 and 2019. This seems a conservative estimate given that the applicant’s own development alone would deliver 1,595 residential units. Table 1A of the RIA suggests that the population of the “catchment” could rise by 12,521 between 2016 and 2019, resulting in a £59.8 million increase in annual retail expenditure. However, this information is not referred to anywhere else in the RIA. The RIA is therefore potentially too conservative in that it vastly understates the impact of projected population growth.

It is highly challenging to assess the likely overall level of displacement. An assumption of 50% would give a net increase in employment associated with the class 1 elements of the development of between 203 and 270 full-time equivalent jobs.

Class 3 – Food and drink

The development as proposed would deliver 3,755m of “leisure” space. From contextual information, this is understood to refer to class 3 (food and drink) space rather than class 11 (assembly and leisure) space. If fully let, this could, based on average employment densities, be expected to directly support between 188 and 250 full-time equivalent jobs.

It is highly challenging to assess the likely overall level of displacement. An assumption of 50% would give a net increase in employment associated with the class 3 elements of the development of between 94 and 125 full-time equivalent jobs.

Class 4 – Business

The development as proposed would deliver 1,816m of class 4 (business) space. It is unclear from the material provided what form this space will take. If it was to be fully occupied as office space, this could be expected to support between 45 and 151 full- time equivalent jobs.

There is a growing shortage of class 4 space in Edinburgh; given this, coupled with the loss of the 1,581m of class 4 space currently on the site, it is assumed that displacement in this case will be low and a rate of 0% has been applied, giving a net increase in employment associated with the class 4 elements of the development of between 45 and 151 full-time equivalent jobs.

SUMMARY RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

It is estimated that the development as proposed would create between 342 and 546 full-time equivalent jobs after controlling for displacement associated with retail competition. This is a significant increase on the estimated employment potential of the existing buildings (between 76 and 250 full-time equivalent jobs) even when potential job losses elsewhere in Edinburgh due to competition are accounted for.

The development as proposed would result in the loss of a significant quantum of industrial and office space. While this is in line with the emerging Local Development Plan, there is increasing pressure on the supply of office and industrial space in Edinburgh and it is necessary to ensure that there is sufficient space allocated elsewhere to enable the lost stock to be replaced.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 33 of 37 16/01273/AMC

It is recognised that the new retail centre would be one of the largest local centres in Edinburgh; however, the emerging Local Development Plan does not cap the size of a local centre and there are a number of very large existing local centres. It is noted that the local centre at Waterfront Broadway was approved with a condition capping the proportion of sales space used for comparison goods at 75%.

This response is made on behalf of City Strategy and Economy.

Tram response – dated 4 April 2016

I have reviewed the application and I can confirm that the proposal is outwith the Limits of Deviation for the tram project, as defined under the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Act 2006, and is therefore not envisaged to adversely impact on the tram.

This application covers siting and height of the development as well as matters concerned with open spaces, footways and road layouts, within the site. The approval for the site itself was given in an earlier application (01/00802/OUT).

However, it should be noted that due to the proximity of the tram line, there is potential conflict if both sites were to be developed at the same time. Cognisance is given in the Transport Statement in this application to the tram network and combined walkway/cycleway to the north of West Harbour Road.

Archaeology response – dated 11 April 2016

Further to your consultation request I would like to make the following comments and recommendations in respect to this application for approval of matters specified in condition 2 of outline application 10/00802/OUT covering the siting and height of development, design and configuration of public and open spaces, access, road layouts, footpaths and cycle routes: Granton Local shopping centre Masterplan.

I refer you to my earlier comments in response to 01/00802/OUT, 06/03636/REM, 13/01013/AMC & 13/04320/AMC & 14/05305/AMC which outlined the archaeological significance of the site and mitigation requirements. As such this application must be considered therefore under terms the Scottish Government Historic Environment Policy (SHEP), Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), PAN 02/2011 and also Edinburgh City Local Plan Policies ENV4, ENV8 & ENV9. The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.

An archaeological mitigation strategy was agreed for the redevelopment of Granton Harbour in response to the original 2001 Outline application. Although various elements have been undertaken in the intervening period, principally by CFA Archaeology, with the last element of field work to the Western Harbour was undertaken in 2008, not all of the required mitigation has been undertaken. Principally in this case mitigation is still required that will affect/expose historic fabric relating to the listed middle pier (2014 Masterplan plots: 14, 15, 15A & 17) which runs along the eastern part of the site and on-site interpretation and conservation of historic marine infrastructure/streetscape.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 34 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Accordingly is it is essential that the following updated condition is attached to this consent to ensure the completion of this programme of archaeological works and the retention and conservation of significant maritime/ industrial historic fabric within the development.

'No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured and implemented a programme of archaeological work (interpretation, conservation, excavation, reporting and analysis and publication) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.'

Building Standards response – dated 21 March 2016

Geo-environmental Phase I & II reports would be required for a Building warrant application for this site as it is situated on landfill.

SEPA response – dated 13 May 2016

The land to which this application relates is part of a site which was recently considered under planning application 14/05305/AMC. We responded on 27 March 2015 (our reference PCS/139235): a copy of this letter is copied with this letter.

We have no objection to planning application 16/01273/AMC, but please note the advice provided below.

1. Flood Risk

1.1 We have no objection to the proposed development on flood risk grounds. Notwithstanding this we expect Edinburgh Council to undertake its responsibilities as the Flood Prevention Authority.

1.2 SEPA was previously consulted on an application for the wider area of Granton Harbour (14/05305/AMC). We had not been consulted previously on flood risk associated with this site but we supported the conditions from Edinburgh Council for a revised Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Management Plan for the site. It was noted that the wider site was potentially at medium to high risk of both coastal and surface water flooding.

1.3 The site proposed for development in planning application 16/01273/AMC is for a smaller area within the wider site. The site is shown to be outwith, but adjacent to, the medium to high flood risk area for both coastal and surface water flooding. As noted in our previous response, the predicted 0.5% annual probability (or 1 in 200-year) coastal flood level is 3.98mAOD based on extreme still water level calculations using the Coastal Flood Boundary Method, which does not take account of climate change, wave action, funnelling and local bathymetry. It is noted from spot levels that Lochnvar Road

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 35 of 37 16/01273/AMC lies at a level of approximately 5mAOD and LiDAR shows the site to be higher than this. We have no further information to indicate a flood risk at this location.

1.4 We have no objection to the proposals for development at this site. We recommend, however, that further investigation into the potential surface water flood risk is carried out. Contact should be made with Edinburgh Council Flood Prevention Team and Scottish Water to determine whether they hold any further information. We also recommend that consideration should be given to flood resilient and resistant construction such as raised floor levels in order to provide mitigation against the surface water flood risk and also any residual coastal flood risk from climate change and storm conditions.

Caveats & Additional Information

1.5 The SEPA Flood Maps have been produced following a consistent, nationally- applied methodology for catchment areas equal to or greater than 3km2 using a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) to define river corridors and low-lying coastal land. The maps are indicative and designed to be used as a strategic tool to assess, flood risk at the community level and to support planning policy and flood risk management in Scotland. For further information please visit http://www.sepa.org.uk/environment/water/flooding/flood-maps/.

1.6 Please note that we are reliant on the accuracy and completeness of any information supplied by the applicant in undertaking our review, and can take no responsibility for incorrect data or interpretation made by the authors.

1.7 The advice contained in this letter is supplied to you by SEPA in terms of Section 72 (1) of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 on the basis of information held by SEPA as at the date hereof. It is intended as advice solely to the City of Edinburgh Council as Planning Authority in terms of the said Section 72 (1). Our briefing note “Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009: Flood risk advice to planning authorities” outlines the transitional changes to the basis of our advice in line with the phases of this legislation and can be downloaded from http://www.sepa.org.uk/environment/land/planning/guidance-and-advice-notes/.

2. Surface Water Drainage

2.1 Because the discharge of surface water is to coastal waters there is strictly no requirement for SUDS to be provided, or for a simple CAR license to be in place despite there being >1,000 CAR parking spaces proposed in the application.

2.2 Despite there being no requirement for SUDS for this site, we strongly recommend that SUDS are developed for this site to provide mitigation against the potential of a diffuse environmental impact from the drainage associated with this site. response – dated 6 May 2016

We previously responded to a consultation on this application (our letter to you of 10 March 2015 refers). The present application (condition 2) concerns aspects of retail premises design and layout. We can inform your council that we do not wish to comment on this.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 36 of 37 16/01273/AMC

Location Plan

END

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 37 of 37 16/01273/AMC Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016 Report for forthcoming application by Alex Brewster & Sons. for Proposal of Application Notice

16/03170/PAN At Craigpark Quarry, 1 Craigpark, Ratho Restoration of former Craigpark Quarry for outdoor countryside and water related leisure and recreation, waterside development, visitor accommodation, access infrastructure and ancillary facilities.

Item number

Report number

Wards A02 - Pentland Hills

Summary

The purpose of this report is to inform the Development Management Sub-Committee of a forthcoming application for planning permission in principle for the restoration of former Craighouse Quarry for outdoor countryside and water related leisure and recreation, waterside development, visitor accommodation, access infrastructure and ancillary facilities.

In accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, the applicants submitted a Proposal of Application Notice 16/03170/PAN on 17 June 2016. Links

Coalition pledges Council outcomes CO7, CO19, CO23

Single Outcome Agreement SO4

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 1 of 8 16/03170/PAN

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 2 of 8 16/03170/PAN

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that the Committee notes the key issues at this stage and advises of any other issues.

Background

2.1 Site description

The site is part of the disused Craigpark Quarry, at the western edge of the village of Ratho. The site does not include land approved for housing under planning reference 13/02527/FUL.

The site is bound to the north by a strip of trees and shrubbery, next to the Union Canal, which is a scheduled ancient monument and by the Edinburgh International Climbing Arena to the north east. It is bound to the west by agricultural land and to the south by Bonnington Quarry.

A Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) runs along the northern edge of the site and to the south east there is an area of Long Established Woodland of Plantation Origin.

2.2 Site History

The site was an active quarry producing hard rock until 1990 when all extraction ceased.

May 2002 - planning application for restoration of redundant quarry and mixed use redevelopment comprising housing, business and commercial uses, with associated engineering works refused (application reference 02/01597/FUL).

14 August 2009 - planning permission was granted for the erection of 117 dwelling houses on the neighbouring site and restoration of the disused quarry to the south west for public amenity purposes (formation of country park) (application reference 05/01229/FUL). An Environmental Impact Assessment was submitted with this application. The proposal included 45 town houses, 42 four storey apartments, and 30 detached dwelling houses. The planning permission is subject to a legal agreement, requiring amongst other matters the implementation of a phased restoration programme and landscape management plan. The approved restoration works are currently in progress, with infilling of the quarry site now well underway.

21 November 2014 - planning permission was granted for a material variation to planning permission Ref; 05/01229/FUL to provide amended housing layout and substitution of house types and associated works (application reference 13/02527/FUL).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 3 of 8 16/03170/PAN

Main report

3.1 Description of the Proposal

An application for planning permission in principle will be submitted for the restoration of the quarry for outdoor countryside and water related leisure and recreation uses with associated waterside development, visitor accommodation, access infrastructure and ancillary facilities.

3.2 Key Issues

The key considerations against which the eventual application will be assessed include whether: a) the development would be acceptable in principle having regard to the development plan.

The site is allocated within the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan as a former quarry site. Policy M6 supports the beneficial reuse of the Quarry.

The proposal is subject to the countryside policy ENV10 of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan. b) the design, scale and layout are acceptable within the character of the area; and does the proposal comply with the Edinburgh Design Guidance.

The application will be for planning permission in principle. A design and access statement will be required to accompany the application. c) access arrangements are acceptable in terms of road safety and public transport accessibility;

The proposal should have regards to transport policy of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Development Plan and the Edinburgh Local Development Plan. Consideration should be given to the impact on traffic flows on local roads and access to public transport. A transport statement will be required to support the application. d) there are any other environmental factors that require consideration;

The applicants will be required to comply with the Reservoir (Scotland) Act 20011. The applicants will be required to submit sufficient information to demonstrate that the site can be developed without having a detrimental impact on the environment. An EIA screening will be required. In order to support the application the following documents should be submitted:

- Pre-application consultation report; - Planning statement; - Design and Access Statement; - Transport Statement; - Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal; - Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Management Plan;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 4 of 8 16/03170/PAN

- Air Quality Impact Assessment; - Noise Impact Assessment; - Tree Survey and Constraints Plan to BS 5837:2012; and - Phase 1 Habitat and Protected Species Survey.

3.3 Assessment

This report highlights the main issues that are likely to arise in relation to the various key considerations. This list is not exhaustive and further matters may arise when the new application is received, and consultees and the public have the opportunity to comment. Financial impact

4.1 The forthcoming application may be subject to a legal agreement. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low. Equalities impact

6.1 This is a pre-application report. When a planning application is submitted it will be assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. Sustainability impact

7.1 A sustainability statement will need to be submitted with the application. Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

The Proposal of Application Notice (reference 16/03170/PAN) outlined a public exhibition to be held on 15 August 2016 at Ratho Community Centre and 16 August 2016 at the Edinburgh International Climbing Arena.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The results of the community consultation will be submitted with the application as part of the Pre-application Consultation Report.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 5 of 8 16/03170/PAN

Background reading/external references

To view details of the proposal of Application Notice go to;  Planning and Building Standards online services

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan

John Bury

Head of Planning & Transport PLACE City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Jennifer Paton, Senior Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 6473

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 6 of 8 16/03170/PAN

Links

Coalition pledges

Council Outcomes - CO7 Edinburgh draws new investment in development and regeneration. CO19 Attractive Places and Well Maintained – Edinburgh remains an attractive city through the development of high quality buildings and places and the delivery of high standards and maintenance of infrastructure and public realm. CO23 Well engaged and well informed – Communities and individuals are empowered and supported to improve local outcomes and foster a sense of community.

Single Outcome Agreement SO4 Edinburgh's communities are safer and have improved physical and social fabric.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 7 of 8 16/03170/PAN

Location Plan

END

Development Management Sub-Committee – 17 August 2016 Page 8 of 8 16/03170/PAN