Notice of Meeting and Agenda

Notice of meeting and agenda

Planning Committee 10.00 a.m., Thursday, 28 February 2013 Dean of Guild Courtroom, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh This is a public meeting and members of the public are welcome to attend.

C o n tact Contact E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 4230

1. Order of business

1.1 Including any notices of motion 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. Deputations

3.1 (If any) 4. Minutes, for approval as correct records or for noting

4.1 Planning Committee of 6 December 2012 (circulated) (for approval) 4.2 Development Management Sub-Committee of 5 December; 19 December 2012; 16 January; 30 January 2013 (circulated) and 20 February 2013 (to follow) (for approval) 4.3 City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body of 28 November and 12 December 2012, and 23 January and 6 February 2013 (circulated) (for noting) 5. Planning Policy

5.1 Annual Review of Guidance - report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated) 6. Planning Process

6.1 Development Management Sub-Committee – Review of Procedures - report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated) 6.2 Edinburgh Urban Design Panel: Third Progress Report – report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated) 6.3 Planning Appeal Decision – 34 Hamilton Place, Edinburgh – report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated) 7. Planning Projects

7.1 Area Development Frameworks – Progress Report - report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated) 7.2 Royal Mile Action Plan – Draft for Consultation - report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated 8. Conservation

8.1 Pilrig Proposed Conservation Area – Appraisal of Historic and Architectural Interest - report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated)

Planning Committee – date 28 February 2013 Page 2 of 4 8.2 Edinburgh Colonies – Further Assessment - report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated) 9. Consultations

9.1 Review of Scottish Planning Policy - report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated) 10. Conference

10.1 Civic Trust Awards Ceremony 2013 - Invitation - report by Head of Legal Risk and Compliance (circulated) 11. Motions

11.1 If any.

Carol Campbell Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance

Committee Members

Councillors Perry (Convener), Howat (Vice-Convener), Bagshaw, Blacklock, Brock Cairns, Child, Dixon, Griffiths, Heslop, McVey, Milligan, Mowat, Rose and Ross.

Information about the Planning Committee

The Planning Committee consists of 15 Councillors and is appointed by the City of Edinburgh Council. The Planning Committee usually meets every eight weeks. It considers planning policy and projects and other matters but excluding planning applications (which are dealt with by the Development Management Sub-Committee). The Planning Committee usually meets in the Dean of Guild Court 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

If you have any questions about the agenda or meeting arrangements, please contact David Emerson, Committee Services, City of Edinburgh Council, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh EH1 1YJ, Tel 0131 529 4230, e-mail [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.

Planning Committee – date 28 February 2013 Page 3 of 4 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/cpol.

Planning Committee – date 28 February 2013 Page 4 of 4 M in u te s Minutes

Planning Committee

10.00 am, Thursday, 6 December 2012

Present

CouncCouncillorillor Perry (Convener), Howat (Vice-Convener), Bagshaw, Blacklock, Brock, Child, Griffiths, Heslop, McVey, Mowat, Rose and Ross.

1. Minutes

Decision 1) To approve the minutes of the Planning Committee of 4 October 2012 as a correct record.

2) To approve the minutes of the Development Management Sub-Committee of 26 September; 10 and 24 October, and 7 and 21 November 2012 as correct records.

3) To note the minutes of the City of Edinburgh Local Review Body of 3 and 31 October, and 14 November 2012.

2. Deputation – Craigmillar Community Council/Craigmillar Regeneration Forum

The deputation made the following points in relation to the Craigmillar Urban Design Framework – Options for Public Consultation (item 3 below):

- The community recognised that the economic recession would impact on the rate of development, however the aspirations and principles of the original plan should be preserved. They would not wish to see any major deviations from what was originally envisaged for the Urban Design Framework. They were concerned that postponement of development works was worsening the situation and wanted the Council and the partners to reinforce their commitment to the plan.

- That the siting of the replacement high school was fundamental and should be located in the town centre; the site for a new supermarket similarly was very important.

- They wished the original plans for housing types to be retained – being concerned that the recession, and other factors such as national reforms to welfare, would cause developers to press for alternatives.

- On public consultation, it was vital that the community was wholly involved. It was to be noted that a fair proportion of Craigmillar residents had been moved to housing in other areas, but needed to be included, these people waiting to be able to return to the area.

- They were supportive of the consultation paper and timetable schedule but would require planning officer support for the process, to be assured of meeting the timescales. The schedule could perhaps be shortened but stressed the importance of an in-depth consultation process. Decision To note the points made by the deputation, for consideration under item 3, and to request that the deputation’s points be available with circulation material in the public consultation exercise.

3. Craigmillar Urban Design Framework Review: Options for Public Consultation

The Council had approved the Craigmillar Urban Design Framework in 2005, in the form of supplementary planning guidance, to set out a vision for the future of Craigmillar and to promote a series of development opportunities and infrastructure projects. The Framework was to have promoted a re-positioned and strengthened town centre and the provision of new community schools, including a replacement Castlebrae High School on a town centre site, and with major housing and public realm developments. In view of the economic recession, as had subsequently impacted on the rate of development, the Planning Committee had agreed in August 2011 that the Urban Design Framework should be reviewed and had asked the officers to engage with the community and stakeholders to prepare options for consideration.

The Head of Planning and Building Standards now submitted a draft consultation paper to be used as a basis for public consultation on the future shape of the development. The options were intended to inform future discussion and events leading to the preparation of a revised framework. It was not intended to prepare a revised Craigmillar Urban Design Framework at this stage. The options were focussed on:

- Housing and Design: housing layout, design and type

- Movement: management of traffic and the provision of shared space on Niddrie Mains Road

- connections to Little France

- centres and services

- provision and location of a supermarket

- streetscape quality

Planning Committee – 6 December 2012 Page 2 of 10 - community facilities

- the location of a new community high school

- parks, open spaces and environment

- location of parks and open spaces within new development

- the future use of Cairntows Park

- business and employment

- drainage and infrastructure.

The options were to be discussed and refined through discussion with the Craigmillar and Portobello Neighbourhood Partnership and a public consultation strategy agreed, before embarking upon a formal consultation exercise in the new year. The programme would allow the results of the consultation exercise to be discussed by the Neighbourhood Partnership at the end of May 2013. A revised Urban Design Framework would then be presented to the Planning Committee at its meeting in August 2013; if circumstances allowed, the timescale could be shortened. Decision

1) To note the progress made in the delivery of key elements of the Craigmillar Urban Design Framework.

2) To agree the options set out in the appendix to the Head of Planning and Building Service’s report as a basis for further consultation with residents of Craigmillar and other interested stakeholders.

3) To ask the officers to note the PARC tendering schedules relative to the consultation process timetables. (Reference – report by the Director of Services for Communities, submitted.)

(Declaration of Interest – Councillor Ross declared a non-financial interest in the above item, as a member of the Board of PARC.)

4. Local Development Plan: Development Plan Scheme and Progress Update

The Council was in the process of preparing the city-wide new Local Development Plan. The Head of Planning and Building Services reported on an updated Development Plan Scheme and on progress to date. It was now estimated that the Plan would be published in September 2013. The period for consultation (on the Main Issues Report) was now finished and work was in preparation to address the issues which had been raised during the consultations. There was now a need to update the timetable for publishing the Plan,

Planning Committee – 6 December 2012 Page 3 of 10 which itself was partly dependent on the ongoing preparations of the South-East Scotland Strategic Development Plan. It was now the view that the Strategic Development Plan would be likely to receive Scottish Ministers approval in August 2013. Based on this assumption, it was considered better to publish the Proposed Local Development Plan after the strategic plan examination had been concluded which most likely would mean publication in September 2013. Submission to the Scottish Ministers was expected in June 2014, with possible final adoption in July 2015.

These dates could be brought forward if the SESplan examination report was available earlier than assumed and did not include modifications which would require further LDP consultation prior to the Proposed Plan stage.

(A separate report was being submitted to the Council’s Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee on 4 December 2012 to highlight the main objectives with a view to alignment of the delivery of aims of the Local Plan with investment in infrastructure works, at either a corporate or national level.)

In response to points raised by members regarding further stages and the participation of local bodies, the Head of Planning and Building Services indicated that he would arrange for the Neighbourhood Partnerships to be included in the training workshops being organised for the Civic Forum, along with the community councils and other local groups: these sessions would inform participants of work ongoing by Planning officers in assessing the responses received during the consultation period and the regulatory requirements of the plan processes, and the further participation period on the Proposed Local Development Plan in 2013. Decision

1) To approve the Local Development Plan Scheme, as contained in Appendix 1 to the report by the Head of Planning and Building Standards, for publication and submission to Scottish Ministers. 2) To note the progress in preparing the Proposed Plan and addressing matters raised in the Local Development Plan consultations, and the Head of Planning and Building Services’ intentions regarding training workshops for informing the Civic Forum, with community councils and neighbourhood partnerships included, on the next stages in the Local Development Plan processes.

(Reference – report by the Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)

5. Guidance for Businesses, Householders, and Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas

The Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on three sets of new planning guidance to replace the previous individual sets of guidance, as follows – 1 Guidance for Businesses 2 Guidance for Householders 3 Guidance for Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas

Planning Committee – 6 December 2012 Page 4 of 10 The new guidance had been prepared following public consultation. The Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on the main issues raised in the consultations and his response, indicating where changes to the original draft guidance had been made. The new Guidance would replace the previous individual sets of guidance, as follows – Guidance for Businesses: was to replace - Change of use in residential properties; Food and drink establishments; Conversion of shop units to homes; Commercial frontages, and Services on buildings. Guidance for Householders: was to replace - House extensions and alterations; Daylighting, sunlighting and privacy (part) *; Housing development in garden grounds (part) *; Infill development in 'villa' areas and the grounds of villas (part) *; Services on buildings; Satellite dish aerials; Trees and development (part); Vehicle parking in front gardens; Adaptation of buildings for access (part); Replacement windows and doors (part); Domestic wood burning stoves and biomass boilers. Guidance for Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas: was to replace:- Satellite dish aerials; Services on buildings; The use of colour on buildings (part); Alterations to listed buildings; Protection of the setting of listed buildings; Repair of historic buildings; Stone cleaning, paint removal and graffiti treatment; Sub-division of listed buildings; Replacement windows and doors; Adaptation of buildings for access (part).

(The above documents were to be removed from use, on approval by the Planning Committee, except for those marked with an asterisk which were to be removed from use upon the approval of the finalised Edinburgh Design Guidance, in 2013.)

Decision 1) To note the consultation responses to the draft guidance for businesses, householders and conservation areas and listed buildings.

2) To approve the finalised guidance for businesses, householders and conservation areas and listed buildings.

3) To ask the Head of Planning and Building Services to discuss acceptable options for domestic cycle storage with cycling representatives.

(References – report by the Director of Services for Communities, submitted.)

6. Statutory Addressing Charter: proposed Revisions

The Council had a duty for street naming and the assigning of addresses to properties. The Head of Planning and Building Services reported on a revised Statutory Addressing Charter to reflect the new charging regime and adjustments to current practices.

Planning Committee – 6 December 2012 Page 5 of 10 Decision

1) To approve the revised Planning Charter for Statutory Addressing appended to the report by the Director of Services for Communities.

2) To agree that the charges for the service should remain unchanged in 2013/14.

3) To ask the Head of Planning and Building Standards to consider providing, for public information, explanation of reasons for decisions on street naming (i.e. reasons for refusals of certain suggestions etc.).

(Reference – report by the Director of Services for Communities, submitted.)

7. Supporting the Year of Natural Scotland 2013

The Committee was advised of the third of the Scottish Government’s focus years - the ‘Year of Natural Scotland 2013’ - and asked to support the outline programme of events to be delivered in collaboration with partner organisations, as contained in the report by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Decision To support the Year of Natural Scotland 2013, and the proposed outline programme of events, to be promoted by the Council in collaboration with partner organisations, as described in the report. (Reference – report by the Director of Services for Communities, submitted.)

8. 21st Century Homes: Proposed Compulsory Purchase Order – 14/2 Muirhouse Avenue, Pennywell, Edinburgh

The Council on 23 November 2006 had approved an eight year phased demolition of properties at Pennywell, Edinburgh, as part of the 21st Century Homes for Edinburgh programme. The Head of Planning and Building Standards now reported that it had not proved possible to reach agreement with the owner for the acquisition of a remaining property at 14/2 Muirhouse Avenue and recommended that the Council pursue the matter through a compulsory purchase order. The Order would be pursued under Section 189(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Negotiations would continue with the owner in parallel with pursuing the compulsory purchase order.

Decision

1) To agree to pursue a compulsory purchase order for the property at 14/2 Muirhouse Avenue and instruct the Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance to commence compulsory purchase order proceedings.

2) To notes the intention to submit a draft compulsory purchase order to the City of Edinburgh Council at the earliest opportunity for authority to effect service.

Planning Committee – 6 December 2012 Page 6 of 10 3) To note that the Council would continue to seek a negotiated purchase of the property.

(Reference – report by the Director of Services for Communities, submitted.)

9. Old and New Towns of Edinburgh World Heritage Site – Monitoring Report 2009-11

The Head of Planning and Building Standards gave a monitoring report for period April 2009 to March 2011 for the Old and New Towns of Edinburgh. The report included a series of indicators that measured changes and trends across the site. The overall conclusion was that the general state of conservation of the site was ‘good’. The report had been produced on behalf of the World Heritage Steering Group which included representation from Historic Scotland, the City of Edinburgh Council and Edinburgh World Heritage. Decision

1) To note the World Heritage Site Monitoring Report 2009-11.

2) To agree that the next Monitoring Report should be modified to match the priorities set out in the 2011-16 Management Plan and Action Plan.

3) To ask the Head of Planning and Building Standards to consider including, in a future report, whether any evidence of trends from owner-occupier to letting and whether there was any associated issues for upkeep of houses/buildings in sensitive areas and any relationship to Council alterations in traffic routing, etc..

(Reference – report by the Director of Services for Communities, submitted.)

10. Edinburgh Colonies – Designations of Conservation Areas

The Planning Committee in June 2012 had approved assessments of historic and architectural character of the Edinburgh Colonies, relative to potential for designation as conservation areas, for purposes of a public consultation. This had followed consideration of a motion on the matter by Councillor Buchan. The Head of Planning and Building Standards now reported on the outcome of the consultation exercise and gave recommendations for proposed designations of certain Colony area as conservation areas.

The assessments demonstrated that they met a number of the criteria specified in the Scottish Historic Environment Policy for designation of a conservation area in terms of building groupings, street pattern, distinct character, value as a good example of a local style within the wider context of city, present condition and the scope for improvement and enhancement.

The public consultation exercise indicated that, in the case of each Colony area, the majority of residents were in favour of conservation area designation and the additional

Planning Committee – 6 December 2012 Page 7 of 10 planning requirements that would follow from designation. (A summary of the consultation responses was attached to the officer’s report.) In summary, the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommended that the designation of the majority of the Colonies developments should be designated as conservation areas. The only exception was Leith Links (Industrial Road) which was of more marginal architectural and historic interest and was to be the subject of further assessment. The next step in the process of designation as conservation areas would be by legal notice in a newspaper circulating in the area. Subject to approval, the intention to designate would be implemented by the end of January 2013. A separate character appraisal would be prepared for each conservation area. In addition, all residents of affected properties would receive a letter enclosing details of the designation and the effect of this on their property.

Decision

1) To designate the following conservation areas: Pilrig Model Buildings (Shaw’s Place) Colony Conservation Area; the Rosebank Cottage Colony Conservation Area; the Stockbridge (Glenogle Park) Colony Conservation Area; the North Fort Street (Hawthornbank) Colony Conservation Area; the Abbeyhill Colony Conservation Area; the Dalry Colony Conservation Area; the Lochend (Restalrig Park) Colony Conservation Area; and the Slateford (Flower) Colony Conservation Area.

2) To agree that the Leith Links (Industrial Road) Colony group be not taken forward for conservation area designation at present but that the Head of Planning and Building Standards should be requested to report again on the proposal once his further assessments were complete.

3) To ask that the Head of Planning report additionally in due course on the feasibility of extending the Slateford (Flower) Colonies Conservation Area to include a section of railway land lying adjacent to the designated area.

4) To agree that the previous motion by ex-Councillor Buchan be discharged.

(References – report by the Director of Services for Communities, submitted.)

11. Leith Townscape Heritage Initiative 2: Completion

A report was submitted to advise the Committee of the completion of the second Leith Townscape Heritage Initiative. In total the Initiative was a £3m project which aimed to provide upgraded priority buildings; improvements to public realm, improvements to shop fronts and small building repairs, and delivery of training and education projects. The report gave an account of progress to date.

Decision

Planning Committee – 6 December 2012 Page 8 of 10 To note the successful delivery of the second Leith Townscape Heritage Initiative project and the positive effect that the project had had on the conservation and regeneration of a large part of the Leith conservation area.

(Reference – report by the Director of Services to Communities, submitted.)

12. National Planning Framework Review

The Scottish Government’s review of the National Planning Framework for Scotland intended to set out its national development priorities over the next 20-30 years and to designate a number of projects as national developments. The Scottish Government had invited submissions for candidate national developments.

The Head of Planning and Building Standards recommended that the Council respond by nominating four candidate national developments and also make a request for three major development areas in Edinburgh to be also recognised within the National Planning Framework. The proposed developments were considered to be of strategic importance to Scotland and would assist in meeting the Scottish Government’s aims for economic recovery and a low carbon economy.

The four national candidate projects were as follows –

1. High Speed Rail Link to London

2. Central Scotland Green Network

3. Strategic Roads Interchange Projects (Sheriffhall, Newbridge & Old Craighall improvements)

4. Edinburgh Glasgow Rail Improvement Programme.

The report gave the reasoning for these four proposed projects

Additionally, the following developments within Edinburgh were recommended to be put forwards for recognition within NPF3 because of their significance to the overall development of Scotland:- a) Edinburgh International b) Port of Leith c) Edinburgh BioQuarter

Planning Committee – 6 December 2012 Page 9 of 10 Decision

1) To agree that the development profiles set out in Appendix 1 to the Head of Planning and Building Standard’s report be submitted to the Scottish Government as the Council’s response to the call for candidate national developments.

2) To agree that the summary of nationally significant developments set out in Appendix 2 of the report be submitted to the Scottish Government.

3) To note the opportunities for future involvement in the preparation of National Planning Framework 3.

(Reference – report by the Director of Services to Communities, submitted)

13. Air Quality Progress Report 2012

The Transport and Environment Committee on 23 November 2012 had considered a report by the Director of Services for Communities on the outcomes of monitoring and assessment of local air quality in Edinburgh.

The Committee had been informed of an unavoidable delay in completing the city-wide assessments due to technical issues with monitoring instrumentation. In considering the report, the Committee had made a recommendation to the Planning Committee in relation to the Interim Planning Guidance on Use of Biomass up to 50MW in Edinburgh, viz:-

‘To recommend to the Planning Committee that the current Interim Planning Guidance on biomass installations be continued until the detailed assessment of PM10 was completed and reported and that this detailed assessment of PM10 be carried out and reported back after summer 2013’.

Decision

To approve the request from the Transport and Environment Committee to retain the Interim Planning Guidance on biomass installations, pending the further considerations by the Transportation and Environment Committee.

(Reference – report from the Transport and Environment Committee, 23 November 2012, submitted.)

Planning Committee – 6 December 2012 Page 10 of 10 M in u te s Minutes

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 10.00 am, Wednesday, 16 January 2013

Present Councillors Perry (Convener), Howat (Vice-Convener), Bagshaw, Blacklock, Brock, Cairns, Child, Dixon, Griffiths, McVey, Milligan, Mowat, Rose and Ross.

1. General Applications and Miscellaneous Business

The Sub-Committee considered the reports on planning applications, tree preservation orders, and a pre-application report, as listed under Section 3 on the agenda. Members had requested presentations in relation to agenda items 3.1, 3.5 and 3.9.

Decision To determine the applications, as detailed in the appendix to this minute.

(Reference – reports by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)

2. 10 South Trinity Road, Edinburgh

The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on a revised application for the construction of new dwelling (2 storeys) built above existing shop unit with replacement shop frontage, the shop was to be retained on the ground floor at 10 South Trinity Road, Edinburgh (application no 12/03828/FUL).

Motion 1) To indicate that the Sub-Committee was minded to grant planning permission. 2) The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards to report back on detailed conditions, including a condition requiring the location of the entrance and staircase to be moved to preserve the existing shopfront - moved by Councillor Perry, seconded by Councillor Dixon.

Amendment That the Sub-Committee refuse planning permission, for the reasons that the proposal was:

1. Contrary to policies Des 3, Des 12 and Env 6 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan and the Council’s Planning Guidance for Business as the proposed development by reason of its design, scale and positioning was not compatible with the character of the original

building and would introduce an alien feature to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Inverlieth Conservation Area.

2. Contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Hou 3 in respect of private open space as the proposal failed to provide any open space which would be to the detriment of future residential occupiers

3. Contrary to the council’s non-statutory guidelines on Daylighting, Sunlighting and Privacy as the proposal would overshadow the existing properties to the north and the rear garden ground lying to the east of the site to an unacceptable level.

4. Contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Tra 4 in respect of Private Car Parking, as inadequate off street car parking had been provided for the development to the detriment of road safety in the vicinity

5. Contrary to Non Statutory Guidelines in respect of Parking Standards, as the development as the development provide adequate off-street car parking as identified in the guidelines. - moved by Councillor Ross, seconded by Councillor Mowat. Voting

For the motion - 7 votes For the amendment - 7 votes

There being an equal number of votes cast for the motion and the amendment, the Convener gave his casting vote for the motion.

Decision

1) To indicate that the Sub-Committee was minded to grant planning permission. 2) The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards to report back on detailed conditions, including a condition requiring the location of the entrance and staircase to be moved to preserve the existing shopfront

(Reference – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 16 January 2013 Page 2 of 5

APPENDIX Applications

Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No

Note: Detailed conditions/reasons for the following decisions are contained in the statutory planning register.

Item 3.1 - 42 Ann Structural alterations to To GRANT Listed Building Street – report by the remove walls at the Consent subject to an Acting Head of basement level, form a new informative as detailed in the Planning and underground cellar, install a report by the Acting Head of Building Standards new roof light and reinstate Planning and Building natural stone flags in the Standards. front basement area, period

ironmongery to front door, plaster ceiling roses and fireplaces. (12/03996/LBC)

Item 3.2 - 164 Change of use to letting To GRANT planning permission Bruntsfield Place – agency, for office use and subject to an informative as report by the Acting administration (Class 2) from detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and existing business ( Class 1). Head of Planning and Building Building Standards Change to shop front. Standards. (12/03348/FUL)

Item 3.3 - Drum Brae Change of use from school To GRANT planning permission Avenue – report by grounds to a public park subject to the conditions and the Acting Head of (12/03210/FUL) informatives as detailed in the Planning and report by the Acting Head of Building Standards Planning and Building Standards.

Item 3.4 - 12 Forth Erection of a dwelling house. To GRANT planning permission Park – report by the (12/02945/FUL) subject to a conditions and Acting Head of informatives as detailed in the Planning and report by the Acting Head of Building Standards Planning and Building Standards.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 16 January 2013 Page 3 of 5 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No

Item 3.5 - 1 (Flat 2) Erection of a sunroom To GRANT planning permission Hillpark Rise – report extension. (12/03692/FUL) subject to informatives as by the Acting Head of detailed in the report by the Planning and Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards Building Standards.

Item 3.6 - 6 Iona Install 1 x DSLAM To GRANT planning permission Street (Telecomms Telecoms Cabinet subject to the condition as Apparatus 13 Metres measuring 1408mm x detailed in the report by the West Of) – report by 750mm x 407mm. Acting Head of Planning and the Acting Head of (12/04039/FUL) Building Standards. Planning and

Building Standards

Item 3.7 - 350 Installation of new shop To GRANT planning permission Morningside Road – front. Change of use from subject to the condition as report by the Acting consented use, use class 3 detailed in the report by the Head of Planning and restaurant, to hot food take Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards away (In retrospect) Building Standards. (12/03582/FUL)

Item 3.8 - 424 Upgrade of the existing To GRANT planning permission Morningside Road telecommunications site, subject to a condition and (Telecomms comprising swapping out informatives as detailed in the Apparatus 30 Metres and replacing existing report by the Acting Head of South East Of) – antenna with new antenna. Planning and Building report by the Acting No increase in the overall Standards. Head of Planning and height of the streetworks

Building Standards pole. The installation of three small cabinets on the highways footpath. (12/03893/FUL)

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 16 January 2013 Page 4 of 5 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No

Item 3.9 - 10 South Revised application for the 1) To indicate intention to Trinity Road – report construction of new dwelling GRANT planning by the Acting Head of (2 storeys) built above permission. Planning and existing shop unit with 2) The Acting Head of Building Standards replacement shop frontage, Planning and Building shop retained on ground Standards to report back floor (12/03828/FUL) on detailed conditions, including a condition requiring the location of the entrance and staircase to be moved to preserve the existing shopfront (On a division)

Item 3.10 - TPO Confirmation of Tree To Confirm Tree Preservation Duddingston Park – Preservation Order No 170 Order No 170 report by the Acting

Head of Planning and Building Standards

Item 3.11 - TPO Confirmation of Tree To Confirm Tree Preservation Redhall House Drive Preservation Order No 167 Order No 167 (Redhall House) – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Item 6.1 - Inverlieth – Forthcoming application by To note the key issues as Avenue South (Royal the Royal Botanic Gardens described in the report and Botanic Nursery) – Edinburgh for new buildings including drainage proposals for report by the Acting including polytunnels, the site Head of Planning and glasshouses, vehicle storage

Building Standards shed, staff facilities building and ancillary buildings, alterations to entrance gates, and associated external works

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 16 January 2013 Page 5 of 5 M in u te s Minutes

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 10.00 am, Wednesday, 30 January 2013

Present CouncillorsCouncillors Perry (Convener), Howat (Vice-Convener), Bagshaw, Blacklock, Brock, Child, Dixon, Heslop, McVey, Milligan, Mowat, Rose and Ross.

1. General Applications and Miscellaneous Business

The Sub-Committee considered the reports on planning applications as listed in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the agenda for the meeting. Note: under Section 3, Councillor Bagshaw had requested a presentation by the Head of Planning and Building Services in relation to agenda item 3.5.

Decision To determine the applications as detailed in the appendix to this minute.

(Reference – reports by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)

2. Granton Primary School – Extension – New Classrooms

The Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on an application for construction of an extension to Granton Primary School, 59 Boswall Parkway, Edinburgh, to provide new classrooms to be constructed over three phases (application no 12/04491/FUL). He considered that, with the imposition of an appropriate condition regarding the materials finish, the development would represent an acceptable form of development, and he recommended that consent be granted.

Motion

To grant planning permission for the application, relative to Phase 1 of the development, subject to a condition requiring that details of amended fenestration to ensure adequate daylighting for phases 2 and 3 be submitted and approved by the Sub-Committee prior to commencement of works for phases 2 and 3 and with the Head of Planning and Building Standards to report on the proposed external colour finishes to the Sub-Committee before development commences on site.

- moved by Councillor Perry, seconded by Councillor Dixon.

Amendment

That the Committee was of a mind to refuse the proposals on grounds of an adverse effect on local amenity.

- moved by Councillor McVey, seconded by Councillor Mowat.

Voting

For the motion - 7 votes For the amendment - 3 votes

Decision

(Reference – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)

Declaration of Interest

Councillors Rose and Ross each declared a non-financial interest in the item, as members having been involved in a working party looking at school accommodation matters. They both left the meeting and took no part in the decision on this item.

3. Trinity Primary School, Edinburgh – Four Classroom Extension

The Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on an application for construction of a 4-class extension to Trinity Primary School, 181 Newhaven Road, Edinburgh (application no 12/04492/FUL). The proposal was for a free-standing structure within the grounds of the school. He considered that, with the imposition of an appropriate condition regarding the materials finish, the development would represent an acceptable form of development and recommended that consent be granted.

Decision

To continue consideration of the application for further information by the Head of Planning and Building Services with regard to the orientation of building and for the Head of Planning and Building Standards to report on the proposed external colour finishes to the Sub-Committee before development commences on site.

(Reference – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 30 January 2013 Page 2 of 11 Declaration of Interest

4. Victoria Primary School, Edinburgh – Three Classroom Extension

The Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on an application for construction of an extension to Victoria Primary School, 4-6 Newhaven Main Street, Edinburgh to erect a 3-classroom extension (application no 12/04490/FUL). The proposal was for a free-standing structure within the grounds of the school. He considered that, with the imposition of appropriate conditions, regarding a programme of archaeological work and submission of details of materials, it would represent an acceptable form of development and recommended that consent be granted.

Motion

To continue consideration of the application and ask the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards to have further discussions with the applicant to examine temporary accommodation options and to investigate a more sensitive permanent means of extending the school.

- moved by Councillor Perry, seconded by Councillor Bagshaw.

Amendment 1

That the recommendation by the Head of Planning and Building Standards to grant planning permission with conditions be approved.

- moved by Councillor Blacklock, seconded by Councillor Milligan.

Amendment 2

That the application be refused planning permission on grounds that the proposals were of inappropriate design and would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the playgound and on the setting of the school building which was a listed building.

- moved by Councillor Howat, seconded by Councillor McVey.

Voting

The Convener directed that a vote should be taken firstly on Amendment 2 (which was for refusal of planning permission); if a majority was in favour of Amendment 2, then no further votes would be necessary. If there was no majority for Amendment 2, then a further vote would be taken between the Motion and Amendment 1.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 30 January 2013 Page 3 of 11 The voting proceeded as follows :-

For Amendment 2 - 5 votes Against Amendment 2 - 6 votes

As there was not a majority for Amendment 2, a further vote was taken between the Motion and Amendment 1, as follows -

Motion - 7 votes Amendment 1 - 4 votes

The motion by Councillor Perry was thereby carried.

Decision To continue consideration of the application and ask the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards to have further discussions with the applicant to examine temporary accommodation options and to investigate a more sensitive permanent means of extending the school.

(Reference – reports by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)

Declaration of Interest

5. Wardie Primary School, Edinburgh – Five Classroom Extension

The Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on an application for a 5- classroom extension at Wardie Primary School, 103B Granton Road, Edinburgh, to be provided in two phases (application no. 12/04494/FUL). He considered that, with the imposition of appropriate condition regarding the materials finish, the development would represent an acceptable form of development, and he recommended that consent be granted. Decision To grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives as detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, and the Head of Planning and Building Standards to report on the proposed external colour finishes to the Development Management Sub-Committee before development commences on site. (Reference – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 30 January 2013 Page 4 of 11 Declaration of Interest

Councillors Rose and Ross each declared a non-financial interest in the above item, as members having been involved in a working party looking at school accommodation matters. They both left the meeting and took no part in the decision on this item.

6. 57 Queen Charlotte Street, Edinburgh – Change of Use from Existing Office Premises to HMO Accommodation

The Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on an application for a change of use from existing office premises at 57 Queen Charlotte Street, Edinburgh, to a 15- bedroom HMO, as amended to 14 bedrooms, (including minor works to rear)) (application no 12/04066/FUL). He recommended that consent be granted, with informatives.

Motion

To grant planning permission subject to informatives as detailed in the report by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

- moved by Councillor Perry, seconded by Councillor Blacklock.

Amendment

To refuse the application on grounds of there being an over provision of HMOs in the area.

- moved by Councillor McVey, seconded by Councillor Brock.

Voting

Motion - 8 votes Amendment - 3 votes

Decision

To grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.

(Reference – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)

7. 396 Gorgie Road, Edinburgh – Demolition of Existing Building and Change of Use

The Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on an application for the demolition of existing buildings and change of use at 396 Gorgie Road, Edinburgh, from contractor offices and yard, vet surgery, redundant outbuildings to form mixed use development of student housing, retail and office space with associated parking, cycle storage and landscaped grounds (application no 12/03392/FUL). He recommended that consent be granted, with conditions.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 30 January 2013 Page 5 of 11 Lord Provost Donald Wilson, as local ward member, had submitted a request for the application to be dealt with by the Sub-Committee by means of a hearing, outlining his reasons on the request. On this, the Sub-Committee took a decision not to hold a hearing on this item and proceeded to consider the application.

Decision

To grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives, including a legal agreement, as detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.

(Reference – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 30 January 2013 Page 6 of 11

APPENDIX Applications

Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No

Note: Detailed conditions/reasons for the following decisions are contained in the statutory planning register.

Item 3.1 - Fountain Application for the To GRANT the application for Brewery, Gilmore modification or discharge of Planning Obligation subject to Park, Edinburgh planning conditions and informatives as obligations.(12/04335/OBL) detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Item 3.2 - Engineering works, re- To GRANT planning permission Greendykes Road, grading of land and subject to conditions and Edinburgh landscaping to facilitate new informatives as detailed in the residential development report by the Acting Head of associated with planning Planning and Building application reference Standards. 12/01109/AMC (12/03189/FUL)

Item 3.3 - 249 High New outdoor cooling unit to To GRANT planning permission Street, Edinburgh - be externally wall mounted subject to conditions and at level 7 – to be positioned informatives as detailed in the next to the proposed heat report by the Acting Head of recovery unit sitting on the Planning and Building level 6 roof (12/03990/FUL) Standards.

Item 3.4 - Mortonhall Replacement of existing To GRANT planning permission Crematorium, 30B maintenance depot subject to conditions and Howden Hall Road, buildings; formation of skip informatives as detailed in the Edinburgh storage area (12/04249/FUL) report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Item 3.5 - 22 The Formation of new vehicular To GRANT planning permission Wisp, Edinburgh (213 access road, footpath, cycle- subject to a conditions and path and associated informatives - including a Legal

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 30 January 2013 Page 7 of 11 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No

metres south-west of) landscaping to facilitate Agreement - as detailed in the residential development report by the Acting Head of associated with planning Planning and Building application reference Standards. 12/01109/AMC.

(12/03190/FUL)

Item 3.6 - Harvesters Proposed underpass To GRANT planning permission Way (Underpass), improvements linking Wester subject to conditions and Edinburgh Hailes Healthy Living Centre informatives as detailed in the to Westside Plaza car park, report by the Acting Head of Edinburgh (12/04037/FUL) Planning and Building Standards.

Item 4.1 - 13 Position a bike shed in front To GRANT planning permission Hartington Gardens, garden to allow secure - as described in the Edinburgh - storage of bikes (in ADDENDUM to the report by retrospect). the Acting Head of Planning and (12/03319/FUL) Building Standards.

Item 4.2 - 14 - 16, 20, Mixed-use development To APPROVE the proposed 24, 26, Beaverhall comprising residential and materials and therefore to Road, Edinburgh - commercial floor space enable discharge of Condition including associated roads no. 7, as recommended by the and infrastructure. (Approval Acting Head of Planning and of Condition no. 7) Building Standards and detailed (11/03374/FUL) in his report.

Item 6.1 - 1 - 77 Proposed development of To approve the key issues for Kinnaird Park, Fort retail unit not exceeding a consideration, as detailed in the Kinnaird Retail Park, total of 5,700 sq m (GIA) report by the Acting Head of Edinburgh over two levels Planning and Building (12/04119/PAN) Standards.

6.2 - 7 Shrub Place Mixed use development To approve the key issues as (69 metres west of), comprising residential and contained in the report, and Edinburgh other compatible uses. additionally request (12/04360/PAN) consideration of: school capacities; any impacts on adjoining area listed buildings and general quality of design (conservation area); access and

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 30 January 2013 Page 8 of 11 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No

road issues assessments, to include any possibility of shared use of the existing access to the masonic lodge, and environmentally- friendly energy sources.

7.1 - 222 - 228 Proposed installation of To GRANT planning permission Portobello High external plant and machinery subject to conditions and Street, Edinburgh to rear of shop. informatives as detailed in the (12/03278/FUL) report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Item 8.1 - Granton Construction of extension to To GRANT planning permission Primary School, 59 Granton Primary School to for the application, relative to Boswall Parkway, provide new classrooms, to Phase 1 of the development, Edinburgh be constructed over 3 subject to a condition for details phases. (12/04491/FUL) of amended fenestration to ensure adequate daylighting for phases 2 and 3 to be submitted and approved by Committee prior to commencement of works for phases 2 and 3 and Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards to report on the proposed external colour finishes to the Development Management Sub-Committee before development commences on site.

Item 8.2 - 396 Gorgie Demolition of existing To GRANT planning permission Road, Edinburgh - buildings and change of use subject to conditions and from contractor offices and informatives – including a Legal yard, vet surgery, redundant Agreement - as detailed in the outbuildings to form mixed report by the Acting Head of use development of student Planning and Building housing, retail and office Standards. space with associated

parking, cycle storage and landscaped grounds

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 30 January 2013 Page 9 of 11 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No

(12/03392/FUL)

Item 8.3 - Trinity Erect 4 classroom extension To CONTINUE consideration of Primary School, 181 to existing primary school the application for further Newhaven Road, (12/04492/FUL) information by the Head of Edinburgh Planning and Building Services with regard to the orientation of building and Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards to report on the proposed external colour finishes to the Development Management Sub-Committee before development commences on site.

Item 8.4 - 57 Queen Change of use from existing To GRANT planning permission Charlotte Street, office premises to 15 subject to conditions and Edinburgh bedroom HMO as amended informatives as detailed in the to 14 bedrooms (including report by the Acting Head of minor works to rear). Planning and Building (12/04066/FUL) Standards.

Item 8.5 - 57 Queen Alterations to form 15 To GRANT the application for Charlotte Street, bedrooms HMO (existing listed building consent subject to Edinburgh office premises) (as conditions and informatives as amended) (12/04066/LBC) detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Item 8.6 - Victoria 3 classroom stand-alone To CONTINUE consideration of Primary School, 4-6 extension to existing primary the application and ask the Newhaven Main school (12/04490/FUL) Acting Head of Planning and Street, Edinburgh Building Standards to have further discussions with the applicant to examine temporary accommodation options and to investigate a more sensitive permanent means of extending the school.

Item 8.7 - Wardie 5 classroom extension to To GRANT planning permission Primary School, school constructed over two subject to conditions and

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 30 January 2013 Page 10 of 11 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No

103B Granton Road, phases (12/04494/FUL) informatives as detailed in the Edinburgh report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards report on the proposed external colour finishes to the Development Management Sub-Committee before development commences on site.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 30 January 2013 Page 11 of 11 M in u te s Minutes

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 10.00 am, Wednesday, 5 December 2012

Present Councillors Perry (Convener), Howat (Vice Convener), Bagshaw, Blacklock, Brock, Child, Dixon, Griffiths, Heslop, McVey, Mowat and Rose.

1. General Applications and Miscellaneous Business

The Sub-Committee considered the reports on planning applications in Sections 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the agenda.

Decision To determine the reports as detailed in the appendix to this minute.

(Reference – reports by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)

Dissent Councillor Bagshaw requested that his dissent be recorded in relation to the decisions on agenda items 8.2, 8.4 and 8.5.

2. Norton Cottage, Hillend, Harvest Road, Newbridge (Land 46 Metres East of) (Agenda item 3.4)

Details were provided on an application for planning permission in principle for the erection of one house (ref.12/03282/PPP). The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on the issues involved and recommended that the application be refused for the reason that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the proposed residential use was appropriate to its countryside location, contrary to the development plan.

Motion 1 To continue consideration of the application for a site visit. - moved by Councillor Heslop, seconded by Councillor Rose.

The Convener ruled in terms of Standing order 8.1(a) that a vote be taken for or against the proposal to have a site visit. If the decision was to have a site visit, this would negate the matter, if not the Sub-Committee would consider any further proposals.

Voting

For a site visit - 5 votes Against a site visit - 7 votes Decision 1 To decline to have a site visit.

Motion 2 To refuse the application as recommended by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards and detailed in his report.

- moved by Councillor Perry, seconded by Councillor Child.

Amendment 1) To indicate intention to grant planning permission and listed building consent. 2) That the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards report back on detailed conditions. - moved by Councillor Howat, seconded by Councillor Heslop. Voting

For motion 2 - 6 votes For the amendment - 5 votes

Decision

To refuse the application as recommended by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards and detailed in his report.

(Reference – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, 5 December 2012, submitted.)

3. 222 – 228 Portobello High Street – Proposed Installation of External Plant and Machinery to Rear

The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on an application for the proposed installation of external plant and machinery to the rear of the shop at 222 – 228 Portobello High Street, Edinburgh (no. 12/03278/FUL). He recommended that the application should be granted.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 5 December 2012 Page 2 of 8 Motion

That the application be granted planning permission subject to conditions as recommended by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards and detailed in his report.

- moved by Councillor Howat, seconded by Councillor Rose.

Amendment To continue consideration of the application for a site visit. - moved by Councillor Child, seconded by Councillor Mowat.

Voting

For the motion - 5 votes For the amendment - 7 votes

Decision To continue consideration of the application for a site visit. (Reference – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 5 December 2012 Page 3 of 8 APPENDIX Applications

Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No

Note: Detailed conditions/reasons for the following decisions are contained in the statutory planning register.

Item 3.1 - 2 Install 1 x DSLAM Telecoms To GRANT planning permission Brunstane Road Cabinet measuring 1408mm subject to a condition and North x 750mm x 407mm informatives as detailed in the (12/03702/FUL). report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Item 3.2 - 36 Material variation to planning To GRANT planning permission Clerwood Terrace permission 04/03378/FUL to subject to the conditions and provide 11 additional informatives (including Section residential units and vary 75 Agreement) as detailed in approved house types. the report by the Acting Head of (12/03114/FUL). Planning and Building Standards.

Item 3.3 - 89 Duke Change the use of To GRANT planning permission Street consented office conversion subject to the conditions and to 9 dwellings and alteration informatives as detailed in the and sub-division to form 5 report by the Acting Head of new dwellings, demolition of Planning and Building 3 outbuildings and ancillary Standards. building in former playground/car park (12/03091/FUL).

Item 3.4 - Harvest Application in principle for To REFUSE planning Road, Newbridge the erection of one house. permission for the reasons as (12/03282/PPP). detailed as detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards. (On a division)

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 5 December 2012 Page 4 of 8 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No

Item 3.5 - 77, 79 Change of use from dwelling To GRANT planning permission Howden Hall Road house and workshop into subject to a condition and an house of multiple informative as detailed in the occupation. (12/03613/FUL) report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Item 3.6 - Melville The installation of To GRANT planning permission Drive (East Meadows floodlighting to 6 of the subject to the informatives as Pavillion) existing 16 tennis courts, detailed in the report by the part change of use of the Acting Head of Planning and existing pavilion building to Building Standards. provide a takeaway food and drink operation and external alterations including formation of a ramped access (12/03076/FUL).

Item 3.7 - 12 Victor Removal of existing double The Sub-Committee is MINDED Park Terrace glazed windows from the TO GRANT a Certificate of front and rear elevations and Lawfulness. their replacement with white upvc, 'A' rated double glazed windows. (12/03720/CLP).

Item 3.8 - 1 West Install 1 x DSLAM Telecom To GRANT planning permission Cherrybank Cabinet measuring 1408mm subject to a condition and x 750mm x 407mm informatives as detailed in the (12/03591/FUL). report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 5 December 2012 Page 5 of 8 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No

Item 3.9 7 - 9 George Alterations and change of To GRANT planning permission IV Bridge (Central use to existing vaults/storage subject to the conditions and Library) space to form a temporary informatives as detailed in the performance/arts/nightclub report by the Acting Head of space with a two year Planning and Building lifespan. Alterations consist Standards. of the introduction of electrical and mechanical services, new temporary stud partitions, lighting and signage, alterations to toilets. (12/03090/FUL).

Item 4.1 - Unit 1, 454 To amend the consent To APPROVE the replacement Gorgie Road previously granted to replace of the legal agreement with the the legal agreement with a suspensive condition as detailed suspensive condition in the addendum to the report (12/00650/FUL). by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Item 6.1 - Dundee Forthcoming application by To note the key issues as Street (Former the City of Edinburgh described in the report. Fountain Brewery Council – Children and

Site) Families Directorate for the development of a new school and associated facilities and ancillary development.

Item 6.2 - Inglis Forthcoming application by To note the key issues as Green Road Sainsbury’s Ltd for a described in the report. variation of planning Additional to the key issues, conditions. traffic impact on the junction and details of the location of nearby residential units to be shown on site plan.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 5 December 2012 Page 6 of 8 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No

Item 7.1 - 27 Attic conversion and To GRANT planning permission Kingsburgh Road extension to the rear roof to subject to the informative as form new ensuite bathroom, detailed in the report by the dressing room, 2 bedrooms Acting Head of Planning and and a bathroom. Building Standards. (12/02717/FUL).

Item 8.1 - 33 Ellersly Residential development To GRANT planning permission Road comprising 19 houses and subject to the conditions and 32 flats (as amended) informatives (including Section (12/0683/FUL). 75 Agreement) as detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Item 8.2 - 222 - 228 Proposed alterations to shop To GRANT planning permission Portobello High front and installation of an subject to a condition and an Street ATM (as amended) informative as detailed in the (12/03277/FUL). report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Item 8.3 - 222 - 228 Proposed installation of To CONTINUE for a site visit on Portobello High external plant and machinery 17 January 2013. Street to rear (12/03278/FUL).

(On a division)

Item 8.4 - 222 - 228 Erect fascia and projecting To GRANT advertisement Portobello High signage with (1) Cash consent subject to a condition Street machine surround, (2) as detailed in the report by the Entrance door vinyl panel Acting Head of Planning and and (3) Lockable poster Building Standards. frame, fixed to central wall

face. (as amended) (12/03279/ADV).

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 5 December 2012 Page 7 of 8 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No

Item 8.5 - 222 - 228 Proposed shop front To GRANT listed building Portobello High alterations; installation of consent subject to the Street ATM; installation of informative as detailed in the illuminated and non- report by the Acting Head of illuminated signage to shop Planning and Building front; installation of plant; Standards. and, various internal

alterations to ground and basement floors, including wall/stair removal, wall construction and goods-only lift installation (as amended). (12/03436/LBC).

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 5 December 2012 Page 8 of 8 M in u te s Minutes

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 10.00 am, Wednesday, 19 December 2012

Present CouncillorsCouncillors Perry (Convener), Howat (Vice-Convener), Bagshaw, Blacklock, Brock, Child, Dixon, Griffiths, McVey, Milligan, Mowat, Rose and Ross.

1. General Applications and Miscellaneous Business

The Sub-Committee considered the reports on planning applications, and pre- application reports, as listed under Section 3 on the agenda. Members had requested presentations in relation to agenda items 3.1/3.2 and 3.4, as are referred to in the minutes below.

Decision To determine the Applications, as detailed in the appendix to this minute.

(Reference – reports by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)

2. 55 Buckstone Terrace, Edinburgh – Residential (Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions)

The Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on an application for a residential development on the site of the former Fairmilehead Water Works, 55 Buckstone Terrace, Edinburgh (application no 12/03027/AMC). Planning permission in principle had previously been given and the application was for approval of matters specified in conditions. Approval was now sought for erection of 275 units with associated access roads and open space. The Head of Planning and Building Standards, in conclusion, recommended that the application be approved.

The application was to be determined by means of a hearing and the Sub-Committee invited the applicants, the Community Council and others, to speak, as follows:-

1 Fairmilehead Community Council

The Community Council was pleased at the pre-application consultations carried out by the developers and many of their earlier comments had been taken on board in the application. There remained several concerns however, these relating in the main to –

- the single entrance and exit to the site off Comiston Road. They felt that the previous traffic assessment was incorrect and that there would be congestion and road safety concerns in the absence of any junction control, they being of the view that automatic traffic signals would be required at the junction.

- a need for a pedestrian crossing from the site entrance to the bus stop on the west side of Buckstone Terrace, particularly for school children, etc. Again, they felt that this should be incorporated within a signalised junction. Concerns had also been expressed about the current 40 mph speed limit on the main road – if the pedestrian crossing was introduced it could help allay fears without the need to reduce the speed limit on the main road.

- footpaths from the new development – the open space known as the ‘Water Board field’ was popular with local residents and regarded as a communal open space/sports facility; they would not wish to see the area spoiled and wanted the proposed paths across the area to be well delineated or fenced off to protect the open space area. Also they wished to see further paths provided in the Buckstone Howe area.

- on the style of housing and layout, they felt that the densities were acceptable and that the style and mix of housing being proposed by the applicants was suitable for the area. There had been some comment regarding the effect of the increase in population on local services e.g. doctors surgeries, and these were being taken up with the authorities by the community council.

2 Cockburn Association

Euan Leith, Director, Cockburn Association said that it was disappointing that an opportunity to provide a more exciting development on this important site had been missed. He felt that the site demanded a more imaginative response to the sense of place. He felt that the developers had selected ‘pattern book styles’ of houses that were designed to sell rather than think of what was most suited to the character of this part of Edinburgh. It was for the Council and the Urban Design Standards to take a lead on the matter, the house builders merely responding to market demands. He gave examples of other developments in Edinburgh such as Gracemount where imaginative architectural solutions to housing need had been provided.

The development of this site for residential was supported, in providing housing and reducing pressure on the Green Belt, but the design solution, they felt, was disappointing relative to its location.

3 Applicants – Cala Management Ltd/David Wilson Homes East Scotland

The applicants explained that they had made efforts to consult with the local community over the styles and layout, having amended plans where they considered possible to take account of local concerns. They had made efforts to study the landscape and design the scheme with pedestrian usage and open space as central issues. They wanted a strong green landscape feel, with attention paid to how pedestrians would move about on foot as opposed to car usage. They had looked at housing styles and tried to reflect heights in existing houses and ‘mirror’ these in parcels where the new development met with the old.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 19 December 2012 Page 2 of 9 The house styles were to be modern and of good quality, the styles having been tried and tested in other areas. The proportion of affordable housing at 76 out of 275 units was high. The issues of pathways and fencing etc., could be provided according to local needs and wishes and they were happy to work with the planning officers on all these matters.

Members of the committee asked a number of questions in regard to all the speakers, with particular reference to the general issue of the appropriateness of the layout and proposed housing styles for the development.

Ward Councillor

Councillor Aitken referred to the consultations with the local community: she was pleased that the heights of certain buildings had been lowered in response to local concerns, and that the developers had amended plans in other ways. There did not appear to be objections from local residents regarding the quality of the development. On the question of traffic, she referred to the main road being busy and concerns of local people that the speed limit should be lower or a controlled junction be provided.

Motion To approve the recommendation by the Head of Planning and Building Standards that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions as given in the report, and with an additional informative to be added, as follows - ‘The applicants be requested to enter into discussions with Council officers regarding whether a controlled pedestrian crossing should be installed at Comiston Road/Buckstone Terrace, in the interests of road safety.’ - moved by Councillor Perry, seconded by Councillor McVey.

Amendment That the Committee be minded to refuse planning permission, on grounds that the proposals lacked the quality necessary for this site, the design and style and layout not being suitable to the location. - moved by Councillor Howat, seconded by Councillor Dixon. Voting

For the motion - 9 votes For the amendment - 5 votes

Decision

1. To approve the application as recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and subject to the conditions and with informatives as detailed in his report, and with the additional informative as contained in the motion by Councillor Perry.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 19 December 2012 Page 3 of 9 2) To ask the Head of Planning and Building Services to review the procedures for consulting the Urban Design Panel, on important applications, for report to Planning Committee.

(Reference – report by the Director of Community Services, submitted.)

2. Chambers Street, Edinburgh – Re-location of Statue

The Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on an application for an existing public statue to be re-located and new public statue located in new public space to be formed in front of the National Museum of Scotland (application 12/03000/FUL). He recommended that the application be granted.

(The Head of Transport added that, if planning permission was granted, an additional informative would require to be added as regards the making of an order over public rights of passage.)

Motion To approve the recommendation by the Head of Planning and Building Standards that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions as given in the report, and with other informatives as recommended. - moved by Councillor Perry, seconded by Councillor Child. Amendment That the Committee was minded to refuse planning permission, on grounds of the loss of parking spaces and resultant economic impact on retailers and others, and the consequent loss of attractiveness for users of this part of the city centre - moved by Councillor Ross, seconded by Councillor Blacklock. Voting

For the motion - 9 votes For the amendment - 3 votes

Decision

To grant the application as recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and subject to the conditions and with informatives as detailed in his report, and an additional informative as follows – ‘In order to implement the proposals as detailed it will be necessary for the Council, as a local roads authority, to make an Order under Section 1(1) and 152(2) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 re-determining the means of exercise of the public right of passage over parts of Chambers Street. Any objections received during the statutory consultation period, which cannot be resolved, will require to be referred to Scottish Ministers. This may necessitate the holding of a public hearing. The applicant should therefore submit a re-determination plan to the Head of Transport as soon as possible to allow the required statutory procedures to be implemented. No works on the extended footway can commence until this Order is concluded.’ (Reference – report by the Director of Community Services, submitted)

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 19 December 2012 Page 4 of 9 4. 13 Hartington Gardens, Edinburgh – Bike Shed

The Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on an application to position a bike shed in front garden to allow secure storage of bikes (in retrospect) at 13 Hartington Gardens, Edinburgh. The site was a front garden of a two-storey, stone built, terraced house, located within the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area. It was recommended that the application be refused.

Councillor Main, as a ward member, had submitted a request that the matter be dealt with by means of a hearing, giving reasons for the request. On this request, the Sub- Committee decided not to hold a hearing and to proceed to consider the application.

Motion That the Committee be minded to grant planning permission for reasons that the structure was not likely to be detrimental to the appearance of the house or street, nor adversely affect the character of the conservation area, and was consistent with Council policies on the encouragement of cycling and principles of sustainability. - moved by Councillor Bagshaw, seconded by Councillor Howat.

Amendment That the Committee approve the recommendation by the Head of Planning and Building Standards that the application be refused for the reasons given in the report - moved by Councillor Blacklock, seconded by Councillor Milligan. Voting

For the motion - 10 votes For the amendment - 4 votes

Decision

That the Sub-Committee was minded to grant planning permission with the Head of Planning and Building Standards asked to report on suitable conditions.

(Reference – report by the Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 19 December 2012 Page 5 of 9

APPENDIX Applications

Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No

Note: Detailed conditions/reasons for the following decisions are contained in the statutory planning register.

Item 3.1 - Chambers Existing public statute of To GRANT planning permission Street, Edinburgh William Henry Playfair to be subject to conditions, reasons and relocated and new public statue informatives and legal agreements to be located in new public as detailed in the report by the space 37 metres northeast of Acting Head of Planning and the National Museum of Building Standards, and with a Scotland (12/03000/FUL). further informative as follows – In order to implement the proposals as detailed it will be necessary for the Council, as a local roads authority, to make an Order under Section 1(1) and 152(2) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 re- determining the means of exercise of the public right of passage over parts of Chambers Street. Any objections received during the statutory consultation period, which cannot be resolved, will require to be referred to Scottish Ministers. This may necessitate the holding of a public hearing. The applicant should therefore submit a re- determination plan to the Head of Transport as soon as possible to allow the required statutory procedures to be implemented. No works on the extended footway can commence until this Order is concluded.

Item 3.2 - Chambers Existing public statue of William To GRANT Listed Building Street, Edinburgh Henry Playfair to be relocated Consent subject to conditions, and new public statue to be reasons and informatives as located in new public space 37 detailed in the report by the Acting metres northeast of the Head of Planning and Building National Museum of Scotland Standards. (12/02997/LBC).

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 19 December 2012 Page 6 of 9 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No

Item 3.3 - 122c Craig's S42 application to amend To GRANT planning permission Road, Edinburgh Condition 9 to allow the site to subject to the conditions and operate from 6.00 am to 10.30 reasons as detailed in the report by pm Monday to Sunday the Acting Head of Planning and (12/03281/FUL). Building Standards.

Item 3.4 - 13 Hartington Position a bike shed in the front To be minded to GRANT planning Gardens, Edinburgh garden to allow secure storage permission, with Head of Planning of bikes (in retrospect) and Building Standards to report on (12/03319/FUL). suitable conditions.

Item 3.5 - 30 Nicolson Removal of existing public To GRANT planning permission Street, Edinburgh telephone kiosk and replace subject to the informatives as with new K6 type kiosk to form detailed in the report by the Acting a combined public payphone Head of Planning and Building and ATM (12/03412/FUL) Standards.

Item 3.6 - 118 West (Amend conditions 1 and 6 of To agree a MIXED DECISION to Bow, Edinburgh planning permission part-approve and part-refuse, with 11/02787/FUL to allow conditions and reasons as unrestricted cooking and to recommended and detailed in the extend the hours of opening of report by the Acting Head of 8.00 am to 8.00 pm to 8.00 am Planning and Building Standards. to 11.00 pm) (12/03400/FUL).

Item 5.1 - 55 Proposed residential 1. To GRANT planning permission Buckstone Terrace, development comprising 275 subject to the conditions, reasons Edinburgh units. and informatives as detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards with an additional informative to be included, viz:- (4) The applicants are requested to enter into discussions with Council officers regarding whether a controlled pedestrian crossing should be installed at Comiston Road/Buckstone Terrace, in the interests of road safety. 2. To ask the Head of Planning and Building Services to review the procedures for consulting the Urban Design Panel, on important applications, for report to Planning Committee.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 19 December 2012 Page 7 of 9 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No

Item 6.1 - Duddingston Forthcoming application by To note the key issues as Park South, Edinburgh Clockwork Properties Ltd for described in the report and also residential development. stressing the importance of how any new development was to link up with existing areas and communities, including matter of public transportation and road and footpath links.

Item 6.2 - 20 Inverleith Forthcoming application by To note the key issues as Row, Edinburgh (Royal Royal Botanic Gardens, described in the report. Botanic Gardens) Edinburgh for redevelopment of the existing back-of-house glass houses and building to create improved research, education and support facilities and refurbishment of the existing listed public glass houses and other listed buildings.

Item 6.3 - Niddrie Forthcoming application by To note the key issues as Mains Road, Edinburgh Places for People for a described in the report, stressing (Thistle Foundation) residential development. the importance of ‘quality of development’ having regard to other commendable new development in that area of the city.

Item 6.4 - 7 Shrub Forthcoming application by To note the key issues as Place, Edinburgh Unite Group plc for mixed use described in the report. (Shrubhill House) development.

Item 6.5 - Western Forthcoming application by AB To note the key issues as Harbour, Edinburgh Leith Ltd for residential described in the report. Also development at Plots A2, B1 attention to be paid to quality of and B2. build, having regard to earlier experience of housing in the locality and effects of corrosive weather close to the shore.

Item 8.1 - 69a Mayfield Change of use of existing To GRANT planning permission Road, Edinburgh bakery with part hot food subject to conditions, reasons and takeaway to full takeaway and informatives as detailed in the form flue (12/03321/FUL). report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 19 December 2012 Page 8 of 9 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No

Item 8.2 - 7 Westfield Proposal for 60 affordable To GRANT planning permission Avenue, Edinburgh housing units on vacant subject to conditions, reasons and Brownfield site at Westfield informatives and a legal agreement Avenue (site of the former as detailed in the report by the Landmark Warehouse). Acting Head of Planning and Proposals form Phase 2 of the Building Standards. mixed use development recently completed at Westfield Avenue (12/01415/FUL).

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 19 December 2012 Page 9 of 9 M in u te s Minutes

City of Edinburgh Local Review Body

10.00 am, Wednesday, 12 December 2012

Present Councillors Dixon, Howat and Rose.

1. Chair

Councillor Rose was appointed as Convener.

2. Planning Local Review Body Procedure

Decision

To note the outline procedure for consideration of reviews.

(Reference – Local Review Body Procedure, submitted.)

3. Request For Review – 37 Boswall Avenue, Edinburgh

Details were provided by a request for a review of the refusal of planning permission for the formation of a drive-way at 37 Boswall Avenue, Edinburgh. (Application No 12/02119/FUL) Assessment

The Local Review Body (LRB) had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of review documents and a site inspection. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development.

The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01-03 (Scheme 1), being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services.

The LRB, having considered these documents, agreed that it had sufficient information before it, and would therefore determine the review using the information circulated to it.

The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points:

1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

2) The non-statutory guidelines on “Parking In Front Gardens”.

3) The procedure used to determine the application, including the representations received and comments from consultees.

4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by the applicant in the request for a review.

Conclusion The LRB noted the arguments provided in the review and viewed all the photographs provided by the applicant and taken by the case officer relating to other driveways in the area. Having considered this information, the LRB were of the view that an access of reduced width could be formed without adverse impact on road safety. They took the view that because there were traffic calming measures already in place, road traffic would not be travelling at such significant speeds and that a vehicle could not access and egress from this site without causing difficulties for other road users. In all these circumstances, they were of the opinion that the addition of a condition to the consent restricting the width of the access point would reduce any potential adverse impact on road safety to an acceptable level.

Decision To not uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to grant planning permission for the formation of a drive-way at 37 Boswall Avenue, Edinburgh. Application No 12/02119/FUL

Condition

The width of the access point from the public road shall not exceed 3.0 metres at any point

Reason

In the interest of road safety

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 12 December 2012 Page 2 of 8 Informatives

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.

(References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)

Dissent

Councillor Dixon requested that his dissent be recorded in respect of the above decision

4. Request For Review – 206 Broomhouse Road, Edinburgh

Details were provided of a request for a review of the refusal of planning permission for a change of use of dwelling house to pre-school children’s day nursery at 206 Broomhouse Road, Edinburgh. (Application No 12/01152/FUL)

Assessment

The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of review documents, the holding of one or more hearing sessions and a site inspection. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development.

The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01-02 (Scheme 1), being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services.

The LRB, having considered these documents, agreed that it had sufficient information before it, did not require to hold any hearing sessions, and would therefore determine the review using the information circulated to it.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 12 December 2012 Page 3 of 8 The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points:

1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

2) The non-statutory guidelines on “Parking Standards”, “Movement and Development” and “Loss of Residential Use”.

3) The procedure used to determine the application, including the representations received and comments from consultees.

4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by you in your request for a review. The LRB noted the arguments provided in the review and viewed the photographs of the area taken by the case officer. The LRB noted the need for nursery accommodation within the city and expressed support for such uses in general terms. However, in this case, having carefully considered the terms of the Environmental Assessment report regarding the potential for noise problems and loss of amenity for the neighbouring residential property, came to the conclusion that the overriding consideration was the adverse impact on residential amenity, contrary to policy and that the proposal was unacceptable.

Conclusion

The LRB, having taken all the above matters into consideration, agreed with the assessment of the issues in the case officer’s report and concluded that the proposals would be likely to lead to a significant loss of amenity to neighbouring residents. The LRB was of the opinion that no material considerations had been presented in the request for a review which would lead it to overturn the determination by the Head of Planning.

Decision

To uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards to refuse planning permission for the change of use of the dwelling house to a pre-school children’s day nursery at 206 Broomhouse Road, Edinburgh. Application No 12/01152/FUL

Reasons for Refusal

The proposals were likely to lead to an unacceptable loss of amenity to the adjacent property through increased noise levels, and were thus contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Hou8 (Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas).

(References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 12 December 2012 Page 4 of 8

5. Request For Review – 345 Calder Road , Edinburgh

Details were provided for a review of the refusal of planning permission for a change of use from retail unit (hair salon) to hot food takeaway a 345 Calder Road, Edinburgh. (Application No 12/01997/FUL)

Assessment

The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted including the request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of review documents and further written submissions. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development.

The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01, 02, 03, 04 (Scheme 1), being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services.

The LRB, having considered these documents, agreed that it had sufficient information before it, and did not require to undertake any further procedures and would therefore determine the review using the information circulated to it.

The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points:

1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

2) The non-statutory guidelines on “Food and Drink Establishments”.

3) The procedure used to determine the application including consultation responses.

4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by you in your request for a review.

Conclusion The LRB noted the arguments provided in the review in regard to the location, the opening hours of the nearby licensed and other premises and the purported local demand for the facility, but did not consider these were sufficient to outweigh the planning considerations identified by the officer relative to concerns over the potential for noise, disturbance and on-street activity which would adversely impact on neighbouring residential amenity. .

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 12 December 2012 Page 5 of 8 The LRB, having taken all the above matters into consideration, agreed with the assessment of the issues in the case officer’s report and concluded that the proposals would be detrimental to the amenity of the area. The LRB was of the opinion that no material considerations had been presented in the request for a review which would lead it to overturn the determination by the Head of Planning. Decision

To uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards to refuse planning permission for a change of use from retail unit (hair salon) to hot food takeaway at 345 Calder Road, Edinburgh. Application No 12/01997/FUL

Reasons for Refusal The proposal was contrary to Policies Ret12 and Hou8 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan, and the Council’s Non Statutory Guidelines for Food and Drink Establishments. The proposal would have had a detrimental impact on the living conditions of nearby residents by way of an unacceptable increase in disturbance, noise and on-street activity.

(References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)

Dissent

Councillor Rose requested that his dissent be recorded in respect of the above decision

6. Request For Review – 16 Hainburn Park, Edinburgh

Details were provided by a request for a review to part approve and part refuse planning permission for a one-and-a-half-storey and single-storey extension to both side elevations at 16 Hainburn Park, Edinburgh. Application No 12/02246/FUL Assessment the LRB had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of review documents, further written submissions and the holding of one or more hearing sessions. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development.

The plan used to determine the application was numbered 01 (Scheme 1), being the drawing shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services.

The LRB, having considered these documents, agreed that it had sufficient information before it, did not require to undertake any further procedures and would therefore determine the review using the information circulated to it.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 12 December 2012 Page 6 of 8 The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points:

1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

2) The non-statutory guidelines on “Daylighting, Privacy and Sunlight” and “House Extensions and Alterations”.

3) The procedure used to determine the application, including the representations received.

4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by you in your request for a review.

Conclusion The LRB noted the arguments provided in the review and viewed all the photographs provided by the applicant and taken by the case officer relating to the positioning of neighbouring properties. They also considered the reasons put forward as to why the extension of the property was required, and were aware of the variation of property styles in the immediate vicinity of the application site. Members of the LRB were also familiar with the wider area and with the variety of other development types within the area.

Having carefully considered the proposals, the LRB agreed with the case officer’s conclusions on the eastern extension, but did not agree with their assessment of the larger western extension. In their view this would relate well to the scale of the neighbouring property to the west. In addition, the way in which it was set back would also diminish any likely impact on the character of the area and would not lead to a feature which would “over-dominate” the original dwelling.

Decision

To not uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to grant planning permission for a one-and-a-half-storey and single-storey extension to both side elevations at 16 Hainburn Park, Edinburgh. Application No 12/02246/FUL Informatives

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

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 12 December 2012 Page 7 of 8 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.

(References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)

Dissent

Councillor Howat requested that his dissent be recorded in respect of the above decision

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 12 December 2012 Page 8 of 8 M in u te s Minutes

City of Edinburgh Local Review Body 10.00 am, Wednesday, 23 January 2013

Present CouncillorsCouncillors Blacklock, Bagshaw, Cairns, Heslop and Ross. 1. Chair

Councillor Blacklockt was appointed as Convener.

2. Planning Local Review Body Procedure

Decision

To note the outline procedure for consideration of reviews.

(Reference – Local Review Body Procedure, submitted.)

3. Request For Review – 4 Brae Park Road, Edinburgh - Conservatory

Details were provided of a request for a review of the refusal of planning permission of the refusal of planning permission for proposed alterations and erection of conservatory at 4 Brae Park Road, Edinburgh (application no. 12/02172/FUL). Assessment The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted by the applicant, including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents and a site inspection. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development. The LRB considered that, with the plans and photographic evidence available, they had sufficient information with which to consider the review and without need for a site inspection. The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01-02, being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services. The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

2) The non-statutory guidelines on “Daylighting, Sunlight and Privacy’ and ‘Guidance for Householders’ (as recently approved by the Planning Committee, in substitution for the former guidelines ‘Daylighting, Privacy and Sunlight’; ‘House Extensions and Alterations’, and ‘Replacement Windows and Doors’.) 3) The Cramond Conservation Area Character Appraisal. 4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by the applicants in the notic The LRB carefully considered the arguments contained in the notice of review as set against the officer’s report of handling and the decision notice and the reasons for refusal of consent.

The LRB considered that the determining issue in this case was whether the design and scale of the proposals was acceptable in the context of its location at the front of a traditional build house and whether it would affect the character and appearance of the house or the wider Cramond Conservation Area.

The LRB acknowledged the applicants’ arguments that the proposed conservatory would be set back by 8 metres from the front of the property, and that they considered there was insufficient space to develop to the front or rear of the existing house. The proposal would improve the amenity and enjoyment of the house. The design also had regard to the existing glazing styles and the configuration of the house. The LRB balanced this against the planning officer’s conclusion that the development was in an elevated position and visible from the road, and the effect that this may have on the house and the overall character of the conservation area.

They noted that there had been no objections raised to the proposals from neighbours or other parties.

They also noted the applicants’ proposal, in the notice of review, to subsitute hardwood, painted white, for the PVC elements of the conservatory, the Planning Officer having considered that the use of PVC, together with design, would be detrimental to the appearance of the house. On this point, the LRB considered it would be appropriate to consider the proposals in a context of use of painted hardwood and could set a condition for the substitution of timber for PVC, were approval to be given for the development.

The LRB, in conclusion, were persuaded that the character of the house, which though of traditional design and of a certain architectural integrity, had been already altered with a mix of glazing styles, and would not be likely to be significantly affected by the addition of the conservatory. They did not consider it was likely to harm its appearance or the character of the Cramond Conservation Area but at the same time did feel it necessary to impose a condition that timber, painted white, be substituted for PVC, to allow the development to be seen to be more in keeping with the character of the house.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 23 January 2013 Page 2 of 9 Decision To not uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to grant planning permission for alterations and conservatory at 4 Brae Park Road, Edinburgh (application no. 12/02172/FUL), subject to conditions and with informatives as follows: Conditions: Materials: the Conservatory shall be constructed with timber, in substitution for PVC, and painted in white; the design shall otherwise be as submitted in the plans accompanying the planning application. Reasons To ensure that the conservatory is constructed in materials that are acceptable with regard to the character of the Cramond Conservation Area.

Informatives 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. (References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)

4. Request For Review – 24 Mortonhall Park View, Edinburgh - Extension

Details were provided of a request for a review of the refusal of planning permission for a single-storey extension to existing house at 24 Mortonhall Park View, Edinburgh (application no. 12/03650/FUL). Assessment The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted by the applicant including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of review documents and a site inspection. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development. On the question of whether to undertake

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 23 January 2013 Page 3 of 9 a site visit, the LRB considered that, with the plans and photographic evidence available, they should proceed to consider the review without need for a site inspection. The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01-03, being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services. The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. 2) The non-statutory guidelines on “Daylighting, Sunlight and Privacy’ and ‘Guidance for Householders’ (as recently approved by the Planning Committee, in substitution for the former guidelines ‘Daylighting, Privacy and Sunlight’ and ‘House Extensions and Alterations’). 3) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by the applicant in the notice of review. Conclusion The LRB carefully considered the arguments made in the notice of review. They considered in particular how the proposals would be likely to relate to the house and to the streetscape and whether this was likely to have an impact on character. They noted the arguments that the extension would improve the amenity of the house and that an extension to the front was considered to be the most practical solution to extension of the accommodation, in the circumstances of the house.

The LRB considered the scale of the proposed extension in relation to the house and, although taking up most of the front garden, they did not consider this to be excessive in the context of the site, and that the design itself was otherwise appropriate and in keeping to the style of the house. They considered the design and scale of the extension would not be out of character nor likely to adversely affect its appearance. The over-shadowing resulting from the development, in the order of 6% was considered to be acceptable in the context and there were no over-looking or loss of privacy issues. It was to be noted that no objections to the proposal had been made by neighbouring residents.

On the question of whether would impact on the streetscene, they noted the Planning Officer’s observation that the streetscape was characterised by rows of two-storey housing on either side of the road and that the terraces of houses were largely unchanged from their original design. Whilst this was accepted, the LRB considered that in the context of its setting at the end of a cul-de-sac, this development was unlikely to be too prominent or likely to disturb the overall streetscene.

The LRB, in conclusion, considered that the development was allowable in its context. It would improve the amenity and enjoyment of the house without compromising residential amenity of neighbours and was not likely to harm the overall character and appearance of the house or the wider streetscene. For these reasons, it considered that the material considerations it had identified were of sufficient weight to lead it to overturn the original determination by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to grant planning permission.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 23 January 2013 Page 4 of 9 Decision To not uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to grant planning permission for a single-storey extension to existing house at 24 Mortonhall Park View, Edinburgh (application no. 12/03650/FUL), subject to conditions and with informatives as follows: Conditions: (N/A) Informatives

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. (References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)

5. Request For Review – 50 George Square, Edinburgh – Police Box Coffee Kiosk

Details were provided of a request for a review of the refusal of planning permission for a proposed police box coffee kiosk, to be situated at 50 George Square (20 metres west of), Edinburgh (application no. 12/03186/FUL).

Assessment The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted by the applicant including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of review documents, a site and a hearing. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development. On the question of whether to undertake a site visit and hearing, the LRB were of the view that, with the benefit of the plans and photographs available, they should proceed to determine the case on the basis of the review documents only. The plans used to determine the application were numbered 1-3, being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 23 January 2013 Page 5 of 9 The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. 2) The Southside Conservation Area Character Appraisal. 3) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by the applicant in the notice of review. 4) The representations received on the application and the further representations received on the notice of review. Conclusion The LRB carefully considered the applicant’s arguments as contained in the notice of review as set against the officer’s report of handling and the decision notice with the reasons for refusal of consent, and the representations on the application and the further representations on the notice of review.

In relation to the representations from third parties, the LRB considered their relevancy insofar as they related to planning considerations, there having been representations in relation to the conservation area proposals, retail classification, design, and interference with pedestrian movements.

The issue of ownership of the site was not material to the consideration of the review but a question of whether obstruction or interference of pedestrian access by the proximity to buildings owned by the University of Edinburgh was considered as material. On this, the LRB noted that Transport Planning had not raised any objections. The LRB considered that, having regard to the width of area available to pedestrians at the particular point of location, any obstruction or interference to pedestrian traffic was not likely to be significant and by itself was not of sufficient weight to refuse the proposals. Other issues regarding possible noise and disturbance were relevant but the LRB again felt these were not of sufficient weight to refuse permission, and could be subject to other controls by the local authority.

On the use as retail (class 1), the LRB considered there were no grounds to refuse permission; it was also noted that there was an existing coffee kiosk situated at another location on George Square. The LRB was of the view that the determining issue in the case was one of assessment of whether the design and proposed use were appropriate to the location and in an area subject to conservation area policies.

They took account of the fact that the proposed kiosk was in the form of a Police Box – it was necessary to have regard to the particular design of such structures and the historical pattern of locations in the city. They considered the question of whether the siting of a police box in this location was in keeping with expectations on police boxes or, if not, whether the situation would otherwise be acceptable in terms of the planning policies. On this, the LRB felt it could not be considered as a typical site. At the same time, however, they noted that the surrounding buildings were in effect working academic or office buildings in a mix of styles; the particular site lay away from residential properties and listed buildings. They felt that the introduction of this particular structure was unlikely to have any significant impact on the appearance or character of the area, nor affect the overall character of the conservation area. In general terms the use of redundant police boxes as on-street kiosks was considered an appropriate use, and in this particular setting they did not feel it would be out of place.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 23 January 2013 Page 6 of 9

The LRB, having taken all the above matters into consideration, was of the opinion that the material considerations it had identified were of sufficient weight to lead it to overturn the original determination by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to grant planning permission for the proposals. Decision To not uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to grant planning permission for a proposed police box coffee kiosk at 50 George Square (20 metres west of), Edinburgh (application no. 12/03186/FUL), subject to conditions and with informatives as follows: Conditions: (N/A) Informatives 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. (References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)

6. Request For Review – 82 Orchard Brae, Edinburgh – Sun Lounge

Details were provided of a request for a review of the refusal of planning permission for erection of a sun lounge at 82 Orchard Brae Gardens, Edinburgh (application no. 12/02380/FUL).

Assessment The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted by the applicant including the request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of review documents. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development. The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01-02, being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services. The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points:

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 23 January 2013 Page 7 of 9 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. 2) Non-statutory guidelines on ‘Daylighting, Sunlight and Privacy’, and ‘Guidance for Householders’ (as recently approved and superceding the former guidelines on ‘Alterations and Extensions’). 3) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by the applicant in the notice of review. 4) The representations received on the application and the further representations received on the notice of review. Conclusion The LRB carefully considered the applicant’s arguments as contained in the notice of review, as set against the officer’s report of handling and the decision notice and the reasons for refusal of consent. The applicant had asked that the review be dealt with by means of written submissions. The LRB agreed that it should proceed to consider the review by means of the written submissions with no further procedure.

The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development.

The applicant had argued that, against the reason for refusal of over-looking and loss of privacy on neighbouring properties, it was to be noted that the size of the proposed extension was very near to that falling within permitted development rights; the applicant also felt that the issue of over-looking could be dealt with by means of boundary screening measures.

The LRB was satisfied that the proposals would introduce an unacceptable loss of privacy and introduce over-looking of existing neighbouring properties. Although the size of the development was marginally less than allowed under permitted development rights, the effects were significant. The introduction of a boundary fence would not provide a solution as the fence would introduce unacceptable over-shadowing of the neighbouring property.

They noted that there had been five letters of representation on the application and three further letters of representation on the notice of review, these being objections from neighbouring properties in relation to loss of residential amenity.

The LRB found that the planning officer’s report was fair and balanced. They considered that no material considerations had identified in the notice of review which were of sufficient weight to lead it to overturn the original determination by the Head of Planning and Building Standards to refuse planning permission. Decision To uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to refuse planning permission for erection of a sun lounge at 82 Orchard Brae Gardens, Edinburgh (application no.12/02380/FUL).

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 23 January 2013 Page 8 of 9 Reason The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Des 11 in respect of the Council’s non-statutory guidelines ‘Guidance for Householders’ and ‘Daylighting, Sunlight and Privacy non-statutory guideline, as it will cause over-looking and a loss of privacy, to the detriment and harm of the amenity of neighbours.

(References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted)

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 23 January 2013 Page 9 of 9 M in u te s Minutes

City of Edinburgh Local Review Body

10.00 am, Wednesday, 28 November 2012

Present Councillors Brock, Child, McVey, Mowat and Perry.

1. Chair

Councillor Mowat was appointed as Convener.

2. Planning Local Review Body Procedure

Decision

To note the outline procedure for consideration of reviews.

(Reference – Local Review Body Procedure, submitted.)

3. Request For Review – 46 Coillesdene Avenue, Edinburgh

Details were provided by a request for a review of the refusal of planning permission for the extension of the bungalow and conversion of the attic at 46 Coillesdene Avenue, Edinburgh (application no 12/02659/FUL).

Assessment

The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted by the applicant, including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of review documents only. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development.

The LRB, having considered these documents, agreed that it had sufficient information before it, and would therefore determine the review using the information circulated to it.

The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points:

1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

2) The non-statutory guidelines on “Daylighting, Privacy and Sunlight” and “House Extensions and Alterations”.

3) The procedure used to determine the application.

4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by the applicant in the request for a review.

Conclusion The LRB noted the arguments as contained in the notice of review and viewed all the photographs provided by the applicant relating to other development in the area, but did not consider these were sufficient to outweigh the planning considerations identified by the officer relative to concerns over the scale and massing of the proposal.

The LRB, having taken all the above matters into consideration, agreed with the assessment of the issues in the case officer’s report and concluded that the proposals would be unduly intrusive, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. The LRB was of the opinion that no material considerations had been presented in the request for a review which would lead it to overturn the determination by the Head of Planning. Decision

To uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards to refuse planning permission for the extension of the bungalow and conversion of the attic at 46 Coillesdene Avenue, Edinburgh (application No 12/02659/FUL).

Reasons for Refusal 1) The proposal was contrary to Policies Des3 – Development Design and Des11 – Alterations and Extensions of the Edinburgh City Local Plan, by way of its design, scale and massing and results in an unusually intrusive feature in this location, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.

2) The proposal did not comply with the Council’s standard stated within Non Statutory Guidance “House Extensions and Alterations” as the extensions do not appear subservient, dominating the original form of the building.

(References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 28 November 2012 Page 2 of 6 4. Request For Review – 3 Douglas Gardens Mews, Edinburgh

Details were provided of a request for a review of the refusal of planning permission for the installation of 8 solar panels to the front elevation roof at 3 Douglas Gardens Mews, Edinburgh (application No 12/01515/FUL).

Assessment

The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted by the applicant including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of review documents, the holding of one or more hearing sessions and a site inspection. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development.

The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01-04 (Scheme 1), being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services.

The LRB, having considered these documents, agreed that it had sufficient information before it, did not require to hold a site inspection or hearing sessions and would therefore determine the review using the information circulated to it.

The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points:

1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

2) The non-statutory guidelines on “Daylighting, Privacy and Sunlight” and “Mews”.

3) The New Town Conservation Area Character Appraisal.

4) The procedure used to determine the application, including the letter of representation received which commented on the potential adverse impact on the conservation area.

5) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by the applicant in the request for a review.

Conclusion The LRB carefully considered all the arguments put before it. The LRB also carefully considered the various photographs of the property and surrounding streets taken by the case officer on their site visit. They also examined the site plan showing the relationship of the property to its immediate surroundings. The LRB also noted the comments on the visual impact which would arise if the panels were installed.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 28 November 2012 Page 3 of 6 Having considered all these matters and having heard the views of those members of the panel who were familiar with the area, the LRB concluded that the relative positions and heights of surrounding buildings meant that whilst the proposed panels would be visible from some of the neighbouring properties, they would be largely hidden from any significant public viewpoint. The LRB therefore concluded that the proposals would not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the conservation area which was characterised by a variety of attachments to roofs in the surrounding area. In the particular circumstances of this case, it was the LRB’s view, that the character and appearance of the conservation area would be preserved.

To not uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to grant planning permission for the installation of 8 solar panels to the front elevation roof at 3 Douglas Gardens Mews, Edinburgh (application No 12/01515/FUL), subject to informatives as follows: Informatives

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

(References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)

5. Request For Review – 89 Greenbank Crescent, Edinburgh

Details were provided for a review of the refusal of planning permission for the proposed attic conversion, removal of hipped ends to roof and replaced with gable ends and utility room extension at 89 Greenbank Crescent, Edinburgh (application No 12/01794/FUL).

Assessment

The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted by the applicant including a request that the review proceed on the basis of

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 28 November 2012 Page 4 of 6 an assessment of review documents and a site inspection. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development.

The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01-03 and 06 - 07 (Scheme 2), being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services.

The LRB, having considered these documents, agreed that it had sufficient information before it, did not require to hold a site inspection and would therefore determine the review using the information circulated to it.

The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points:

1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

2) The non-statutory guidelines on “Daylighting, Privacy and Sunlight” and “House Extensions and Alterations”.

3) The procedure used to determine the application, including the letter of representation expressing support for the proposals.

4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by the applicant in the request for a review.

Conclusion The LRB carefully considered all the arguments put before it and noted the history of recent consents for similar works to neighbouring properties at numbers 83, 87 and 91. The LRB carefully considered the various photographs which the applicant submitted as part of the request for a review and which illustrated the variety of property styles in the immediate vicinity of the application site. Members of the LRB were also familiar with the wider area and with the variety of other development types within the area.

In particular, they considered both the impact of the proposals on the street elevation of the property and the impact on more distant views of the rear of the property across the neighbouring public park.

Having noted the variety of house styles and similar developments in the immediate area, the LRB concluded that, whilst the proposal would have some impact on the property and its surroundings, it would not be a negative impact. With an appropriate condition to safeguard the neighbouring property from potential overlooking, the LRB concluded that the proposals would have no significant adverse impacts on the character or amenity of the area.

The LRB, having taken all the above matters into consideration, was of the opinion that the material considerations it had identified were of sufficient weight to lead it to

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 28 November 2012 Page 5 of 6 overturn the original determination by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to grant planning permission for the proposals. Decision

To not uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to grant planning permission for the proposed attic conversion, removal of hipped ends to roof and replaced with gable ends and utility room extension at 89 Greenbank Crescent, Edinburgh (application No 12/01794/FUL), subject to a condition and informatives as follows:

Condition The window looking to the south over the garden of 91 Greenbank Crescent be fitted with frosted glass at all times so as to prevent overlooking of that property.

Reason

In order to protect the amenity enjoyed by the residents of this property.

Informatives

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

(References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 28 November 2012 Page 6 of 6 M in u te s Minutes

City of Edinburgh Local Review Body

10.00 am, Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Present Councillors Brock, Child, McVey, Mowat and Perry.

1. Chair

Councillor Mowat was appointed as Convener.

2. Planning Local Review Body Procedure

Decision

To note the outline procedure for consideration of reviews.

(Reference – Local Review Body Procedure, submitted.)

3. Request For Review – 26 Craigleith Hill, Edinburgh

Details were provided by a request for a review of the refusal of planning permission for the proposed attic conversion including front and rear dormers at 26 Craiglieth Hill, Edinburgh which was dealt with by the Head of Planning and Building Standards under delegated powers. Application No 12/03215/FUL

Assessment

The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted by the applicant, including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of review documents only and a site inspection. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development.

The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points:

1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

2) The non-statutory guidelines on “Daylighting, Privacy and Sunlight” and “House Extensions and Alterations”.

3) The procedure used to determine the application.

4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward in the request for review.

Conclusion The LRB carefully considered all the arguments put before it in respect of the economic considerations of the applicant and also noted that consent had been granted for similar works to the neighbouring property at number 13. The LRB also took into account the opinion presented by the applicant that the non-statutory guidelines, taken into account by the case officer should be disregarded as the merits of the application should allow a relaxation of these standards.

The LRB, having taken all the above matters into consideration, agreed with the assessment of the issues in the case officer’s report and concluded that the proposals would adversely affect the character and appearance of the property in the surrounding area. The LRB was of the opinion that no material considerations had been presented in the request for a review which would lead it to overturn the determination by the Head of Planning.

Motion

To uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards to refuse planning permission for the proposed attic conversion including front and rear dormers at 26 Craiglieth Hill, Edinburgh. Application No 12/03215/FUL.

- moved by Councillor Child, seconded by Councillor Perry.

Amendment

To not uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and to grant planning permission for the proposal, subject to conditions and informatives to be determined.

- moved by Councillor McVey, seconded by Councillor Brock.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 6 February 2013 Page 2 of 11 Voting

For the Motion 3 votes For the Amendment 2 votes

Decision To uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards to refuse planning permission for the proposed attic conversion including front and rear dormers at 26 Craiglieth Hill, Edinburgh Application No 12/03215/FUL. Reasons for Refusal

The proposal was contrary to Policy Des11 and the Council’s Non-Statutory Guidelines on House Extensions as the size and positioning of the dormer would adversely affect the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

(References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)

4. Request For Review – 26 George Square (27 Metres East of), Edinburgh

Details were provided of a request for a review of the refusal of planning permission for a proposed police box to be used as a coffee kiosk twenty seven metres east of 26 George Square, Edinburgh which was dealt with by the Head of Planning and Building Standards under delegated powers. Application No 12/03224/FUL

Assessment

The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development.

The plans used to determine the application were numbered 1-5 (scheme 1), being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services.

The LRB, having considered these documents agreed to adjourn the meeting to carry out an unaccompanied site visit,

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 6 February 2013 Page 3 of 11 The LRB having undertaken the site inspection agreed that it now had sufficient information before it, did not require to hold a hearing session, and would therefore determine the review using the information circulated to it.

The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points:

1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

2) The Southside Conservation Area Character Appraisal.

3) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by the applicant in the notice of review.

4) The information gathered on the site inspection.

5) The representations received on the application and the further representations received on the notice of review.

Conclusion The LRB carefully considered the applicant’s arguments as contained in the notice of review as set against the officer’s report of handling and the decision notice with the reasons for refusal of consent, and the representations on the application and the further representations on the notice of review.

In relation to the representations from third parties, the LRB considered their relevance insofar as they related to planning considerations, there having been representations in relation to the conservation area proposals, retail classification, design, and interference with pedestrian movements.

The LRB noted that Transport Planning had not raised any objections. The LRB considered that, having regard to the width of area available to pedestrians at the particular point of location, any obstruction or interference to pedestrian traffic could be ameliorated by repositioning the kiosk and was not likely to be significant and by itself was not of sufficient weight to refuse the proposals. Other issues regarding possible noise and disturbance were relevant but the LRB again felt these were not of sufficient weight to refuse permission, and could be subject to other controls by the local authority.

They considered the question of whether the location of the police box was in keeping with previous guidance issued on the siting of police boxes. They felt that the introduction of this particular structure was unlikely to have any significant impact on the appearance or character of the area, nor affect the overall character of the conservation area. In general terms the use of redundant police boxes as on-street kiosks was considered an appropriate use, and in this particular setting they did not feel it would be out of place.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 6 February 2013 Page 4 of 11 Decision

To not uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to grant planning permission for a proposed police box to be used as a coffee kiosk at 26 George Square (27 metres east of), Edinburgh (application no. 12/03224/FUL), subject to the following conditions and informatives:

Conditions

1. The kiosk being reorientated so the back of the kiosk is set parallel to the railings.

2. No development shall take place, until details of the colour scheme have been submitted and approved by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Reasons

1. In order to minimise the effect on pedestrians using the footway.

2. To ensure that a colour scheme appropriate to the surrounding area is achieved.

Informatives

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

(References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)

5. Request For Review – 2D Gillsland Road, Edinburgh

Details were provided for a review of the mixed decision issued to part grant and part refuse planning permission for the removal of existing conservatory and replacement with new conservatory, and the installation of solar panels at 2D Gillsland Road, Edinburgh which was dealt with by the Head of Planning and Building Standards under delegated powers. Application No 12/03469/FUL.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 6 February 2013 Page 5 of 11 Assessment

The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted by the applicant including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of review documents only. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development.

The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01, 02, 03A and 04A (Scheme 2), being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services.

The LRB, having considered these documents, agreed that it had sufficient information before it, and would therefore determine the review using the information circulated to it.

The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points:

1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

2) The non-statutory guidelines on “Daylighting, Privacy and Sunlight” and “House Extensions and Alterations”.

3) The Merchiston and Greenhill Conservation Character Appraisal.

4) The procedure used to determine the application, and the letters of representation received on the proposals.

5) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward in the request for review.

Conclusion

The LRB carefully considered all the arguments put before it and noted that there had been no objections from neighbours in Gillsland Road.

The LRB in particular, considered both the impact of the proposals on the street elevation of the property and the impact on the views from Spylaw Road.

The LRB agreed with the case officer that the conservatory did not raise concerns regarding residential amenity and that the use of uPVC as a material was acceptable in this case

The LRB concluded that, whilst the solar panels would not result in an unreasonable loss to neighbouring residential amenity, however they were contrary to the development plan and non-statutory guidelines, and agreed with the assessment in the report that they were not of an appropriate scale, form or design and would not preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 6 February 2013 Page 6 of 11 The LRB, having taken all the above matters into consideration, agreed with the assessment of the issues in the case officer’s report and was of the opinion that no material considerations had been presented in the request for a review which would lead it to overturn the determination by the Head of Planning Building Standards.

Decision

To uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards to issue a mixed decision to part grant and part refuse planning permission for the removal of existing conservatory and replacement with new conservatory, and the installation of solar panels at 2D Gillsland Road, Edinburgh which was dealt with by the Head of Planning and Building Standards under delegated powers. Application No 12/03469/FUL

This permission relates to the conservatory and side window.

This refusal relates to the solar panels and vacuum tube solar panel.

Reasons for Refusal

1. The proposed solar and vacuum tube thermal panels are contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Env 6 - Conservation Areas - Development - as it introduces a dominant and incongruous feature to the detriment and harm of the special qualities of the conservation area.

2. The proposed solar and vacuum tube thermal panels are contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Des 11 - Alterations and Extensions - and to the House Extensions and Alterations non statutory guideline as they are not of an appropriate scale, form and design and will introduce a dominant feature to the detriment to the appearance of the original building.

Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. The following informatives relate to the conservatory only:

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.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 6 February 2013 Page 7 of 11

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.

(References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)

Dissent

Councillor McVey requested that his dissent be recorded in respect of the above decision.

6. Request For Review – 87 Grassmarket, Edinburgh

Details were provided for a review of the refusal of planning permission to amend the opening hours on Friday and Saturday to 1.45 am at 87 Grassmarket, Edinburgh which was dealt with by the Head of Planning and Building Standards under delegated powers. Application No 12/03399/FUL

Assessment

The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted by the applicant including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of review documents only. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development.

The plans used to determine the application was numbered 01 (Scheme 1), being the drawing shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services.

The LRB, having considered these documents, agreed that it had sufficient information before it and would therefore determine the review using the information circulated to it.

The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points:

1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

2) The non-statutory guidelines on “Food and Drink Establishments””.

3) The procedure used to determine the application, including the letters of representation expressing support for the proposals.

4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward in the request for review.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 6 February 2013 Page 8 of 11 Conclusion

The LRB carefully considered all the arguments put before it and noted the length of time the business had been in operation and the history of applications for similar consent at the property. The LRB considered the information which had been submitted as part of the request for a review on the similar business which operated in the West Port, and the view advanced that contrary to expectations late night catering establishments offered a service which helped to dilute the concentration of revellers on their way home. Members of the LRB were also familiar with the wider area and with the variety of other business types within the area.

The LRB also took into account the applicant’s contention that the non-statutory guidelines on “Food and Drink Establishments” only applied to change of use applications and should not be considered in this case.

In particular, the LRB considered both the impact of the proposals on residential amenity, and the previous decision of the Reporter who noted that to permit the premises to open later than midnight would upset the delicate balance between the interests of the business and those of local residents.

The LRB, having taken all the above matters into consideration, agreed with the assessment of the issues in the case officer’s report and concluded that the proposals would be unduly intrusive, to the detriment of residential amenity. The LRB was of the opinion that no material considerations had been presented in the request for a review which would lead it to overturn the determination by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Decision

To uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards to refuse planning permission to amend the opening hours on Friday and Saturday to 1.45 am at 87 Grassmarket, Edinburgh. Application No 12/03399/FUL

Reason for Refusal

The proposal is likely to increase late night noise and activity to the detriment of neighbouring residential amenity contrary to policy Ret 12 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan and Non-statutory Guideline ‘Food and Drink Establishments’.

(References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)

7. Request For Review – 6 Rosebank Cottages, Edinburgh

Details were provided for a review of the mixed decision to part grant and part refuse planning permission to extend into roof space with the addition of 2 conservation roof- lights plus replace existing skylight with conservation roof light, insertion of slimlite double glazing into existing window frames at 6 Rosebank Cottages which was dealt with by the Head of Planning and Building Standards under delegated powers. Application No 12/02609/FUL.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 6 February 2013 Page 9 of 11

Assessment

The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted by the applicant including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of review documents only. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development.

The LRB, having considered these documents, agreed that it had sufficient information before it and would therefore determine the review using the information circulated to it.

The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points:

1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

2) The non-statutory guidelines on “Colonies”.

3) The West End Conservation Area Character Appraisal

4) The procedure used to determine the application.

5) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by you in your request for a review.

Conclusion The LRB carefully considered all the arguments put before it and noted the consent for similar works to a neighbouring property and the photographs submitted as part of the request for a review and which illustrated this.

In particular, the LRB considered the impact of the proposals on the area, the LRB concluded that, whilst the proposal would have some impact on the property and its surroundings, it would not be a negative impact, and the LRB concluded that the proposals would have no significant adverse impacts on the character or amenity of the area.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 6 February 2013 Page 10 of 11 Decision

To not uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to grant planning permission to extend into roof space with the addition of 2 conservation roof-lights plus replace existing skylight with conservation roof light, insertion of slimlite double glazing into existing window frames at 6 Rosebank Cottages. Application No 12/02609/FUL

Informatives

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

The permission is for Planning Permission only. All other necessary consents are required to be obtained, prior to commencing works. (References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 6 February 2013 Page 11 of 11 Planning Committee

10.00, Thursday, 28 February 2013

Annual Review of Guidance

Item number Report number Wards All

L inks Links

Coalition pledges P28, P40 Council outcomes CO8, CO16, CO19 Single Outcome Agreement SO1, SO4

Mark Turley Director, Services for Communities

Contact: Ben Wilson, Principal Planner

E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 469 3411

Executive summary

Annual Review of Guidance

S um m a ry Summary

The purpose of this report is to advise Committee of progress in reviewing the Council’s planning guidance.

Significant progress has been made towards a new, user-focused structure of guidance as agreed previously. Further consolidation will take place in 2013, along with other reviews of freestanding guidelines.

Legal advice has been received on the issue of short stay commercial leisure apartments (‘party flats’). Appropriate text will be added to the published version of the recently approved Guidance for Businesses to allow the planning authority to deal with the issue in cases where a material change of use has occurred.

Planning modernisation has introduced scope for a new, statutory type of guidance, called Supplementary Guidance. The proposed approach to its use is set out in this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee:

1. notes the progress towards a reorganised and consolidated suite of planning guidance as set out in Appendix 1;

2. agrees that the additional text in paragraph 2.3 be added to the Guidance for Businesses, in order to address the issue of short stay commercial leisure apartments (‘party flats’).

Measures of success

Planning guidance is more accessible and understandable for applicants and other stakeholders in the planning process.

Financial impact

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

Equalities impact

The impacts of this report in relation to the Public Sector Equalities Duty and the ten key areas of rights have been considered. The report has no significant direct impact on the delivery of the Council’s three equality duties. However, the review of individual guidelines could in due course have an impact, and so each will be subject to an assessment. The review of guidance may have a positive impact on the right to productive and valued activities, by making it easier for stakeholders contemplating development, such as physical improvements to their home or business premises, to understand the Council’s policies.

Sustainability impact

The impacts of this report in relation to the three elements of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 Public Bodies Duties have been considered, and the outcomes are summarised below. Relevant Council sustainable development policies have been taken into account and the key one, the emerging Local Development Plan, is noted under Background Reading later in this report.

• The proposals in this report will reduce carbon emissions because several of the guidelines do require new development to reduce carbon emissions, and the restructuring of guidance will make these easier to understand, potentially increasing uptake.

• The proposals in this report will increase the city’s resilience to climate change impacts because several of the guidelines do require new development to adapt to climate change through flood management etc. The restructuring of guidance will make these easier to understand, potentially increasing uptake.

• The proposals in this report will help achieve a sustainable Edinburgh because the review of guidance will not directly promote social justice, but several of the guidelines covered by the review do. The proposals in this report will help achieve a sustainable Edinburgh because the review of guidance includes the consolidation of guidance affecting businesses, including local businesses and the third sector, into one document. This is intended to be easier to use, increasing certainty and reducing delay and costs. The proposals in this report also reduce the amount of paper guidance which needs to be produced and circulated.

Consultation and engagement

Individual guidelines are reported and published in consultative draft form. Consultation responses are taken into account when the guidelines are amended prior to final approval and use.

Background reading / external references

Local Development Plan: Development Plan Scheme and Progress Update, report to Planning Committee, 6 December 2012

Annual Review of Guidance, report to Planning Committee, 1 March 2012 R e p o r t Report

Annual Review of Guidance

1. Background

1.1 The Planning Committee received the last annual review of guidance on 1 March 2012. That report set out a structure and programme for the consolidation of non-statutory guidance in line with that agreed in 2011.

1.2 The intention is that the new structure will be more user-friendly, and will help people understand the Council’s expectations before proposals are formulated and submitted as applications. The structure is based around the main groups that use the planning service, illustrated conceptually in this diagram:

2. Main report

Changes to guidance in 2012 2.1 Appendix 1 shows the current suite of guidance. In 2012, three consolidated guidelines were drafted, consulted on and finalised:

• Guidance for Householders • Guidance for Businesses • Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas guidance.

2.2 These have now been published online and are being printed in small numbers for circulation to community councils and placement in Council libraries. Copies will be available from the Planning and Buildings Standards reception.

2.3 Since the Guidance for Businesses was approved in December 2012, the Council has considered whether short term stay commercial leisure apartments, or ‘party flats’ can constitute a material change of use in planning terms. The Council considers that in certain cases they can. Accordingly, the following text is to be added to the relevant section of the published version of the Guidance for Businesses:

The change of use from a residential property to short stay commercial leisure apartments may require planning permission. In deciding whether this is the case, regard will be had to:

• The character of the new use and of the wider area; • The size of the property; • The pattern of activity associated with the use including numbers of occupants, the period of use, issues of noise, disturbance and parking demand; and • The nature and character of any services provided.

and

In the case of short stay commercial leisure apartments, the Council is unlikely to grant planning permission in respect of flatted properties where the potential adverse impact on residential amenity is greatest.

2.4 The other change to guidance in 2012 was the approval of the Sustainable Lighting Strategy for Edinburgh. Actions for 2013 and beyond 2.5 Another key part of the consolidation of guidance – the Edinburgh Design Guidance – was published in consultation draft form in 2012. It is due to be reported for final approval in May 2013.

2.6 The remaining area of consolidation is that relating to street design. The Street Design Guidance is due to be reported in consultation draft form towards the end of 2013.

2.7 Once this consolidation is complete, most users of the Planning Service will be able to find guidance in one of the these six main guidelines:

2.8 A small number of main guidelines is easier to manage on the Council’s website, and work is underway to make them easier for customers to find. The main page is www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planningguidelines.

2.9 However, there will continue to be some specialised issues which are best dealt with in freestanding guidelines, also listed in Appendix 1. Their use is monitored regularly. It is intended to review the following in 2013 and, if appropriate, update them:

• Art in Public Spaces (potentially to be incorporated into Street Design Guidance).

• Radio Telecommunications (in anticipation of the rollout of 4G following Edinburgh’s inclusion in the Urban Broadband Fund for next generation services provision).

• Student Housing (to take account of over two years of experience using this guideline and potentially demographic changes identified in the 2011 Census).

• HMOs (to reflect significant changes proposed for the Local Development Plan (LDP), see report to Planning Committee, 6 December 2012, paras 2.43 – 2.48).

• Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing (to reflect new approach to infrastructure provision in LDP and its Action Programme).

• Development in the Countryside and Green Belt (to support the LDP policy for green belt and countryside).

2.10 In the longer term, it is intended to update the consolidated guidelines regularly, potentially on a two year cycle, if appropriate. Future editions can include examples of good and bad practice in implementation as they are identified through monitoring.

Supplementary Guidance 2.11 The above sections of this report deal with the Council’s non-statutory guidance, which provides advice on interpretation of the development plan.

2.12 The Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 introduces scope for a different, statutory type of guidance. Called ‘Supplementary Guidance’, it forms part of the development plan. There are certain procedural requirements for its preparation and it must only provide further information or detail in relation to identified policies or proposals in a local or strategic development plan.

2.13 For the LDP, it is intended to use Supplementary Guidance to move policies on change of use in the town centres (including the city centre) down to separate documents (see report to Planning Committee, 6 December 2012, paras 2.57 – 2.63). These can be prepared with much more local engagement than is practicable in the LDP process. They can have much more detail (for example in terms of maps and policy principles) than is appropriate in a citywide document. In addition, these will be updated more frequently than the plan (potentially on a two year cycle), to respond to emerging issues like vacant units and other opportunities. This approach also allows the LDP to be shorter.

2.14 Other policies in the LDP will continue to be interpreted by the non-statutory guidance discussed in the previous sections. These illustrate in detail what kind of things do and do not comply with the policy criteria in the LDP. Applications will continue to be determined using the provisions of the development plan (in this case the policies of the LDP), and this non-statutory guidance advises customers on how best to comply with the plan. In many cases the guidance relates to matters of design, in which a principle is stated as a criterion in the policy in the LDP, and the guidance shows (with photos and diagrams) ways that the principle can be implemented. Good exceptions to the principle can also be shown.

2.15 It should be noted that the use of Supplementary Guidance to plan out a specific development location is being piloted in one place for the first LDP, at Edinburgh BioQuarter. This pilot will be monitored, along with experience in use of Supplementary Guidance elsewhere in Scotland, to inform future LDPs.

3. Recommendations

3.1 It is recommended that the Committee:

1. notes the progress towards a reorganised and consolidated suite of planning guidance as set out in Appendix 1;

2. agrees that the additional text in paragraph 2.3 above be added to the Guidance for Businesses, in order to address the issue of short stay commercial leisure apartments (‘party flats’). Mark Turley Director, Services for Communities

Links

Coalition pledges P28 Further strengthen our links with the business community by developing and implementing strategies to promote and protect the economic well being of the city P40 Work with Edinburgh World Heritage Trust and other stakeholders to conserve the city’s build heritage Council outcomes CO8 Edinburgh’s economy creates and sustains job opportunities CO16 Well-housed – People live in a good quality home that is affordable and meets their needs in a well managed neighbourhood CO 19 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

Single Outcome SO1 Edinburgh’s economy delivers increased investment, jobs, Agreement and opportunities for all.

SO4 Edinburgh’s communities are safer and have improved physical and social fabric.

Appendices Appendix 1 – Status of Guidance

Annual Review of Guidance February 2013 Appendix 1

Status of Guidance

Title Status and Date Comment Edinburgh Standards Edinburgh Standards for Urban Design Approved 2003 To be removed once finalised Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Building Approved 2010 Edinburgh Design Guidance approved Edinburgh Standards for Housing Approved 2010 in May 2013. Edinburgh Standards for Streets Approved 2006 To be replaced by street design guidance Guidance Consolidated Guidelines Guidance for Businesses Final December 2012 Replace several guidelines. Guidance for Householders Final December 2012 Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas Final December 2012 Edinburgh Design Guidance Draft October 2012 Will replace several guidelines. Street design guidance (name tbc) Draft 2013 Will replaced several guidelines. Developer Contributions and Affordable Approved 2011 To be updated to reflect Local Housing Guidance Development Plan (LDP). Standalone guidance to be retained Advertisements, Sponsorship and City Approved March 2012 Dressing Art in Public Places Approved 1998 Under review Development in the Countryside & Green Belt Approved 2008 To be updated to reflect LDP Housing in Multiple Occupation Approved 2006 To be updated to reflect LDP Open Space Strategy Approved 2010 Radio Telecommunications Approved 2006 To be reviewed Sustainable Lighting Strategy for Edinburgh Approved June 2012 Student Housing Approved 2010 To be reviewed Tram Design Manual Approved 2006 Retain until no longer needed Guidance still to be fully consolidated Biodiversity Approved 2010 To be removed once finalised Building Heights and Roofscape Approved 2010 Edinburgh Design Guidance approved. Daylighting, Sunlight and Privacy Approved 2010 Gardens and Designed Landscapes Approved 2009 Housing Development in Garden Grounds Approved 1999 Landscape and Development Approved 2010 Protection of Key Views Approved 2008 Trees and Development Approved 2008 Villa Areas and the Grounds of Villas Approved 2008 Parking Standards Approved 2009 To be consolidated into street design guidance (tbc). Movement and Development Approved 2000 To be consolidated into street design Bus Friendly Design Guide Approved 2005 guidance.

Planning Committee

10.00am Thursday 28 February 2013

Development Management Sub-Committee:

Review of Procedures

Item number Report number Wards All

L inks Links

Coalition pledges Council outcomes CO23, CO25 Single Outcome Agreement

Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities

Contact: Nancy Jamieson, Acting Development Management Manager

E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 3916

Executive summary

Development Management Sub-Committee: Review of Procedures

S um m a ry Summary

The purpose of this report is to review the changes to the Development Management Sub-Committee process agreed by the Planning Committee on 9 August 2012 requiring ward councillors to request a hearing on a planning application if they wish to address the Committee on the case. This was subject to review after 6 months. The report seeks approval for the changes to be continued and ask the Committee to agree further minor procedural changes.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee:

1. Agrees that the ward member hearing request procedure be continued to ensure compliance with the Councillors’ Code of Conduct pending a response from the Standards Commission; and

2. Agree minor procedural changes in terms of criteria for hearings, Order of Business, and Monitoring Officer signatures.

Measures of success

The success of implementing these procedural changes can be measured by

• Ensuring full compliance with the Councillors’ Code of Conduct; • Ensuring clarity and transparency in the Council’s operational decision-making processes; and • Affording equal opportunity to all interested parties.

Financial impact

There is no financial impact arising from this report.

Equalities impact

This report has been subject to an Equalities and Rights Impact Assessment which concludes the following: • The revised procedures will have a positive impact on participation, influence and voice as they afford equal opportunity for all interested parties the right to have a say in decisions and say what they think;

• In terms of Public Sector Equality Duty, the new procedures advance equality of opportunity by removing disadvantage from those previously unable to address the Committee; and

• There are no adverse impacts on equalities as the procedures apply to all and do not relate to any protected characteristics.

Sustainability impact

The impacts of this report in relation to the three elements of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 Public Bodies Duties have been considered and the outcomes are summarised below:

• The proposals in this report do not affect carbon emissions; • The need to build resilience to climate change impacts is not relevant to the proposals in this report because it is concerned with Council committee processes; • The proposals in this report will help achieve a sustainable Edinburgh because they promote equality of opportunity; and • Environmental good stewardship is not considered to impact on the proposals in this report because there is no relevance to the use of natural resources.

Consultation and engagement

No consultation has taken place as the proposals relate to the Councillors’ Code of Conduct and Committee processes. Discussions are ongoing with the Scottish Government at Member level on the Code of Conduct.

If approved, these procedural changes will be integrated into the Development Management Sub-Committee process and communicated to members and staff.

Background reading / external references

• Code of Conduct for Councillors in Scotland • Planning Committee reports and minutes 9 August 2012

R e p o r t Report

Development Management Sub-Committee: Review of Procedures

1. Background

1.1 On 4 July 2012, the Planning Committee approved the following motion by Councillor Perry:

“In view of the general review of the Council's political management governance arrangements, as instructed by the Council on 24 May 2012, to instruct the Director of Corporate Governance in consultation with the Head of Planning to undertake a review of procedures used at the Development Management Sub-Committee. The review to address the Council's stated desire to be a Council that will listen to and work with local people and which will operate in a co-operative, fair, accountable and responsible manner.”

1.2 This was in response to paragraph 7.15 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct in relation to planning matters which states:

“ If as part of the decision making process you wish to make representations on behalf of constituents or other parties you may do so, providing:

• you do so in terms of procedures agreed by the Council which afford equal opportunity to any parties wishing to make representations to do so; • you declare your interest in the matter; and • after making those representations you then retire from the meeting room.”

1.3 At its meeting on 9 August 2012, the Planning Committee decided that procedures should be amended so that ward councillors had to make a request for a hearing if they wanted to be heard by the Development Management Sub- Committee. This was agreed to ensure that there was equal opportunity for applicants and other interested parties to be heard. It was further agreed that representations be made to the Scottish Government and the Standards Commission to review the Code of Conduct. In addition, the new procedure was to be reviewed after 6 months.

1.4 The new procedure was agreed by full Council on 23 August 2012 and implemented from that date.

2. Main report 2.1 Following the approval of the new procedures requiring ward councillors to make a request for a hearing if they wanted to be heard, guidance notes were issued to all councillors on 27 August 2012 advising them of the process.

2.2 Since that date, there have been 5 requests for hearings by ward councillors (see Appendix 1). In addition, a councillor on the Committee requested a hearing rather than a presentation on a particular item. This was confirmed as an option open to the Committee.

2.3 Of the six requests for hearings, the following was decided:

• Two hearings were agreed and both applications were approved contrary to recommendation. These were for a retail development and a single house with complex listed building issues.

• Of the four hearing requests that were denied, three were granted as per the recommendation and one was granted contrary to recommendation.

• Of the four hearing requests that were denied, three were presented instead, one after a site visit. These were all for householder developments.

• In only one case was the application decided without further procedure. This was for six flats.

2.4 Each hearing request was debated and the councillor’s reason for the request considered. In general, the Committee based its decision on whether there was sufficient presentation material. There is no evidence that the new procedures have prevented ward councillors from making their views known to the Committee as they can make representations in writing. The new procedure is working well and to ensure continued compliance with the Code of Conduct should be made permanent.

2.5 Applications can also be selected for hearings by the Head of Planning and Building Standards in advance of the meeting. Criterion for these was agreed by the Planning Committee on 19 May 2011 and are as follows:

• An application raises important land use, conservation, design or residential amenity issues contrary to or not adequately covered by the development plan or supplementary planning guidance;

• the degree of public interest is substantial, as measured by the range and substance of material representations rather than the only the volume; and

• The Council has substantial financial or land ownership interests in the proposals, and either a) or b) above are applicable.

2.6 Since that date, the number of hearings has increased. Six have been held since May 2011 when ward member hearings are included. In the previous 8 years, only 12 hearings were held in total. This has put pressure on Committee business as a hearing can take around 2 hours. The main area of debate is whether applications which are contrary to the Development Plan and non- statutory guidance should always be the subject of a hearing. S37 of the Planning Act states that applications should be determined with regard to the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. If the recommendation is in accordance with the Development Plan, it would suggest that a hearing is not necessary. It is therefore proposed to amend criterion one to simplify it and ensure hearings take place only when it is recommended that an application be approved contrary to the development plan. The suggested wording for criterion one is;

• An application raises important land use, conservation, design or residential amenity issues contrary to the Development Plan and is recommended for approval.

2.7 In terms of Order of Business, it is recommended that provision is made for hearing requests from ward members. The format suggested is:

• Section 1 - Order of Business • Section 2 - Declarations of Interest • Section 3 - Hearing Requests from Ward Councillors • Section 4 - Applications for decision without debate • Section 5 - Pre-application reports • Section 6 – Applications for Hearings • Section 7 – Applications returning to committee for approval of reasons for refusal or of conditions • Section 8 - Applications returning to committee for consideration after a site visit • Section 9 – Applications for detailed presentation.

2.8 A further procedural issue relates to planning applications submitted by Members or council staff involved in the planning process. Currently these must be checked by the Council’s monitoring officer as well as the Head of Planning and Building Standards and determined by Committee. This is in compliance with procedures agreed in 1996. the procedure has been reviewed by Legal services and it is suggested that countersigning by the monitoring officer (Head of Corporate Governance) provides little added value to the decision-making process and there is sufficient scrutiny in the Committee process to ensure probity and transparency. It is proposed that the practice of countersigning by the monitoring officer ceases.

3. Recommendations

3.1 It is recommended that:

• The current procedure for hearing requests from ward councillors is continued pending a response from the Standards Commission;

• The criteria for hearings chosen by the Head of Planning and Building Standards is amended as detailed in paragraph 2.6;

• The Order of Business is amended in accordance with paragraph 2.7;and

• Planning applications submitted by members and officers involved in the planning process are always determined by the Development Management Sub-Committee but countersigning by the Council’s monitoring officer is no longer required.

Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities

Links

Coalition pledges Council outcomes CO23 - Well engaged and well informed – Communities and individuals are empowered and supported to improve local outcomes and foster a sense of community.

CO25 - The Council has efficient and effective services that deliver on objectives. Single Outcome Agreement Appendices Appendix 1 – hearing requests *

APPENDIX 1

Hearing requests DM SUB-COMMITTEE Requests for Hearings from Ward and Committee Members

Retur Orig n C'tee Reason for agree C'tee Ref Address Date Councillor Hearing d Date decision notes 2012 Committee 6 felt they had 12/00695 Transport 29- Granted as Barnton 29-Aug Paterson N all necessary /FUL issues Aug per report Grove information for decision

Granted 454 Does not think 12/00650 it will affect 26- contrary to Gorgie 12-Sep Wilson Y /FUL the shopping Sep recommen Road area dation

Councillor Granted Cammo 12 01746 Rose felt there 10- contrary to Home 12-Sep Rose were complex Y FUL Oct recommen Farm issues to be discussed dation 27 N - Committee 12/02717 Kingsbu Balfour & character and Site 05- Granted as considered 07-Nov /FUL rgh Edie amenity Visit Dec per report site visit was Road only sufficient 12 Committee considered 12/03527 Mansion scale and 21- Granted as 21-Nov Orr N that a materials /FUL house Nov per report presentation Road would suffice 13 encourage Granted Committee 12/03319 Hartingt cycling 19- contrary to considered 19-Dec Main through bike N that a /FUL on storage Dec recommen presentation Gardens provision dation would suffice

Planning Committee

10am, Thursday, 28 February 2013

Edinburgh Urban Design Panel: Third Progress

Report

Item number Report number Wards All

L inks Links

Coalition pledges P15 P17 P28 P40 Council outcomes CO19 CO26 Single Outcome Agreement SO4

Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities

Contact: David Leslie, Acting Head of Planning & Building Standards

E-mail: [email protected]| Tel: 0131 529 3948

Executive summary

Edinburgh Urban Design Panel: Third Progress Report

S um m a ry Summary

The purpose of this report is to summarise the findings from the annual review of the Panel’s work and seek Committee’s approval for a range of measures aimed at improving the effectiveness of the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel.

Recommendations

It is recommended that Committee: 1) notes the progress made by the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel and the outcomes of its third annual review;

2) notes the Panel’s advocacy of tenure blind design, benefits of minimisation of car use and higher density development on urban sites and its approach to providing advice on accessibility;

3) approves the measures to improve the effectiveness of the Panel as set out in its Report (Appendix 1);

4) approves the amendments to how projects will be referred to Architecture and Design Scotland and to the Panel by the Council and the revised Remit, Roles and Functions of the Panel (appendix 3); and,

5) records its appreciation of the voluntary contribution made by existing Panel members to the design review process.

Measures of success

The Council continues to ensure Edinburgh remains an attractive city through the development of high quality buildings and places and the delivery of high standards.

Financial impact

There is no financial impact arising directly from this report.

Equalities impact

The Edinburgh Urban Design Panel aims to raise both the quality of the built environment in Edinburgh and the profile of design within the city. It does this through reviewing development proposals at a pre-planning application stage as well as planning policies and guidance that have an urban design impact. Though facilitated by the Council, it is separate from it.

The Panel helps to enhance health by supporting the creation of attractive urban environments. This can have health benefits – for example by encouraging people to walk. The Panel helps to enhance standards of living through supporting the creation of attractive urban environments and through supporting housing that is well designed.

The Panel helps productive and valued activities by supporting the economic development of the city by encouraging its physical development. This helps to create jobs – eg in construction. The Panel helps to support rights of the individual and for a family and social life by the supporting the creation of good quality housing and urban environments. The Panel supports rights around identity, expression and respect by considering all who will be using the built environment.

In relation to advancing equality of opportunity, The Panel supports this by considering all who will be using the built environment. Panel reviews have considered the age of people, disability, gender, pregnancy and maternity in relation to issues of safety and ease of moving around. This approach helps to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other prohibited conduct. The Panel helps to foster good relations by promoting the integration of new development with existing developments within the city.

Sustainability impact

The Edinburgh Urban Design Panel aims to raise the quality of the built environment in Edinburgh. This helps make Edinburgh a more sustainable city by creating an environment that can endure.

The proposals in this report will help achieve:

• a socially sustainable Edinburgh through the inclusion of on-site tenure-blind affordable housing;

• an economically sustainable Edinburgh because through supporting the development of the city; and

• a sustainable Edinburgh because the Panel supports environmental good stewardship.

Although established by the Planning Committee, the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel is independent of the Council. It is free to form its own views. Therefore, it is not bound by the Council’s Sustainability Policies.

Consultation and engagement

In preparing this report, the Panel itself was consulted.

There have been no consultations with the wider community about the workings of the Panel during the past year. In previous reviews, consultation with users of the Panel has been included.

In relation to the development proposals that the Panel reviews at pre-application stage, the community is consulted via formal community consultation during the Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) period.

In relation to Council policy and guidance that the Panel reviews at draft stage, this is consulted on with the community before being finalised.

Background reading / external references

The Edinburgh Urban Design Panel’s website: www.edinburgh.gov.uk/eudp

R e p o r t Report

Edinburgh Urban Design Panel: Third Progress Report

1. Background

1.1 The Edinburgh Urban Design Panel was constituted by the Planning Committee with an agreed remit, function, roles of members, and principles of conduct. The aim of the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel is to contribute constructive advice which can be used by design teams, planners and developers to develop proposals in a positive way. It also imparts advice on relevant Council policy and guidance and to provide a focus for projects significant to the city. It does this by providing design reviews. For each review, a written report is provided to presenters to the Panel and to planning officials.

1.2 The Panel is made up of a range of member organisations including consultees to the Planning process, academics, professional bodies and the Police who each send representatives to its meetings. The Panel is a voluntary body and its members or their organisations are not paid for their contribution.

1.3 Though the Panel was set up by the Council, it is independent of it. It is free to form its own views.

1.4 The Panel met for the first time in March 2009. Since then it has carried out 73 individual reviews. 58 of these reviews were for development proposals and these were carried out at the pre application stage. The remainder of the reviews related to planning and design policies and guidance at draft stage.

1.5 Once planning applications are made, the Panel’s reports and background information are made publicly available. These can be viewed at the Panel’s webpage: www.edinburgh.gov.uk/eudp. Panel reports are also included in officials’ reports to Planning Committee and to the Development Management Sub-Committee.

1.6 It is part of the Panel’s role to undertake a review of its effectiveness each year. Progress reports have been made to Planning Committee in February 2010 and August 2011. In both cases, Panel members had taken part in workshop discussions which resulted in recommendations being made to the Planning Committee.

1.7 The Panel conducted its latest review on 12 December 2012. It was recognised this was the first time it was possible to consider the impact of the Panel’s pre- planning application involvement on developments which were now completed.

2. Main report

2.1 The review of the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel (12 December 2012) explored 3 issues:

• Issues raised by the overview of reviews of development proposals; • Influence of the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel; and, • The Panel’s relationship with Architecture and Design Scotland.

2.2 The Panel prepared a report of its meeting (Appendix 1). This sets out its recommendations and the conclusions it drew from the review.

Issues raised by the overview of reviews of development proposals. 2.3 Statistical analysis was carried out on the Panel’s reviews. This is contained in Appendix 2.

2.4 It shows that the Panel has reviewed a wide range of development proposals including housing, mixed use, educational, health, commercial and other types of buildings. This mix is broadly reflective of the range of planning applications that are made.

2.5 The analysis also shows the range of issues that the Panel raise. These are broad in scope, and include:

• The approach to design, including advice to design teams and the Council; • The surroundings and context for the proposals; • The uses proposed; • The design of the buildings – both at strategic and detailed levels; • Movement, transport, parking etc; • Landscape design; • Street design; • Security and community safety; and, • Residential amenity.

2.6 This analysis established that the Panel often provides similar advice on projects and that this can be applied more widely. The Panel advocates:

• The inclusion of on-site tenure-blind affordable housing of the same housing type as the market housing. This helps achieve social sustainability because a wider range of people can live in a development.

• Proposals that seek to reduce the need for car use. The most obvious way this is achieved is by ensuring numbers of car parking spaces are minimised. This has two major benefits: (a) there is a greater likelihood that reasonable quantities of green space can be provided and (b) lower car use means lower levels of congestion and pollution.

• That, where possible, and in order to achieve the most efficient use of land, that development should be built at the highest possible densities and on urban sites.

2.7 The issue of accessibility does not feature strongly in Panel reports. It was agreed that accessibility is one feature of urban design. It was noted there are other mechanisms for the issue of accessibility to be explored in more detail (such as the Edinburgh Access Panel).

2.8 It is recommended that Committee notes the Panel’s approach to providing advice on the issue of accessibility within the broad context of providing advice on urban design but that this aspect should not form a particular part of the Panel’s focus.

Influence of the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel 2.9 The Panel members reflected on their role and concluded that the Panel is continuing to fulfil its staged aim of influencing the urban design of development proposals in a positive manner. However, the Panel recognises there is scope for improvement and identified changes for its future operation.

2.10 While architects / designers and planners are clearly key to the delivery of successful urban design, the role of the client is fundamental. Clients have attended many reviews as part of the presenting team. The opportunity for clients to hear the Panel’s advice directly is beneficial. The Panel intends, as a matter of course, that clients should be invited to attend reviews alongside the design team.

2.11 The support that the Panel can give proposals (or aspects of them) does help achieve better urban design. Where the urban design quality of proposals is challenged by a competing interest, it is helpful to have the Panel’s report to balance or counter it. In such instances, it is very useful for the level of support to be made clear and unambiguous. The Panel members recognise that they should emphasise the level of support they give to particular aspects of design in their reports.

2.12 A key aspect of the influence of the Panel at pre-planning application stage is how its recommendations will be addressed in the development of the design. It is considered useful if the matters which should be addressed are summarised clearly in Panel reports. The Panel intends to include a bullet point summary of matters to be addressed at the end of each of its reports.

2.13 Panel members considered a sample development from the range of reviewed proposals which have now been completed. Its report on Sugarhouse Close focused – as most Panel reports do – on strategic issues. The Panel members visited the buildings with the project architect and the planning case officer and reflected on the completed form of the development.

2.14 The discussion highlighted both strategic and detailed issues that influenced the quality of the urban design. Examples of strategic matters include the principles of development, uses, layout and the overall design of the building form. Examples of detailed issues include choice of materials and the design of the buildings elevations. This raises the question of where the emphasis in Panel reviews / reports should be in relation to these matters. It was agreed that the primary benefits from the Panel’s advice are more likely to be in relation to strategic matters and that this fits well with the timing of the Panel’s advice – relatively early in the design process. It is therefore recommended that, in

accordance with Planning Committee’s original intent, the Panel should continue to focus on providing strategic advice on projects at the pre-application stage.

The Panel’s relationship with Architecture and Design Scotland 2.15 Architecture and Design Scotland (A+DS) is a member organisation of the Panel. A+DS is the national champion for good architecture and sustainable placemaking. Its role is to promote and enable the benefits of good design and to provide advice to those involved in commissioning, designing and delivering significant buildings and places. A+DS is a consultee to the planning process and provides advice on proposals at both a pre-application and application stage through a range of measures including its Design Forum service. A+DS therefore has a similar role to that of the Panel, but with a national focus. However, it differs in that it has the ability to be able provide a continued engagement on proposals from their inception through to the planning application stage.

2.16 The Panel has discussed A+DS’s new Design Forum service (which replaces Design Review) and recognises that the new service provides a more in depth engagement in the design process than can be provided by a single design review. It is also recognised that A+DS will engage with and / or review developments of national and / or strategic significance as well as projects that local authorities consider to be the most significant in their area. To avoid contradictory advice, A+DS is seeking that where they provide the Design Forum service for a project, then it will not be reviewed by a local authority urban design panel.

2.17 The Panel supports the provision of a Design Forum service by A+DS for the national / strategic projects as well as the most locally significant projects in Edinburgh where it is assessed that Design Forum could benefit the proposals. It was agreed that the Council should propose a definition of the most locally significant projects and that it should identify such projects to A+DS. The definition is set out in the Revised Remit, Functions Roles and Procedures of the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel (Appendix 3).

2.18 In order that contradictory advice is not provided from a more limited consideration of proposals, the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel recommends that it will not review such projects.

2.19 As part of the Design Forum arrangements, A+DS provides the opportunity for one member of local urban design panels to be represented at their final Design Appraisals. The final Design Appraisal is the concluding element of the Design Forum service. Its aim is to refine design outcomes and to prepare a design appraisal which can be used by the Planning Authority when assessing the application. The nature of the Edinburgh Panel, being constituted by selected organisations and facilitated by the Council’s Planning Service, means that no single member could speak on behalf of the Panel at such reviews. However, it could be useful that a local input is provided. This can be agreed on a case by case basis depending on the nature of the project that is being engaged with by A+DS’s Design Forum.

2.20 A+DS provides support for local urban design panels. This includes yearly meetings to facilitate feedback between panels; the opportunity to feedback to

government (via A+DS); space on the A+DS website; and access to their web resource library. The Panel agreed to provide representation to the yearly meeting and to take advantage (where beneficial) of the other support provided by A+DS.

3. Recommendations

3.1 It is recommended that Committee:

1) notes the progress made by the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel and the outcomes of its third annual review;

2) notes the Panel’s advocacy of tenure blind design, benefits of minimisation of car use and higher density development on urban sites and its approach to providing advice on accessibility;

3) approves the measures to improve the effectiveness of the Panel as set out in its Report (Appendix 1);

5) records its appreciation of the voluntary contribution made by existing Panel members to the design review process.

Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities

Links

Coalition pledges P15 - Work with public organisations, the private sector and social enterprise to promote Edinburgh to Investors. P17 – Continue efforts to develop the city’s gap sites and encourage regeneration. P28 – Further strengthen our links with the business community by developing and implementing strategies to promote the economic well being of the city. P40 – Work with Edinburgh Wold Heritage Trust and other stakeholders to conserve the city’s built heritage. Council outcomes 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. CO26 – The Council engages with stakeholders and works in partnership to improve services and deliver on agreed objectives.

Single Outcome SO4 - Edinburgh’s communities are safer and have improved Agreement physical and social fabric

Appendices 1. Report of the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel on its 2012 * review.

2. Statistical Analysis of the Panel’s Reviews

3. Revised Remit, Functions, Roles and Procedures of the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel (28 February 2012)

Appendix 1

Report of the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel on its 2012 review REPORT of meeting EDINBURGH URBAN DESIGN PANEL held at A+DS Office, Bakehouse Close Review of Panel – 2012 on 12 December 12

Guests Andrew Wilmot Oberlanders Architects LLP Bruce Nicolson City of Edinburgh Council

In attendance David Leslie City of Edinburgh Council Jill Malvenan Architecture + Design Scotland Euan Leitch The Cockburn Association Pavlina Koeva-Ratcheva EAA Andrew Burridge EAA Peter Robinson EAA Harry Smith Heriot Watt University Steven Robb Historic Scotland Bob Bainsfair Landscape Institute Scotland David Givan City of Edinburgh Council Susan Horner City of Edinburgh Council

Apologies Leslie Forsyth ESALA Stephen McGill Lothian and Borders Police Susan Tully Napier University Hugh Crawford RTPI in Scotland

1 Introduction

1.1 The Edinburgh Urban Design Panel was constituted by the Council’s Planning Committee with an agreed remit, function, roles of members, and principles of conduct. The Panel met for the first time in March 2009 to undertake design reviews of major development proposals and planning policies of urban design significance to the City.

1.2 It is part of the Panel’s role to undertake a review of its effectiveness each year. Progress reports have been made to Planning Committee in February 2010 and August 2011. In both cases, Panel members had taken part in workshop discussions which resulted in recommendations being made to Planning Committee. It was recognised that this review conducted at the end of 2012 was the first time that it was possible to consider the impact of the Panel’s pre-planning application involvement on developments which were now completed.

1.3 The review included the following agenda items which were used as a basis for recommendations that form the body of this report:

 Overview of panel reports

 Overview of report on Sugarhouse Close with architect and planning case officer present.

 Walk around Sugarhouse Close Development.

 Influence of Panel on design & planning process

 Panel’s relationship with Architecture and Design Scotland’s (A+DS) Design Forum 1.4 This report is the view of the Panel and is not attributable to any one individual. 1.5 Andrew Wilmot and Bruce Nicolson are thanked for their contribution to the review exercise, both in relation to the sample development considered (Sugarhouse Close) and their views on the process of design review carried out by the Panel.

2 Issues raised by the overview of reviews of development proposals.

2.1 The Edinburgh Urban Design Panel has carried out 73 individual reviews. These include 58 development projects. 2.2 Analysis of these reviews has revealed that the Panel does provide advice that can be widely applied. This includes:  The Panel advocates the inclusion of on site tenure-blind affordable housing of the same housing type as the market housing. This helps achieve social sustainability because a wider range of people can live in a development.

 The Panel advocates proposals that seek to reduce the need for car use. The most obvious way this is achieved is by ensuring numbers of car parking spaces are minimised. This has two major benefits: (a) there is a greater likelihood that reasonable quantities of green space can be provided and (b) lower car use means lower levels of congestion and pollution.

 The Panel advocates that where possible and in order to achieve the most efficient use of land, that development should be built at as high densities as possible and on urban sites. 2.3 The issue of accessibility does not feature strongly in Panel reports. It was agreed that accessibility is one feature of urban design. It was noted there are other mechanisms for the issue of accessibility to be explored in more detail (such as the Edinburgh Access Panel). Recommendation:  That the Panel should continue to comment on the issue of accessibility within the broad context of providing advice on urban design but that this aspect should not form a particular part of the Panel’s focus.

3 Influence of the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel

3.1 The Panel members reflected on their role and concluded that it is extremely important that the Panel does influence the urban design of development proposals in a positive manner. Broadly, it appears to be achieving this aim – however the Panel recognises there is scope for improvement. 3.2 While architects / designers and planners are clearly the key to the delivery of successful urban design, the role of the client is fundamental. Clients have attended many reviews as part of the presenting team. The opportunity for clients to hear the Panel’s advice directly is beneficial. Recommendation:  Clients should be invited to attend reviews alongside the design team as a matter of course. 3.3 The support that the Panel can give proposals (or aspects of them) does help achieve better urban design. Where the urban design quality of proposals is challenged by a competing interest, it is helpful to have the Panel’s report to balance or counter it. In such instances it is very useful for the level of support to be made clear and unambiguous. Recommendation:  Emphasis level of support for particular aspects of design in Panel reports. 3.4 A key aspect of the influence of the Panel at pre-planning application stage is how its recommendations will be addressed in the development of the design. It is considered useful if the matters which should be addressed are summarised clearly in Panel reports. Recommendation:  To include a bullet point summary of matters to be addressed in the summary of the Panel’s report. 3.5 The Panel members then considered a sample development from the range of reviewed proposals which have now been completed. Its report on Sugarhouse Close focused – as most Panel reports do – on strategic issues. The Panel members undertook a walk round the completed development with the project architect and the planning case officer. The discussion highlighted both strategic and detailed issues that influenced the quality of the urban design. This raises the question of where the emphasis in Panel reviews / reports should be in relation to these matters. It was agreed that the primary benefits from the Panel’s advice are more likely to be in relation to strategic matters and that this fits well with the timing of the Panel’s advice – relatively early in the design process. Recommendations:  The Panel should continue to focus on providing strategic advice. Where it is possible to do so, the Panel can also provide advice on more detailed matters.

 The Panel should continue to review projects at the pre application stage.

4 The Panel’s relationship with Architecture and Design Scotland

4.1 The Panel acknowledges that Architecture and Design Scotland’s (A+DS) new Design Forum service (which replaces Design Review) provides a more in depth engagement in the design than can be provided by a single design review. It is also recognised that A+DS will engage with / review developments of national and / or strategic significance as well as projects that local authorities consider to be the most significant in their area. To avoid contradictory advice, A+DS are seeking that where they provide the Design Forum service for a project, then it will not be reviewed by a local authority urban design panel. Recommendations:  The Panel supports the provision of a Design Forum service by A+DS for the national / strategic projects as well as the most locally significant projects in Edinburgh where it is assessed that Design Forum could benefit the proposals.

 The Council will propose a definition of the most locally significant projects and will identify such projects to A+DS.

 That in order that contradictory advice is not provided from a more limited consideration of proposals, the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel will not review such projects. 4.2 As part of the Design Forum arrangements, A+DS provide the opportunity for one member of local urban design panels to be represented at their Design Appraisals. Recommendation:  The nature of the Edinburgh Panel, being constituted by selected organisations and chaired in a facilitatory manner by the Council’s Planning Service, means that no one member could speak on behalf of the Panel at such a Design Forum. However, it could be useful that a local input was provided and that this is can be agreed on a case by case basis depending on the nature of the project that is being engaged with by A+DS’s Design Forum. 4.3 A+DS provide support for local urban design panels. This includes yearly meetings to facilitate feedback between panels; the opportunity to feedback to government (via A+DS); space on the A+DS website and access to their web resource library. Recommendation:  That the Panel be represented at the yearly meeting and to take advantage (where beneficial) of the other support provided by A+DS.

5 Summary

5.1 The Edinburgh Urban Design Panel continues to provide beneficial advice on a range of developments, as well as Council policy and guidance, at an early stage in their design and preparation. The Panel recommends that it should continue to do this while implementing the proposals set out above. Appendix 2

Statistical Analysis of the Panel’s Reviews

Planning status of projects reviewed by the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel

Note: Some projects included more Types of development projects reviewed by the than 1 type of development Panel Number of times overarching issues were raised by Panel in its reports

Number of times aspects of approach were raised in Panel Reports Number of times aspects of surroundings were raised in Panel reports

Number of times aspects of use / housing were raised in Panel Reports Number of times aspects of building design— strategic issues were raised in Panel reports

Number of times aspects of building design— other issues were raised in Panel Reports Number of times aspects of movement etc were raised in Panel reports

Number of times aspects of landscape / streets were raised in Panel Reports Number of times aspects of security were raised in Panel reports

Number of times other issues were raised in Panel Reports Appendix 3

Revised Remit, Functions, Roles and Procedures of the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel (28 February 2013)

The Edinburgh Urban Design Panel 28 January Revised remit, Functions, Roles and Procedures 2013

Proposed amendments shown in red bold underlined text About the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel

The Edinburgh Urban Design Panel was conceived as part of the City of Edinburgh Council’s Design Initiative. It is one of a range measures which are aimed at raising both the quality of the built environment in Edinburgh and the prof le of design. It is an important ingredient in the pre-application process for major development proposals in the city.

Why have design reviews? A high quality of urban design is a key objective for the Planning process. Design review also recognises design is a complex matter which can beneﬁ t

from informed advice at an early stage.

What are the aims of Edinburgh’s Panel? To contribute constructive advice which can be used by design teams, planners and developers to develop proposals in a positive way, to impart advice on relevant Council policy and guidance and to provide a focus for projects signiﬁ cant to the city.

Who are the Panel members? The members are drawn from a range of organisations with particular expertise to offer to the design review process. See the stakeholders and contacts page for full details.

How does the Panel operate? The Panel is chaired by David Leslie, Acting Head of Planning at the Council, with a role to decide on projects to be presented and to facilitate dis- plication for the project is received. remainder of planning policy and guidance. cussion during meetings at the City Chambers. What impact will the Panel have? How often does it meet? After introduction from the relevant Planning The Planning system has changed, placing greater Meetings are held monthly on dates agreed by the Ofﬁ cer the developer’s project team gives a short emphasis on addressing issues earlier in the Panel in the City Chambers. presentation of their proposals and then answers process. The Panel is a component of this change, a series of questions from the Panel members Timescales for individual reviews may vary contributing to improved transparency, inclusive en- who, with the project team present, then identify depending on the scale and complexity of the gagement and shared exploration of design issues key issues for comment, the aim being to reach a proposals considered, however, typically 1 hour is with key consultees. group consensus. A design review report is drafted allowed per review. and circulated to Panel members for validation How many reviews has the Panel carried out? It is expected that each panel meeting will consider before being issued to the project team within two Between its inception March 2009 and November 2 or 3 proposals. weeks of the meeting. The report and presentation 2012, the Panel carried out 73 reviews. Of these material are not made public until a planning ap- reviews, 58 were of development proposals with the Remit, Functions and Roles

Remit Functions Roles The Edinburgh Urban Design Panel aims to raise The Edinburgh Urban Design Panel will: The Edinburgh Urban Design Panel members will: the quality of the built environment within the City of 7 be provided with formatted information in 12 provide advice which draws on their profes- Edinburgh Council area. In achieving this aim, the advance of any meeting of the Panel to allow a sional knowledge and / or experience; Panel will: full understanding of the design issues raised 13 advise their respective organisations of the 1 provide constructive and timely design advice by their proposals; Panel’s views; which can be used by design teams, planners 8 at the Panel meeting, be presented with the and, or developers to develop their proposals in 14 adhere to the principles of conduct for the design aspects of proposals in as concise and a positive way; Edinburgh Urban Design Panel; comprehensive a manner possible; 2 provide design advice which is well reasoned 15 expect honesty and openness from all present- 9 seek to reach consensus on the advice to be and aims to be objective; ers to the Panel; provided and explain the rational for this; 3 provide design advice on development 16 expect an undertaking from presenters to 10 provide written advice which summarises the proposals of a signifi cant or complex nature and consider, refl ect and take into account the discussion held at the Panel meeting; council policy and guidance with design signifi - advice provided in the development of the cance; 11 allow advice to be viewed by the public once a design; planning application has been made. 4 provide design advice on projects which would 17 on a yearly basis, take part in a review of the ef- set new standards; fectiveness of the Panel and make any changes as necessary in light of this; 5 provide design advice on building types which, if repeated, would have a cumulative impact 18 provide represention to the the yearly A+DS Local Authority Design Review Panel 6 not review proposals that are to be engaged meetings. with via Architecture and Design Scotland’s Design Forum service.

Procedures for the Panel’s membership organisations

The panel members will: prejudice to any later view of A+DS; being brought to the panel; • provide constructive advice which can be used • Provide direct advice on Locally Signif cant • ensure that panel members are well respected by architects, planners and, or developers to Projects through its Design Forum Service. within their profession, have a track record in develop their proposals in a positive way; • Update the Panel on when its reports of de- achieving high quality design and are able to • provide advice which is well reasoned and velopment proposals within Edinburgh have communicate effectively and objectively their which aims to be objective; become publicly available on its website. view on design matters. • provide advice which draws on their professional competence and / or experience • seek to reach consensus on the advice to be provided and explain the rational for this; • ensure they are available to comment on or The Edinburgh School of Architecture and approve the design review report. The Cockburn Association will: Landscape Architecture will: • ensure that 1 member of their professional staff • allow advice to be viewed by the public once a • ensure that 1 member of their academic staff or board can attend each Panel meeting; planning application has been made; can attend each Panel meeting; • ensure their representative will provide advice • as Panel members advise their respective or- • use academic experience and knowledge to which could reasonably be expected to be ganisations of the Panel’s views; contribute effectively on design matters; refl ective of the views of the Cockburn Associa- • adhere to the Principles of Conduct for the • while ensuring confi dentiality, use general tion albeit without prejudice to any later view of Edinburgh Urban Design Panel. fi ndings of reviews in teaching. the Cockburn Association.

The Edinburgh Architectural Association will: Edinburgh World Heritage will: Architecture and Design Scotland will: • establish a small pool of their members from • attend meetings where projects to be reviewed • ensure that 1 member of their professional staff which panel members can be drawn and are in the World Heritage Site or are likely to or 1 of their Design Review Panel members can ensure that 3 of their members can attend each have a signifi cant upon it attend each Panel meeting; Panel meeting; • ensure that 1 member of their professional staff • Ensure their representative will provide advice • refresh approximately a third of this pool on a can attend such Panel meetings; which could reasonably be expected to be yearly basis to ensure that there is a degree • ensure their representative will provide advice refl ective of the views of A+DS albeit without of continuity which is balanced by new voices which could reasonably be expected to be refl ective of the views of Edinburgh World • provide advice about any relevant matters communicate effectively and objectively their Heritage albeit without prejudice to any later relating to the historic environment affected by view on design matters. view of Edinburgh World Heritage. development.

The Landscape Institute Scotland will: • establish a small pool of their members from • The School of the Built Environment at which panel members can be drawn and Heriot Watt University will: Lothian and Borders Police will: ensure that 1 of their members can attend each • ensure that 1 member of their academic staff • ensure that 1 member of their Police liaison Panel meeting; can attend each Panel meeting; service can attend each Panel meeting; • refresh approximately a third of this pool on a • use academic experience and knowledge to • ensure their representative will provide advice yearly basis to ensure that there is a degree contribute effectively on design matters; which could reasonably be expected to be of continuity which is balanced by new voices • while ensuring confi dentiality, use general refl ective of the views of Lothian and Borders being brought to the Panel; fi ndings of reviews in teaching. • ensure that Panel members are well respected Police albeit without prejudice to any later view within their profession, have a track record in of Lothian and Borders Police; achieving high quality design and are able to • provide advice about any relevant matters communicate effectively and objectively their relating to building security affected by the The Transport Research Institute at Napier view on design matters. urban design of the development; University will: • ensure that 1 member of their academic staff can attend each Panel meeting; • use academic experience and knowledge to The RTPI in Scotland will: Historic Scotland will: contribute effectively on design matters; • ensure that 1 member of their professional staff • establish a small pool of their members from • while ensuring confi dentiality, use general can attend each Panel meeting; which a Panel member can be drawn and fi ndings of reviews in teaching. • ensure their representative will provide advice ensure that 1 of their members can attend each which could reasonably be expected to be Panel meeting; refl ective of the views of Historic Scotland albeit • ensure that Panel members are well respected without prejudice to any later view of Historic within their profession, have a track record in Scotland; achieving high quality design and are able to Procedures for Council Off cials

The chair will: their proposals 8 days in advance of the panel planners are made aware of the potential for • be a staff member of the Council’s Planning meeting to ensure that this information can be their project to be reviewed; service. issued to Panel members one week in advance; • provide a pre meeting paper which sets out the • provide a facilitatory role to focus the Panel’s • ensure a short summary of the planning issues planning context for the proposal being con- discussion upon providing advice upon the surrounding the proposals if necessary is sidered. This should highlight in particular any proposals being reviewed; provided; relevant design policies or issues; • decide on the proposals to be reviewed; • sum up the detailed fi ndings of the review and • ensure that this is provided no later than 8 days • invite architects, planners and developers to seek a consensus on the weight to be ascribed in advance of the meeting; present revised proposals if a subsequent to any issues if necessary; • provide a concise presentation on the planning review is considered likely to have signifi cant • prepare and issue a draft Panel report 3 issues and note that this should normally last benefi t to the design development; working days after the Panel meeting to ensure for no more than 5 minutes; • advise presenters to ensure that they are that agreement can be reached upon it within 2 • remain for the duration of the Panel’s discus- providing relevant information for review; weeks of the Panel’s meeting; sion to hear the views expressed; • broadly set out the themes raised in the dis- • Include in the written advice any declarations of • encourage the design team to consider, refl ect cussion and indicate the extent to which it is interest that have been made and any decisions and take into account the advice provided in the considered action is required; relating to such declarations; development of the design; • arrange external contacts with organisations, • amend the draft report to refl ect any additional • ensure that the Panel’s report is added to the including the media; comments made by Panel members; public record of the planning application; • provide feedback on how projects have • advise the chair on matters of remit, functions, • Set out how the Panel’s comments have been developed since being reviewed by the Panel. roles and procedures; addressed in any relevant planning report. The secretariat will: • on behalf of the Panel, issue the formal advice • be a staff member of the Council’s Planning of the panel to the architects, developers and service; planners; • arrange the Panel’s meeting places and times; • ensure the Panel’s website is kept up to date. • liaise with architects, planners and developers • liaise with A+DS service to agree projects to establish the type of information that should that will be engaged with via the Design be provided prior to the panel meeting and for Forum service. the panel meeting; Planning off cials should: • request presenters to provide issues papers on • ensure architects, developers and consultant Procedures for presenters

To ensure that Panel members have a full and procurement method, and size of site; • provide a concise presentation using Power- understanding of the design issues raised by • ensure that this visual and written information is Point which sets out the rational for the design their proposals, architects, consultant planners provided no later than 8 days in advance of the including its concept and development in an and developers should: meeting; appropriate timescale and note that for most • provide pdf versions of A3 landscape format • note that the Council cannot accept emails presentations, this will be around 10 minutes; booklets which illustrate the design concept greater than 3MB in size and allow for delivery • remain for the duration of the Panel’s discus- and, to scale, context, plans, sections, eleva- of CD copies of the information if it is not sion to hear the views expressed; tions. In addition, other relevant material such possible to email it by 1 week in advance of the • consider, reﬂ ect and take into account the as 3 dimensional views alongside a concise meeting; advice provided in the development of the narrative should be provided. This should be • provide at the Panel meeting hard copies of design; set out in accordance with the pro forma; folded scale drawings at a size no greater than • provide a statement with the planning applica- • provide a summary of the project information A1 which clearly illustrate the proposals and tion on how the advice provided by the Panel including, names of clients, consultants, key surrounding context; has been addressed. players and consultees, estimated project cost • ensure / encourage their clients to attend Panel reviews; Def nitions

Locally Signif cant Development (A+DS such proposals for review. catagory): This is developement that would Complex Development: This is considered to be signif cantly change the character of large area development which has complex issues surround- of the city through its scale or because of the ing it such sensitivity due to location or a complex sensitivity of the environment upon which the programme of functional requirements, for example change is proposed. Examples of this type a school. Discretion will be used by the secretariat of development would be for master plans for in selecting such proposals for review. more than 500 dwellings and major developments within areas of great landscape value. Projects which set new standards: These are considered to include projects which create a new Locally Signif cant Development will not be typology of building or architecture or one which is reviewed by the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel usual to the Edinburgh context. Discretion will be but instead will be referred to Architecture used by the secretariat in selecting such proposals and Design Scotland and their Design Forum for review. service. Building types which, if repeated, would have Signif cant Development: This is considered to a cumulative impact: These are considered to be development which is signifi cant because of its include projects which, individually may not have scale or location. For example a tenement infi ll in a signifi cant impact on the quality of the built the city centre or on an arterial route may be con- environment, however if large numbers of them are sidered major because of its prominence whereas a built could have a signifi cant impact. development of a similar scale in an industrial area may not. Signifi cant development may also be that which involves a signifi cant departure from the development plan / fi nalised plan or that which raises issues not adequately covered by the development plan / fi nalised plan. If the degree of public interest in a proposal is likely to be substantial, this would indicate that the proposal would be signifi cant. Dis- cretion will be used by the secretariat in selecting Planning Committee

10:00am, Thursday, 28 February 2013

Review of Hamilton Place Appeal Decision

Item number Report number Wards Inverleith

L inks Links

Coalition pledges P40 Council outcomes CO19 Single Outcome Agreement SO1, SO4

Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities

Contact: Derek R Henderson, Group Leader Development Monitoring

E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 3522

Executive summary

Review of Hamilton Place Appeal Decision

Summary

This report assesses the implications of the unsuccessful defence by this council of an appeal decision where the element of the proposed development which was refused consent was a decision taken contrary to officer advice. The reporter was critical of the lack of evidence to support one of the reasons for refusal relating to traffic issues and also found a need to impose additional conditions in order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents. The report notes that training workshops for officers and elected members are carried out on a regular basis so that such issues can be addressed and relevant lessons learned.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee notes the content of this report.

Measures of success

That the council’s success rate on appeals improves and consistently meets the levels set out in the service improvement plan of the Planning & Building Standards Service.

Financial impact

This report has no financial implications, although there will be some resource implications for training but which will be contained within the existing training programme.

Equalities impact

There is no relationship between the matters described in this report and the public sector general equality duty. There is no direct equalities impact arising from this report.

Sustainability impact

This report has no sustainability impacts.

Consultation and engagement

Consultation and community engagement formed part of the application and appeal process and no further process was carried out in the preparation of this report.

Background reading / external references

Report to Development Management Sub Committee of 6 June 2012. Report to Development Management Sub Committee of 20 June 2012. Report to Development Management Sub Committee of 18 July 2012. Report to Development Management Sub Committee of 1 August 2012.

Report

Review of Hamilton Place Appeal Decision

1. Background

1.1 An application (12/00618/FUL) for the change of use of 34 Hamilton Place, Edinburgh, from a former theatre to a restaurant and six flatted dwellings, including external alterations to the existing street frontage, part removal of the roof on the lowest section to the north and formation of a new extension (as amended) was registered on 28 February 2012.

1.2 The proposals were advertised on 9 March 2012 and attracted 27 representations (excluding duplicate objections/objectors), including objections from the St Stephens Community Association, the Stockbridge and Inverleith Community Council and Mark Lazarowicz, MP. A petition with 22 signatures was also submitted. The primary concern in these representations related to the restaurant element of the proposal, but objection was also made to the form and design of the new-build element of the proposal. The petition specifically objected to the placing of air-conditioning units on the roof to the rear, an element removed from the amended submission.

1.3 Consultation responses were received from Transport and Environmental Assessment. Transport had no objections to the proposals subject to a number of conditions or informatives relating to residents’ parking permits and to cycle parking. Environmental Assessment considered the applicants noise assessment and other details and offered no objections subject to a number of conditions on the control of noise levels from plant, machinery, amplified music and vocals; sound insulation; control of deliveries and collections and ventilation of cooking odours.

1.4 The application was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and informatives broadly reflecting the issues raised by the consultees.

1.5 The matter was first considered by the Development Management Sub- Committee at its meeting on 6 June 2012 when it was resolved to continue consideration of the item for a site visit. The site visit was carried out the following day on 7 June. At that time, clarification was sought on the number of covers to be provided and for information on examples of similar air-conditioning layouts in order to better assess the feasibility of the proposals. This information was obtained and the application referred back to the Sub-Committee at its meeting on 20 June 2012. Consideration of the application was continued again, this time for a Road Safety User Audit relating to bin storage, deliveries and collection; for a walking and cycle audit, and for an assessment of the “how the community use the street”.

1.6 In response to these requests, the applicants stated that they were unwilling to provide this material on the basis that the scheme as amended had already been assessed and was acceptable to Transport without these investigations. Concern was also expressed that these issues were not raised at the time of the original continuation. The applicant confirmed that no bins would be stored on the street contrary to the evidence presented by objectors and pointed to the proposed bin stores provided within the premises. Determination of the application on the basis of the information already submitted was requested.

1.7 The Development Management Sub-Committee reconsidered the matter again on 18 July 2012 and was minded to issue a mixed decision, contrary in part to the officer recommendation, granting consent for the residential component of the scheme, but refusing consent for the restaurant element. Consideration of the matter was therefore continued to enable the reasons for refusal to be drafted. The proposed reasons for refusal of the restaurant element were that the proposal was contrary to the Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Tra4 in respect of Private Car Parking, as the development failed to provide on site car parking and that the proposal was also contrary to the Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Hou8 in respect of Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas, as the restaurant use was likely to lead to a loss of amenity to surrounding residents. These reasons were agreed at the Sub Committee meeting on 1 August 2012 and the decision letter issued on 6 August 2012. The applicants then lodged an appeal with Scottish Ministers and the reporter appointed by them to consider the matter issued his decision by letter dated 7 December 2012.

2. Main report

The Reporter’s Findings 2.1 In his decision letter, the reporter considered that the determining issues were the effect on the preservation of the listed building; the effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area; the effect on residential amenity; and the effect on traffic and car parking in the area. He also noted that as a result of the appeal, the whole of the proposed development was before him for consideration, not just that part which had been refused consent.

2.2 As far as the residential component of the scheme was concerned, the reporter took no issue with the Council’s conclusions in this regard and granted planning permission for the 6 flats. He noted the parking permit issue, but considered that this was an issue which required to be addressed separately and which did not justify refusal of planning consent.

2.3 Turning to the proposed external alterations the reporter noted that the Council had not raised any specific concerns about these, although some of the objectors had. Having examined the proposed alterations in detail, the reporter concluded that the proposed alterations not only preserved the listed building and the important architectural features which it possessed and the character and appearance of the conservation area, but they actually enhanced them.

2.4 The reporter then turned to the restaurant use which he identified as the main area of contention both for the Council and for the objectors. He agreed that the effect on residential amenity was clearly an important material consideration and that there was extensive residential use of the area. He also concluded that the council was entirely justified in using Policy Hou8 as the most relevant policy. However, the reporter considered that there were two elements of the impact on residential amenity which needed to be considered. These were firstly the direct effect of noise from the restaurant on both the proposed and existing flats along with possible overlooking and light pollution and secondly the effect on the amenity of the area caused by on-street activity and disturbance.

2.5 The reporter considered each of these in turn. Having taken into account the acoustic report, the reporter concluded that adequate steps were being taken to safeguard both the proposed flats and those existing in Hamilton Place from noise. Having viewed the site from several of the neighbouring flats at St Stephen Place, he concluded that as the condensers would be enclosed, noise levels would be reduced to an acceptable level, given also an appropriate condition of consent. However, he took the view that the rear door, window openings and rear courtyard area should only be opened or made use of for health and safety reasons. He acknowledged that this might not remove the noise altogether, but was of the view that the level of amenity which can be enjoyed in a mixed use area such as this is less than would be the case in a wholly residential area.

2.6 As far as overlooking and light pollution were concerned, the reporter took the view that given the angles and distances involved, this was unlikely to be a significant issue. Nevertheless, he did impose a condition requiring further approval of the treatment of the roof lights to ensure that this was the case.

2.7 As far as on-street activity and disturbance were concerned, the reporter viewed these concerns against the background of a city centre mixed use area where the levels of amenity which could reasonably be expected were not the same as in a wholly residential area. What the reporter considered was more important was not the principle of the use which he found acceptable, but the scale and operation of such an activity. Having examined the area in detail he concluded that whilst there was clearly a small but significant night time economy, there was justification for a condition controlling hours of operation to prevent disturbance potentially extending into the early hours of the morning.

2.8 Finally the reporter turned to parking and traffic. In this regard he noted that Transport had no objections to the proposals and having made his own assessment of the situation he agreed with that assessment, in the absence of any clear evidence to the contrary.

2.9 Having considered all these matters, the reporter concluded that the proposals were consistent with the provisions of the development plan and were acceptable and that there were no material considerations which outweighed this conclusion. Nevertheless, the reporter did not consider that the four conditions recommended were sufficient to properly control the proposed development and added three further conditions on the hours of operation; the treatment of the roof lights and the use of the rear courtyard, doors and window openings.

Conclusions 2.10 Whilst it is entirely appropriate that the Sub-Committee, in determining an application, may attach different weight to the various material factors involved, it must be able to produce appropriate evidence or arguments to support the conclusions it has reached. In this case, it is clear that in the case of the traffic arguments that the council failed to produce sufficient evidence to show why they had departed from the advice of transport professionals. The reporter therefore concluded that he had to give significant weight to that advice “in the absence of any clear evidence to the contrary” – see paragraph 24 of the decision letter.

2.11 However, in the case of the issues around residential amenity, the reporter had no such concerns, and although he considered that the proposals were acceptable, he was clearly aware of the potential for disturbance (which concerned the Sub-Committee) and therefore imposed additional conditions to minimise any potential adverse impacts. In such circumstances it is a matter of planning judgement as to whether the potential adverse impacts are such that refusal is justified or whether they can be adequately controlled by reasonable and enforceable conditions.

2.12 There is currently ongoing dialogue between planning and environmental assessment officers on the appropriate form of conditions which might be imposed on planning consents to control issues around noise, disturbance and odour control etc. In this regard, the reporter’s comments on the difficulties of controlling noise such that it is inaudible are helpful – see paragraph 11 of the decision letter.

2.13 It is worth noting in the context of this appeal that it is good practice where additional information is required that such information should all be sought at the one time. It is accepted that there may be cases where additional information once received prompts a need for more follow up information, but that was not the case in the consideration of this application. Having carried out a site visit, it should have been possible for the need for traffic audit information to have been identified at that time and not be requested at a later date. If all the information had been requested at the one time, there may have been a different response from the applicant.

2.14 It is standard practice for all appeal and local review decisions to be reviewed within the Planning Service and for lessons learned to be discussed with case officers and other relevant staff. Similarly, training workshops are regularly held with Committee members so that issues arising from the ongoing work of the Committee can be discussed and working practices reviewed where necessary. The considerations arising from this appeal decision apply equally in principle to the decision making process of the City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body.

3. Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee notes the content of this report.

Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities

Links

Coalition pledges P40 - Work with Edinburgh World Heritage Trust and other stakeholders to conserve the city’s built heritage Council outcomes 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 Single Outcome SO1 - Edinburgh's Economy Delivers increased investment, jobs Agreement and opportunities for all SO4 – Edinburgh’s communities are safer and have improved physical and social fabric Appendices Appeal Decision Notice dated 7 December 2012 *

Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals Appeal Decision Notice

T: 01324 696 400 F: 01324 696 444 E: [email protected] abcdefghijklmnopqrstu

Decision by Lance R Guilford, a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers

• Planning appeal reference: PPA-230-2083 • Site address: 34 Hamilton Place, Edinburgh EH3 5AX • Appeal by Beaghmor Hamilton Place LLP against the decision by the City of Edinburgh Council • Application for planning permission 12/00618/FUL dated 27 February 2012 refused by notice dated 6 August 2012 • The development proposed: change of use to restaurant and 6 flatted dwellings, external alterations to existing street frontage, part removal of roof on the lowest section to north and new extension (as amended) • Application drawings (listed in schedule at the end of this notice) • Date of site visits by Reporter: 31 October 2012 and 24 November 2012

Date of appeal decision: 7 December 2012

Decision

I allow the appeal and grant planning permission for the whole of the development as described above subject to the 7 conditions listed at the end of this notice. Attention is drawn to the 4 advisory notes at the end of the notice.

Reasoning

Determining issues

1. Having regard to the provisions of the development plan and sections 14(2) and 64(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, the determining issues in this appeal are the effect on the preservation of the listed building, and any features of special architectural or historic interest it may possess, the effect on the character or appearance of the conservation area, the effect on the residential amenity of the surrounding area and the effect on traffic and car parking in the area.

Flatted dwellings

2. The planning authority has issued a “mixed decision” refusing planning permission for the proposed restaurant, but granting planning permission for the proposed 6 flatted dwellings. As a result of the appeal, the whole of the proposed development within the

4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX 557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a

PPA-230-2083 2

application for planning permission is now before me for consideration, not just that part refused by the planning authority. However, I take no issue with the proposed 6 flatted dwellings already approved by the council. Most of the representations raise no significant concerns about this element of the proposed development, and I am satisfied that it is consistent with the provisions of the development plan, and would have no adverse effect on the amenity of the area. I note that there is an issue relating to the use of permit holder on-street parking spaces, but this matter needs to be separately addressed, and is not a matter justifying the refusal of planning permission. Therefore, for the avoidance of any doubt, I include planning permission for the 6 flatted dwellings in my decision above.

External alterations to the building

3. It is not clear from the decision notice whether the proposed external alterations to the building in their entirety have been approved by the council. However, taking into account the terms of the report to the Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee (hereafter referred to as “the committee”) and the decision of that committee, I find that the council has not raised any specific concerns about the proposed external works. Nevertheless, some concerns have been raised in the representations.

4. The building is a category “B” listed building and the appeal site lies within the New Town Conservation Area. The character of the conservation area in the vicinity of the appeal site is principally formed by the traditional sandstone terraces in a classical style, generally consisting of 3 storeys and a basement. Stockbridge is also a town centre with significant commercial uses at ground floor level, primarily with residential use above. The town centre extends into Hamilton Place and St Stephen Street, and contributes to the overall character of the conservation area. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed use of the building would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

5. Notwithstanding the dominant classical architectural features displayed by the majority of the built environment within this part of the conservation area, and indeed the southern part of the appeal site, there is an existing more modern feature at the northern edge of the appeal site, this being a glass fronted entrance. Furthermore, the northern part of the listed building does not appear to me to be of significant architectural merit, and all the architectural features of the main terraced frontage of the listed building would be retained. The rear elevation, where the main alterations to the building are proposed, is not readily visible from public areas, although it can be seen at an oblique angle from St Stephen Place and the courtyard of the flats to the north.

6. In addition, being a listed building within a conservation area does not always require the retention or reinstatement of traditional architectural features. In this case, I find that the modern frontage design to the north complements the character of the traditional terraced frontage to the south. I therefore also find that the external alterations not only preserve the listed building and the important architectural features it possesses, and the character and appearance of the conservation area, but they actually enhance them. Irrespective of the council’s decision on the planning application, I note that listed building consent has already been granted for the proposed alterations. I therefore also include planning permission for the proposed alterations to the listed building in my decision above.

4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a

PPA-230-2083 3

Restaurant use and the relevance of Policy Hou 8 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan

7. The proposed restaurant use is the main issue of contention both for the council and those making representations about the proposed development. The effect on the residential amenity of the area is clearly an important material consideration. There is extensive residential use of the area, within tenements above and adjacent to the proposed restaurant, and within tenements and large blocks of flats to the east, between Hamilton Place and St Stephen Street.

8. In refusing planning permission for the proposed restaurant, the council has founded upon Policy Hou 8 of the adopted Edinburgh City Local Plan, which states: “developments, including changes of use, which would have a materially detrimental effect on the living conditions of nearby residents will not be permitted”. The supporting paragraph then states that the intention of the policy is to preclude the introduction or intensification of non- residential uses incompatible with predominantly residential areas and to prevent any further deterioration in living conditions in more mixed uses areas which nevertheless have important residential functions.

9. Whilst there may be a debate about whether or not the first part of the supporting paragraph applies to the appeal proposal, I have no doubt that the second part applies. This is clearly a mixed use area with important residential functions. The council was therefore entirely justified in using Policy Hou 8 (in having regard to the development plan) as the most relevant policy in deciding whether or not to grant planning permission.

10. I note that the basis for the committee’s decision is that the change of use to a restaurant would have a detrimental effect on the residential and environmental amenity of neighbouring properties due to the significant increase in on-street activity and disturbance. However, I consider that there are 2 key elements that need to be addressed. The first element is the direct effect of noise from the restaurant on the nearest residential properties, in particular the proposed new flats and immediately adjacent flats on Hamilton Place, and the nearest tenements on St Stephen Place. There is also possible overlooking and light pollution of these properties. The second element is the effect on the residential amenity of the area from the increase in on-street activity and disturbance. These elements are of course related and I cross-refer my findings where appropriate.

Effect on residential amenity – noise and overlooking of the nearest residential properties

11. The council’s environmental services has raised the issue of noise from the restaurant (general noise from crowds or from music), and has indicated that a condition should be imposed to cover this matter. I also note that the non-statutory guidance on food and drink establishments indicates that a condition would normally be imposed to the effect that any amplified music or sound should be inaudible in any nearby residential or commercial property. However, the report to committee suggests that this would more properly be covered by the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I accept that it is difficult to be precise in a planning condition controlling general noise from crowds or music. I further accept that in this case it would probably be unreasonable to require this

4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a

PPA-230-2083 4

to be inaudible in nearby premises. I am doubtful that this could be either achieved or enforced. In this respect I also refer to my findings in paragraph 21 below.

12. I have taken into account the acoustic report submitted on behalf of the appellant. In the context of paragraph 11 above, I am satisfied that sufficient attention is being given to providing insulation from noise within the proposed new flats. I am also satisfied that the adjacent flats on Hamilton Place should have sufficient protection from noise emanating from the proposed restaurant. This of course has to be set in the context of my findings commencing in paragraph 17 below.

13. The flats at number 22 St Stephen Place to the rear of the appeal premises are also vulnerable to noise from the proposed restaurant. At my site inspection, I took the opportunity to view the appeal property from several of these flats. The restaurant use extends into the former theatre in the eastern part of the appeal site, and is indeed very close to the flats at number 22 St Stephen Place. There are windows within these flats which look out onto the roof of the proposed restaurant, and also the small single storey extension within which it is proposed to locate the condensers for the air conditioning.

14. I therefore understand and sympathise with the fears expressed by the residents of these flats. However, the roof lights within the restaurant area would not be opening roof lights. In addition, the condensers would be enclosed within the single storey extension, with a modification of the roof to accommodate them. I have noted the correspondence with the acoustic consultants, and the condition proposed by the council (in the event that the appeal is allowed) in relation to noise from plant and equipment, and I therefore accept that noise from the condensers would be reduced to an acceptable level.

15. However, this would not have any effect on noise from crowds or music, and in the context of paragraph 11 above, I find that a more suitable alternative (in the event that the appeal is allowed) would be to impose a condition restricting the use of rear door and window openings, and the use of the rear courtyard area, to use for health and safety reasons only during the normal operation of the restaurant. This should reduce the effect of noise emanating from the proposed restaurant upon the flats at number 22 St Stephen Place to an acceptable level. It may not remove such noise altogether, but this also has to be set in the context of my findings commencing in paragraph 17 below.

16. There is also a possible adverse effect from overlooking of and light pollution into adjacent flats, and particularly the flats at 22 St Stephen Place. I find that owing to the distance and angle of view this is unlikely to be a significant issue. However, for the avoidance of any doubt, I consider that a condition should be imposed (in the event that the appeal is allowed) to require the treatment of the roof lights to be submitted to and approved by the planning authority before the restaurant use commences.

Effect on residential amenity – increase in on-street activity and disturbance

17. Turning to the more general effect on the residential amenity of the area from the increase in on-street activity and disturbance, I consider that this must take account of the character of and uses within the area. It is clearly a mixed use area, but with important

4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a

PPA-230-2083 5

residential functions. Nevertheless, whilst residential amenity is an important material consideration, it must be accepted that the level of residential amenity that can be enjoyed in a mixed use area such as this is not the same as that within a wholly residential area.

18. Hamilton Place is defined as part of the town centre of Stockbridge, but is not part of the primary frontage. Nevertheless, both Hamilton Place and St Stephen Street are significant secondary commercial frontages, containing commercial uses at ground floor level with residential uses above. I appreciate that the appeal site extends into the area behind the commercial frontage, which adds weight to the need to give careful consideration to the impact upon residential amenity. However, in the context of the adopted local plan as a whole, I find that the use of the appeal site for a restaurant would be acceptable in principle. Furthermore, I recognise that the former theatre use may have generated significant activity, although from the evidence available, I find it likely that this use was more intermittent. I am also conscious that this use has now ceased, although I can form no view as to whether or not the continuation of the use would be lawful.

19. Following on from the above, when assessing the effect on the residential amenity of the area, the key factors to take into account are the extent of the proposed use, its hours of operation, and any additional adverse effect on the residential amenity of the area that may occur in the context of Policy Hou 8 referred to above. In the circumstances, this policy is more relevant to the determination of the appeal than the retail policies, because it is the scale and operation of the use rather than the principle that is the more important consideration. However, I also take into account the provisions of Policy Ret 12 (and non- statutory guidance) relating to food and drink establishments, which actually requires a similar assessment. The proposed restaurant operator is as yet unknown, but the restaurant area is quite large and would be likely to generate a significant number of patrons. It appears to me from the information available that the restaurant would be as large as or greater than existing similar uses in the area.

20. The proposal is to operate between 11:00 and 24:00, and I note that the council does not appear to have considered the possibility of imposing an hours of operation condition when determining the planning application. The committee took the view that the proposed commercial use was too extensive to operate in the area without an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity. I have therefore asked the main parties to indicate to me what hours of operation would be reasonable should such a condition be imposed. On behalf of the appellant it is stated that a condition restricting the use to 23:30 would be acceptable. The council considers that such a condition would not fully address the concerns of the committee, but would support a condition (in the event of the appeal being allowed) restricting the hours of operation to times when the restaurant would not have such a significant impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. I have no doubt that much of the trade of the proposed restaurant would be in the evenings.

21. In order to more fully assess the effect of the proposed use on the residential amenity of the surrounding area, I undertook an unaccompanied site inspection between the hours of 16:00 and 22:00 on a Saturday evening. The weather was dry at the time. The council states that there are few premises on Hamilton Place which are open after 20:00 hours. There are 3 such food and drink establishments, including what appears to be

4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a

PPA-230-2083 6 a public house and restaurant. However, it is important to asses the function of the area as a whole, and there are far more food and drink establishments on St Stephen Street that are open after 20:00 hours. I counted 10 at my site inspection that are open up to 22:00 hours and beyond. There is therefore clearly a small but significant night time economy within Stockbridge that extends to the secondary frontages as well as the primary frontage. St Stephen Street in particular is quite vibrant late into the evening. There is some general noise and disturbance, including the playing of live music, which obviously has an adverse effect on the nearby existing residential uses to some extent, but which is also a common and generally accepted feature of living within a mixed use area with a night time economy.

22. On the other hand, the residential tenements and blocks of flats between St Stephen Street and Hamilton Place are relatively quiet. The residential courtyards of the blocks of flats are particularly quiet and secluded. Even St Stephen Place, which is actually a pedestrian through route between St Stephen Street and Hamilton Place, is relatively quiet. I saw no more than 3 small groups of people at any one time at my site inspection, and the route is generally unaffected by any noise and disturbance occurring within the area.

23. I find that more noise and disturbance would probably be experienced to some extent by the proposed new flats and other flats above commercial premises on Hamilton Place. But this is a matter of degree only, and in the context of the overall function of these secondary commercial frontages, would be acceptable. St Stephen Place and the residential courtyards would in my view experience very little, if any, significant material change. I also however refer to my findings in paragraph 15 above, and in this respect I find that any residual noise needs to be seen in the context of the overall function of these secondary commercial frontages. In any event, I consider that it would be necessary to restrict the hours of operation of the proposed restaurant to ensure that there is no noise and disturbance potentially extending into the early hours of the morning.

Traffic and car parking

24. With respect to traffic and car parking in the area, I accept that there is no off-street parking close to the premises, and all of the on-street parking available is either residential permit holders, or ticket holders, with the vast majority being the former. The proposed use therefore cannot rely on dedicated or readily available parking spaces. However, I find that this is not uncommon within a city commercial area, and in the context of promoting more sustainable (and probably more suitable for a restaurant) forms of transport, does not necessarily present any great difficulty. I also note that the council’s transportation service has not taken issue with the proposed development in the context of Policy Tra 4 of the adopted Edinburgh City Local Plan relating to private parking provision, and in the absence of any clear evidence to the contrary, I must give significant weight to this.

25. The committee has expressed concern that the increase in traffic and on-street parking would be to the detriment of road and pedestrian safety, and residential amenity. However, from both of my site inspections, I am conscious that the area is already very busy with traffic, and virtually full of parked cars on street even late into the evening. I accept that there would potentially be a significant number of patrons, as referred to in paragraph 19 above. However, they would generally be aware of the parking position,

4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a

PPA-230-2083 7

which could no doubt be reinforced by the advertising policy of the restaurant operator. It would not be beneficial to the operator to have patrons trying in vain to find parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of the restaurant. The pavement is sufficient for the purposes of a restaurant use, where patrons would normally arrive and leave in relatively small groups.

26. I therefore find that there is no evidence to suggest that the traffic generated by the proposed restaurant would cause any significant difficulty. In the absence of available parking spaces, I expect that patrons would generally arrive on foot, by public transport or by taxi. In the context of the overall commercial use of the area, the comments of the council’s transportation service, and the benefits to be gained from promoting more sustainable forms of transport, I find that the proposed restaurant use would not have any significant adverse effect on road or pedestrian safety or (as a result of increased pressure for on-street car parking) on residential amenity.

Overall Conclusion

27. In overall terms, I therefore conclude that the proposed restaurant use would not have a materially detrimental effect on the residential amenity of the area, and that the lack of dedicated or readily available parking spaces would not result in any significant detriment to road or pedestrian safety. I conclude that the proposed development is therefore consistent with the provisions of the development plan, and that there are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion. I have taken account of all other matters raised by the parties, including all of the matters raised by those making representations against the proposed development, but none is in the circumstances sufficient to justify the refusal of planning permission for the proposed restaurant use.

Conditions

28. In addition to the 4 conditions proposed by the council, I also consider that conditions should be imposed restricting the hours of operation of the proposed restaurant and the use of door and window openings to the rear of the premises and the rear courtyard. For the avoidance of doubt, use of the rear courtyard area for health and safety would not extend to using this as a smoking area for staff or restaurant patrons. Whilst I have noted the position on behalf of the appellant, I consider that the hours of operation should extend only to 23:00 hours, given that the exact nature of the restaurant use has yet to be determined, and there will be some activity beyond the actual operational hours before the premises are vacated. I do not consider that it would be appropriate to impose a condition limiting the period for deliveries and collections, given that the proposed restaurant is located within a mixed use area with a substantial commercial frontage along Hamilton Place, but a condition relating to the treatment of the exposed roof lights should be imposed. This condition should include the new emergency “smoke vent” roof light which should be further assessed in terms of any potential impact on the residents of the flats at 22 St Stephen Place.

Lance R Guilford

LANCE R GUILFORD Reporter

4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a

PPA-230-2083 8

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. Samples of the materials shall be submitted where appropriate.

Reason: (condition 1) to preserve and enhance the listed building and the character and appearance of the conservation area.

2. The restaurant use hereby approved shall operate only between the hours of 11:00 and 23:00.

3. The design and installation of any plant, machinery or equipment shall be such that any associated noise complies with NR25 when measured within any nearby living apartment, and no structure borne vibration is perceptible within any nearby living apartment.

4. All door and window openings relating to the restaurant to the rear of the premises, and on the roof of the single storey former theatre shall normally remain closed when the restaurant is operational. In addition, the rear courtyard shall not normally be used in connection with the restaurant when the restaurant is operational. However, nothing within this condition shall prevent the use of these door and window openings or the rear courtyard for health and safety reasons, including fire escape.

5. The kitchen shall be ventilated by a system capable of achieving 30 air changes per hour, and the cooking effluvia shall be ducted to a suitable exhaust point to ensure that no cooking odours escape or are exhausted into any neighbouring premises.

6. The approved ventilation system shall be installed and tested for the escape of odours prior to the restaurant use being taken up.

7. The treatment of the exposed roof lights (including the proposed emergency “smoke vent” roof light) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority before the restaurant use commences.

Reason: (conditions 2 – 7) to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and other occupiers.

Advisory notes

1. The length of the permission: This planning permission will lapse on the expiration of a period of three years from the date of this decision notice, unless the development has been started within that period. (See section 58(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).)

4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a

PPA-230-2083 9

2. Notice of the start of development: The person carrying out the development must give advance notice in writing to the planning authority of the date when it is intended to start. Failure to do so is a breach of planning control. It could result in the planning authority taking enforcement action. (See sections 27A and 123(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).)

3. Notice of the completion of the development: As soon as possible after it is finished, the person who completed the development must write to the planning authority to confirm the position. (See section 27B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).)

4. Display of notice: A notice must be displayed on or near the site while work is being carried out. The planning authority can provide more information about the form of that notice and where to display it. (See section 27C of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 Act (as amended) and Schedule 7 to the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008.)

Schedule of application drawings (including revisions)

1 (sp) 001 – location plan

1 (dem) 001 – lower ground floor plan indicating demolitions (Rev A) 1 (dem) 002 – ground floor plan indicating demolitions (Rev A) 1 (dem) 003 – first floor plan indicating demolitions 1 (dem) 004 – second floor plan indicating demolitions 1 (dem) 005 – roof plan indicating demolitions

1 (dem) 101 – front elevation indicating demolitions 1 (dem) 102 – rear elevation indicating demolitions 1 (dem) 103 – south elevation indicating demolitions

1 (pl) 001 – lower ground floor plan as proposed (Rev A) 1 (pl) 002 – ground floor plan as proposed (Rev A) 1 (pl) 003 – first floor plan as proposed (Rev A) 1 (pl) 004 – second floor plan as proposed (Rev A) 1 (pl) 005 – roof plan as proposed (Rev A)

1 (pl) 101 – front elevation as proposed 1 (pl) 102 – rear elevation as proposed (Rev A) 1 (pl) 103 – south elevation and section d-d as proposed (Rev A)

1 (pl) 201 – section a-a as proposed 1 (pl) 202 – section b-b as proposed 1 (pl) 203 – section c-c as proposed

4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a

Planning Committee

10am Thursday 28 February 2013

Area Development Frameworks: Progress Report

Item number - Report number - Wards Forth (4), Fountainbridge / Craiglockhart (9), City Centre (11), Leith Walk (12) and Leith (13)

L inks Links

Coalition pledges P17, P24, P31, P40, P44 and P45 Council outcomes CO7, CO10, CO17,CO19, CO22 and CO23 Single Outcome Agreement S01, SO2 and SO4

Mark Turley Director, Services for Communities

Contact: Andrew Sikes, Principal Planner

E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 469 3412

Executive summary

Area Development Frameworks: Progress Report

Summary

The purpose of this report is to inform the Committee of progress with initiatives, projects and actions promoted by the Waterfront & Leith and City Centre Southern Arc Area Development Frameworks since their approval in October 2011 and March 2012, respectively.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee notes the progress being made in the development and delivery of projects set out in the Waterfront & Leith and City Centre Southern Arc Area Development Frameworks.

Measures of success

A measure of success is the implementation of projects and actions described in each of the Area Development Frameworks.

Financial impact

There are no immediate financial implications for the Council arising from this report. There will be a requirement for resources to be allocated to specific projects in due course as they progress. These will be prioritised within the budget planning process.

Equalities impact

An Equality and Rights Impact Assessment was not undertaken in respect of the Area Development Frameworks initiative at its inception in 2009. The ADF process is designed to deliver a coherent strategic direction for broad areas of the city within which individual masterplans can be prepared, describe how individual areas can physically evolve and, importantly, how the Council and its partners can facilitate place- making. It is at these subsequent stages in the process that consideration will be given to the Council’s public sector general equality duty. Accordingly, the projects and actions described in each of the ADFs Action Plans will be considered against this duty and where necessary a detailed Equalities Impact Assessment undertaken and recorded as required.

Sustainability impact

The Waterfront & Leith and City Centre Southern Arc ADFs were prepared in the context of the Edinburgh City Local Plan which was the subject of strategic environmental assessment. The tasks and actions described in each ADF will help create sustainable patterns of development and movement.

Consultation and engagement

The process followed to prepare each of the Area development Frameworks engaged meaningfully with key stakeholders and local communities on issues of importance to them. They were prepared in collaboration with Architecture & Design Scotland and the National Health Service. The principal means of engagement was through the use of charrettes or design workshops and tailored meetings with specific interests. The outcomes from each event are recorded and help to inform the shape and content of the final ADFs.

Notwithstanding the extensive public consultation and community engagement that took place during the preparation of the ADFs the intention is to consult further before individual projects progress further. Further engagement and consultation will be undertaken with relevant council services and external interests, principally community councils and other groups involved in the preparation of the ADFs, before any of the projects described are taken forward for implementation.

Background reading / external references

Area Development Frameworks:

• Report to Planning Committee 03.12.09 setting out a programme of work leading to the preparation of a series of area development frameworks;

• Waterfront & Leith ADF, approved October 2011; and

• City Centre Southern Arc ADF, approved March 2012.

Report

Area Development Frameworks: Progress Report

1. Background

1.1 In December 2009, the Council agreed to support a programme of work through its Design Initiative to take forward challenges set for the City by Sir Terry Farrell during his time as City Design Champion. Amongst other things, these included taking a more strategic approach to planning the city’s waterfront and also developing more holistic proposals for the Haymarket area. This work has been taken forward through the preparation of two Area Development Frameworks (ADFs): the Waterfront & Leith ADF and the City Centre Southern Arc ADF. Each area has ‘soft’ boundaries, recognising that the planning, design and transport issues of a particular area may be influenced or affected by issues which exist outwith that area.

1.2 The principal aim of both exercises was to engage meaningfully with local residents, community representatives and landowning interests on issues of importance to them. The objectives for each ADF project were different, although the process by which they were prepared was broadly the same.

1.3 At the Waterfront, the Council recognised that there was a need to revisit existing masterplans prepared to guide the redevelopment of the area, in the light of economic circumstances and changing priorities. It was also an opportunity to address Sir Terry Farrell’s observation that the Waterfront was in danger of developing in a piecemeal fashion with individual masterplans lacking proper connections through an overarching framework. The key objective of the ADF is therefore to ensure that new waterfront development is well integrated with established urban areas, especially Leith, and that the potential of Leith Walk as a major urban boulevard is maximised.

1.4 The City Centre Southern Arc, extending from Holyrood to Haymarket, is an area within which, at the time of the ADFs preparation, there were some 15 major development sites that had either been recently completed, were under construction or had briefs/masterplans prepared for them. The aim of the ADF is to create an environment where walking and cycling is appealing, convenient, safe and a stimulating experience for everyone using this part of the city centre. The added motivation in this exercise is the desire by the Council and the NHS to get residents and those that use the area to be more physically active and, in so doing to address some of the health issues prevalent in the area. The ADF therefore sought to introduce a co-ordinated strategic approach to movement patterns and physical and economic growth throughout the area.

1.5 The ADFs were prepared in collaboration with Architecture+Design Scotland and NHS Lothian following extensive community engagement exercises. Each ADF is accompanied by an action plan which set out actions and tasks under a series

of themes or projects that were/are to be completed in the short, medium or long term. This report describes the progress towards the completion of those actions and tasks.

2. Main report

Waterfront & Leith ADF 2.1 Rather than seek to facilitate development across the waterfront at the same time the Council and others, through the ADF process, sought to identify priorities for action. Council services, and those of other public agencies, could then coalesce around these actions and in so doing lever ‘external’ investment. The community engagement events identified a series of ‘hearts’, assets and connections along the waterfront that local residents regarded as being important and as such should be priorities for future action. These are summarised graphically in figure 1 below and form the basis of the projects described in the ADF action plan. Figure 1: Hearts and Connections

2.2 The implementation of the ADF proposals is based on a series of actions to be undertaken in the short, medium and longer term. These are being progressed in a variety of ways involving a number of stakeholders. Principal among these is the work to prepare a revised masterplan for the Port of Leith and land lying immediately beyond the port’s operational boundaries; this is discussed in more detail at paragraph 2.3 below. The ADF also promotes the concept of a Great City Street through the transformation of the principal east/west route running along the waterfront from Lower Granton Road to Seafield Road (A901/A199). The aspiration is to create a unified route to encourage active travel through place-based interventions at key locations. The motivation for this project is the creation of a street, or series of streets, that link Leith, Newhaven and Granton

which are safe and attractive for pedestrians and cyclists to use. The concept fits well with the Council’s Active Travel Action Plan and has been developed through discussion with transport officials. It will in time be discussed with communities and interests along the waterfront. The ADF also identifies opportunities for the temporary greening of derelict and vacant land.

Leith Docks 2.3 At the time of the ADFs preparation the future of Leith Docks in terms of its land use was unclear. The ADF takes as its starting point the policy position set out in the Edinburgh City Local Plan i.e. a housing-led mixed use regeneration proposal. It also describes the changing circumstances at the port, the increase in port-related activity and the promotion of Leith, by Scottish Enterprise (SE) through its National Renewables Infrastructure Plan (N-RIP), as an area with the potential to support the development of Scotland’s off-shore renewable energy industry through the manufacture and assembly of off-shore wind generation equipment. The ADF nonetheless sought to describe how the area could develop over time without prejudice to emerging proposals for the port.

2.4 The development of proposals for the port is being led and co-ordinated by SE in collaboration with Forth Ports, Scottish Government and the Council. Throughout 2012, work was undertaken to consider options for improving marine access to the port to accommodate the large vessels required to service the off-shore renewable energy industry; the principal options being the widening of dock- gates or the creation of an outer berth. The expectation is that a PPP application and masterplan will be submitted to the Council in the second quarter of 2013. At the same time applications will also be submitted to Transport Scotland and Marine Scotland to secure a Harbour Revision Order and a marine licence, respectively. All applications will be supported by the submission of a single Environmental Impact Assessment. SE is seeking to have all consents in place to allow for an early 2014 start on site.

2.5 The main purpose of the ADF with respect to this exercise is to inform and guide the development of land lying between a reconfigured port and Salamander Street and the area around Ocean Terminal, described by the ADF as the transition zone. Through joint working arrangements with SE and Forth Ports, the opportunity is being taken to promote the proposals of the ADF and to inform the preparation of the masterplan. Consultants have been appointed by SE to prepare the necessary applications and supporting information; relevant services of the Council and key agencies have advised and provided information to SE to assist in their preparation. Discussions on the form and content of the PPP application are at an early stage and the extent of land required to progress proposals has yet to be confirmed. The ADF describes how the area could develop as an employment/commercial location with adaptable architectural forms resonating with the old commercial buildings along Commercial Street. These buildings could both address the street and the port to encourage interactions between ‘renewable energy’ related research and development uses and those associated with the green economy.

A Great City Street 2.6 The proposal to transform the route extending from Lower Granton Road in the west to Seafiled Road in the east (A901/A199) into a Great City Street is a central feature of the ADF; it is a unifying proposal intended to connect the

hearts and other important locations along the waterfront. The proposal seeks over time the reduction of heavy goods vehicles using the route and to encourage direct port-bound traffic to Seafield Road, thus assisting in the reclamation of the street as a civic artery of the city. In part, this will be facilitated by the construction of a new road link between Seafield Road and Constitution Street to improve access to the port from the east; a; project promoted under the Tax Incremental Finance (TIF) initiative. Consultants (Amey) have been appointed by SE and the Council to take forward the design of the new access roads to serve the port. The intention is to submit a planning application in August 2013 with a construction start scheduled for Spring 2014, subject to agreement on an updated TIF Business Case. Elsewhere along the route of the Great City Street, the ADF identifies opportunities for both major and minor interventions, principally within the ‘hearts’ but also at locations in-between. The Waterfront & Leith ADF Action Plan attached as Appendix 1 to this report describes the progress made in the development and delivery of individual projects.

City Centre Southern Arc ADF 2.7 The City Centre Southern arc ADF describes a series of projects and priorities at key locations throughout the areas, some of which are aspirational and will take a while to develop and implement, others which will progress incrementally, and some which are small-scale and focus on detail. Figure 2: Linking the projects

2.8 Figure 2 illustrates how the projects link to address issues of walking and cycling holistically across the ADF area; the improvement of a junction/crossing in one location could lead to benefits elsewhere. The ADF broadly defines six projects with a series of actions within each. The actions identified are intended to deliver improvements to each place, all of which are firmly linked to improving conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. The projects are briefly described below and progress on their status is set out in Appendix 2 to this report:

• Haymarket to Holyrood; the consideration of movement priorities; • Haymarket; the delivery of a renewed place / public realm improvements; • Chambers Street; the creation of a place for people / events; • The Royal Mile; the development of a Royal Mile Project;

• Tollcross junction; creation of safe / convenient pedestrian crossing points; and, • Temporary projects; opportunities for new lighting and greening of sites.

2.9 Good progress has been made in developing projects for Chambers Street and the Royal Mile, with the submission of a listed building consent application and the preparation of an action plan, respectively. Proposals to improve the Tollcross junction and to redesign and relocate the pedestrian crossing presently situated outside the Filmhouse are being discussed and taken forward by an internal working group comprising Planning and Transport officers and discussions are soon to recommence with Transport Scotland, Network Rail and senior officers within the council regarding public realm improvements at Haymarket.

2.10 The ADF initiative is guided by a project board comprising senior officers of the Services for Communities and City Development departments. The board is able to draw upon the expertise of Architecture+Design Scotland and NHS Lothian in the development and delivery of the ADF projects.

3. Recommendations

3.1 The Committee is asked to note the progress being made in the development and delivery of projects set out in the Waterfront & Leith and City Centre Southern Arc Area Development Frameworks.

Mark Turley

Director, Services for Communities

Links

Coalition pledges P17: Continue efforts to develop the city’s gap sites and encourage regeneration; P40: Work with Edinburgh World Heritage and other stakeholders to conserve the city’s built heritage; P44: Prioritise keeping our streets clean and attractive; P45: Spend 5% of the transport budget on provision for cyclists.

Council outcomes CO7: Edinburgh draws new investment in development and regeneration; CO10: Improved health and reduced inequalities; CO19: Attractive places are 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; CO22: Moving efficiently – Edinburgh has a transport system that improves connectivity and is green, healthy and accessible; 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 SO1: Edinburgh’s economy delivers increased investment, jobs Agreement and opportunities for all; SO2: Edinburgh’s citizens experience improved health and wellbeing with reduced inequalities in health; SO4: Edinburgh’s communities are safer and have improved physical and social fabric.

Appendices Appendix 1: Waterfront and Leith ADF Action Plan * Waterfront+Leith Area Development Framework

Appendix 2: City Centre Southern Arc ADF Action Plan City Centre Southern Arc Area Development Framework

APPENDIX 1

WATERFRONT + LEITH AREA DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK The Waterfront & Leith ADF was approved in final form in October 2011. The ADF sets out a series of actions to progress the projects and interventions that could contribute to the delivery of a refreshed vision for the Waterfront. The timescale for each action is described as short, medium or long term. Where a specific timescale was known this is identified in the action plan.

The ADF can be viewed here: Waterfront+Leith Area Development Framework

Progress on identified actions

Action Progress No. Timescale

A review of the adopted and emerging development plan (LDP)

and other guidance has been undertaken. Council officers are liaising with Scottish Enterprise, Forth Ports and others to Review development plan and consider the implications of the ‘alternative strategy’ for Leith GUIDANCE

other guidance and consider how Docks as set out in the LDP Main Issues Report. this will impact on the delivery of PLAN services at the Waterfront, The expectation is that land at Granton, Western Harbour and including: ECLP, LDP, LDDF & Ongoing that lying immediately beyond revised operational port NETAP. boundaries will continue to make a significant contribution to the City’s housing land requirements and that this, over time, DEVELOPMENT will give rise to the provision of additional community facilities 1. and services.

Memorandum of Understanding entered into by Scottish Enterprise, Forth Ports and the Council to explore options for the creation of a 21st Century Port, including a renewables hub. Project being led by Scottish Enterprise. The Council is represented on an Advisory Group that is providing advice and

guidance on the preparation of a PPP application and master plan and other consents required to be secured e.g. Harbour Revision Order and marine licence. Provide inputs as required to the

CEC Steering Group established to co‐ordinate inputs from a MASTERPLAN preparation of a Leith Masterplan number of Council services, including Planning, Economic

and delivery of the ‘TIF’ road – Short LEITH

Development and Transport. PPP application / masterplan to be Ocean Drive to Seafield. submitted in second quarter of 2013. All consents to be secured in time to allow for an early 2014 start on site. REVISED

2. TIF business case being updated to reflect the aspirations of the port owners and N‐RIP. Consultants appointed by Scottish Enterprise and the Council to design and manage the provision of the ‘TIF’ road. Intention to submit a planning application in August 2013 with a construction start anticipated Spring 2014, subject to agreement on TIF business case.

3. THE GREAT CITY STREET & OTHER ACTIONS 1. Incorporate Based corridor 2. 3. concept aligned strategy.

the and improvements; Bernard The

Shore of study Edinburgh improvements;

the

the comprehensive proposals

Street

public

develop traffic Great

Promenade.

public and

realm reduction City

for:

the

Street

realm

Medium Great Scoping the Report attended Transport The priorities in will proposals, remodelling/improvements, and The communities To events. engagement undertaken. • • • • • 2. 1. Progress 3. NB Phase some Granton Docks emerging

time

date, :

development March range intention document Other delivered along communities; report June October consultation

January Detailed The Promenade still Sections and December:

work City 2 –

has transform

Report

(2014 this

awaiting

data Shore Granton/Silverknowes. Road

with for

– by

alternative

from and

the areas Street

and –

been to at September:

area representatives

May – The

action with –

designs

along

has

relevant

‐ other as Western route

February

Neighbourhood and

2018) November: will

project major

and minor promenade to

project within project informed

and

remaining

purposes;

will funds; 2013: of been the

relevant

prepare Western be

the

along

Project actions the /

focuses when

for proposals

need interventions, engage route prepared interventions,

CEC

collected Harbour;

phase route

2014: project prepare costing; to

prioritise complete; Bernard

the

engage

services be

a committees.

funding

Plan

milestones into Harbour;

have

to of document

through the

route with be 1 delivered prepare

services.

be the at

(2009

and

Portobello

have a draft Phase reconsidered

and

Street been outcomes

and

Great the consultation known and

relevant

Council’s within becomes

of such

interventions. to

analysed ‐

Phase

been a port. 13)

develop the

document final

consult delivered

are: be 3

that

variety over

developed City

(2019

are A901 the known

prepared and

CEC document

road of 4

will Phase

Planning, Street. a available.

(2029 yet

Council

in a and local

30 interventions ‐

of with

28) Seafield

services; / workshop identify

at light

junction

A199 for to as year engagement

The

2 initial –

on Portobello ‐

The

take local 38)

project Phase

proposals public to

and

Lower period. Scoping that

guide

Leith with actions

place.

will

7. ACTIVE TRAVEL ACTION PLAN 6. AGREEMENTS 5. TEMP’ PROJECTS 4. THE HEARTS Deliver S.75 Pursue Temporary With Active Waterfront (ATAP) derelict the identified pedestrians Square. Leith, destinations Waterfront

Waterfront.

legal

stakeholders Newhaven

travel:

commitments incomplete Active

land

agreements hearts

projects:

and

across

signage

Travel

cyclists

and and

develop / the

outstanding greening Action

links Granton for across

linking

Leith

the

Plan

the

of &

Short‐Medium‐Long term Ongoing Medium Medium • Leith: ATAP Applications CSGN • reviewed • Newhaven tasks, (ELGT) An conclusion Revised vacant • including to

Lindsay Association principally Planning • A199 A199 cycle footpaths complete

guide

Active the Lindsay Proposals exercise ‐ Street, attractions. space works Leith Trust; maintenance Road utility streetscape/environmental interests designed Lower developed Order Environment Lower

route.

Seafield as sets has some

£30k and

Road.

S.75 promotion part

the

Western and

Improvement Travel and and awarded

and out

works (TRO) those

concentrating

Granton Granton of & represented

derelict

including

are

of (Report

Road to

delivery sitting

agreement of

the Granton

; legal

applicants Road

a in

Granton including

construct being which

develop

and a scoping

series

consultation The

Network operation. involving has junctions associated

wider

Committee and improvements:

Harbour.

agreements.

Edinburgh

of at land

process – Road/Trinity Road

project

developed

begun:

of a are

promote

‘minded Leith: Square: streetscape of

review TIE

Square

and Family a out

improved

on Programme:

in concluded

bridge contacted

timescales addressed

on number Realignment Management

physical Comm

of North

this

implement

of ELGT as with is see Leith

with Newhaven project. dated

being promoting and Network’

to cycle part

group.

over

improvements

Lothians report

the Crescent:

Edinburgh tram

grant’

27.09.11). and

detailed

of Walk signage the stakeholders improvements

change along to with

of by

use progressed ATAP Seafield use twofold

discuss Port context

the

works. undertake

TRO

the

January to ‘greening’

and

Group

status

Forth of

Main Leith of

Lower

Greenspace

Transport Past

and

work design

W+L to of

detailed

pavements

pavement/road Traffic Report

Constitution regeneration Works

Place

programme Leith the

barriers

The

of St Ports

the have meets

Present

2013 have

/ ADF. Granton packages, by

Portobello the and

community network.

developed. a following

proposals Regulation

promotion

now Housing

the to variety

designs

been

for

been Great here:

Craighall

regularly

Trust widen to

along

Leith &

works

Road. the Street;

Future areas,

City

for

of at

APPENDIX 2

CITY CENTRE SOUTHERN ARC AREA DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

The CCSA ADF was approved in final form in March 2012. The ADF describes a series of projects and priorities at key locations throughout the area – some of which are aspirational and may take a while to develop and implement, others which will progress incrementally, while some are small‐scale and focus on detail. Where a specific timescales are known these was identified in the plan.

The ADF can be viewed here: City Centre Southern Arc Area Development Framework

Progress on identified actions

Timescale: Projects Progress Long, Medium or Short term

Haymarket to Holyrood

Workshop held with Transport and Neighbourhood officers September ’12 to discuss configuration of Tollcross junction, the relocation of the Lothian Road crossing at the Filmhouse and links to ATAP actions.

1. Consider movement priorities Long Draft proposals being developed and drawings across the area. prepared to aid wider discussion with internal and external interests. In the first instance these will be presented to a meeting of Council’s Streetscape Working Group. If agreed, the project will be developed, tested and managed by Transport.

2. Review one‐way / traffic Ongoing. Proposals will need to be considered management arrangements and the Long in the context of proposals for the wider city cost implications of change. centre, including those for Haymarket.

3. Create a ‘family network’ cycle route between the West End & Medium Holyrood. 4. Reinforce ‘off‐road’ route from Tasks link to emerging proposals for project 1 Medium Grassmarket to the canal basin. above. 5. Create footpath routes at Quartermile: Meadows to Lauriston Medium Place. 6. Encourage property owners to improve the appearance of Project being discussed with Neighbourhood Medium buildings along the Cowgate and in Partnership Manager. so doing encourage greater use of

the street by pedestrians and cyclists. 7. Introduce appropriate street lighting at locations along the route Lighting Strategy approved June ’12 to guide Long conducive to the characters of the proposals as and when they come forward wider area and its various functions; The procurement of new city centre signage is being taken forward by the Advertising Working Group as part of the review of CECs Advertising and Street Furniture contracts. The project will in time meet a number of Active Long Travel Action Plan (ATAP) ‘walking’ actions; 8. Introduce appropriate signage to

reinforce connections with other A progress report on this matter was presented routes, particularly signage to Finance and Budget committee in November associated with walking and cycling. New contracts 2012. A further report will be presented to the start Aug 2014. same committee at the end of March 2013 describing in more detail the nature of the contracts to be offered and the Council’s expectations. Tender documents to be issued to potential bidders in August 2013.

Haymarket

Broad urban design principles set out in the 9. Develop Haymarket as a major Haymarket Urban Design Framework. Proposals transport interchange by integrating developed and tested through the Urban Space modes of transport, incl. adequate Medium Initiative – led by A+DS. Document provides a provision for taxis and provision for ‘kiss & drop’ facilities. basis for future discussions with Transport Scotland and Network Rail.

Project being discussed in the context of 10. Develop further links between emerging proposals for Fountainbridge / Union Haymarket and Fountainbridge / Medium Canal and Haymarket. Proposals for the former Union Canal. Morrison Street Goods Yard do not prejudice project aspirations.

11. Progress Haymarket Urban Space Further discussion with Transport Scotland and Initiative with aim of improving the Network Rail and other interests to take place environment for pedestrians and Long in February 2013.Continue to liaise with Tiger cyclists while exploring the Developments & coffee shop owner regarding opportunity for commercial development. development of public realm proposals.

12. Create safe & attractive pedestrian Task linked to progress with actions 9, 10 & 11 crossing from the station to the Long above. former Morrison St Goods yard site.

13. Improve access/egress to/from Task linked to progress with actions 2, 9, 10, 11 station, particularly to Dalry Road Long & 12 above. and links to EICC / Exchange area.

14. Improve orientation signage at the Signage requirements across the city centre is Station to city centre, EICC and Long being considered as part of the ongoing review points of interest to the west of CEC’s street furniture contract – see 8 above.

Chambers Street

15. Consider limiting access to the Project being considered in the context of Short street by general traffic. proposals for the Royal Mile.

16. Remove central car parking aisle / alter junctions at either end of the Application 12/02997/LBC, if approved will street to facilitate better pedestrian Short / Medium address this issue in part. Further discussion to / cycle movement and improve be had regarding parking at the east end. access to/from Candlemaker Row from Chambers St. Application 12/02997/LBC has ‘minded to grant’ status. Awaiting response of Scottish Ministers.

17. Widen footpaths and promote use In summary, existing public statue to be Short / Medium of shared space. relocated and new public statue to be located in new public space to be formed in front of the National Museum of Scotland, including a widened footpath. The applications proposals can be viewed here: Application 12/02997/LBC.

18. Remodel street to allow space for events associated with uses along Project to be discussed with NP Manager in the Medium the street, especially at the context of task 17 above. museum.

19. Improve the setting of existing Project to be discussed with NP Manager in the Medium historic buildings. context of task 17 above.

20. Promote lighting to enhance historic buildings, their setting and the Medium No progress to‐date. street. The Royal Mile

21. Reduce traffic speeds and consider Short Draft Royal Mile Action Plan to be presented to restrictions at certain times. February 2013 Planning Committee for 22. Enhance facilities for pedestrians, including links from the North / approval for public consultation purposes. Long South Bridge to the street and to Action Plan divides the Royal Mile into 6 the Canongate. sections: 23. Co‐ordinate refuse collections. Short ‐ Castlehill; ‐ Lawnmarket; 24. Better co‐ordinate management of Short ‐ Civic Zone ‐ George IV Bridge to Anchor Cl. the street and spaces. ‐ High St – Anchor Cl. to St Mary’s St; ‐ Canongate & Holyrood ‐ Closes and Hinterland – land to the rear of buildings either side of the Royal Mile. Actions are grouped around the themes of: 25. Develop a rationale for signage Short along the street and closes. ‐ Public Realm / Traffic ‐ Street Management, and ‐ Retail Uses

The draft action plan can be viewed here: (insert link when available) Tollcross

26. Consider movement priorities at Short See Action 1 above. Tollcross junction. Broad proposals identified in the West Tollcross 27. Reduce traffic speeds at Development brief approved in January 2006. Thornybauk, West Tollcross and Proposals are being developed as part of the Lochrin Place and promote Long Tollcross junction improvement proposals and necessary changes to road / will be considered at the Council’s Streetscape footpath / cycle network. Working Group before wider consultation with internal and external interests takes place.

28. Improve pedestrian connections throughout Tollcross linked to the creation of new public spaces: [1] create link between centre of Medium See Action 1 above. Tollcross and canal basin and [2] create new public space at west Tollcross. 29. De‐clutter streets and assess condition of pavement surfaces Short See Action 1 above. throughout. 30. Develop lighting proposals that Proposals being taken forward in the context of ensure footpaths and cycleways are Long ongoing ATAP actions. safe and attractive to use. 31. Consider how post mounted signage could be reduced, rationalised and Short Ongoing. unnecessary / duplicate signage removed. Temporary Projects

32. Promote temporary road closures Steering Group established to identify and to create pedestrian zones during explore options for temporary road closures festivals and other events. during the city’s festivals.

CSGN awards to CEC do not include funding for 33. Promote ‘greening’ projects on any city centre projects. Other options being existing gap sites. considered.

Possible provision of bike hire scheme being considered as part of the preparation of a 34. Pilot cycle parking facilities at revised advertising / street furniture contracts. strategic locations across the ADF Viability of such a scheme to be discussed with area. prospective advertisers and Outdoor Media Centre.

35. Promote temporary lighting at appropriate locations e.g. under Some discussions held with local interests but

arches at George IV Bridge / South no tangible progress. Bridge. 36. Liaison with A+DS &NHS Ongoing.

Planning Committee

10am Thursday 28 February 2013

Royal Mile Action Plan – Draft for Consultation

Item number Report number Wards City Centre

L inks Links

Coalition pledges P31, P40, P44, P51, Council outcomes CO17, CO19, CO21, CO23 Single Outcome Agreement SO1, SO2, SO4

Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities

Contact: Euan McMeeken E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 3989

Executive summary

Royal Mile Action Plan – Draft for consultation.

S um m a ry Summary

The purpose of this report is to invite the Committee to approve the Royal Mile Action Plan in draft for consultation. This plan is based on the outcomes of the Royal Mile Charrette which took place in January 2012. The plan divides the Royal Mile into six zones, sets out the issues identified in each one and proposes a series of actions to address these. It is proposed that the plan is developed further through consultation with stakeholders.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee approves the Royal Mile Action Plan as a draft for consultation.

Measures of success

A successful consultation process that engages the community and all relevant stakeholders. The plan seeks to achieve 4 key outcomes:

1. An improved people experience along the street; 2. A safe, clean and well maintained environment; 3. A positive residential environment; and 4. An improved, more diverse, retail offer.

Financial impact

This report has no immediate financial implications. The projects to be taken forward by the Council will be set out in the finalised action plan and their relationships to Council budgets will be explained.

Equalities impact

An Equalities and Rights Impact Assessment will be carried out during the consultation period and the results will be taken account of in the finalised version.

Sustainability impact

The action plan would deliver improvements to the Royal Mile for the benefit of all users both now and in the future. In terms of sustainability it would have beneficial impacts from the social, economic and environmental perspectives.

The proposals in this report will neither increase nor reduce carbon emissions because there will be no change in the level of use of vehicles across the city though there is a clear attempt to reduce the use of vehicles on the Royal Mile.

The need to build resilience to climate change impacts is not relevant to the proposals in this report because the proposals are neither positively nor negatively affected by climate change.

The proposals in this report will help achieve a sustainable Edinburgh because the Action Plan is designed to address all the stakeholders and users of the Royal Mile.

Consultation and engagement

It is proposed that the action plan be published in draft and developed through consultation with a comprehensive range of stakeholders. In this way, the action plan will be shaped to create a document that has widespread support. At the same time, the development of the Royal Mile Charter will reinforce the commitment of all parties to work together to deliver the Royal Mile Action Plan.

Background reading / external references

1.Royal Mile Charrette – Summary and Outcomes, January 2012. 2.City Centre Southern Arc Area Development Framework, March 2012

R e p o r t Report

Royal Mile Action Plan – Draft for consultation.

1. Background

1.1 In the 1990s, regeneration and public realm improvements to a section of the Royal Mile set a benchmark for how Edinburgh can make the most of its outstanding built environment. The restriction of vehicles in the section of the High Street between Cockburn Street and George IV Bridge and pavement widening in other sections had a significant positive impact on the street, creating a pedestrian-focussed environment full of vibrant uses and activities.

1.2 The success of the improvements on this section of the Royal Mile has served to highlight that other sections do not live up to its role as one of the most important streets in Edinburgh and, arguably, the most iconic street in the nation.

1.3 In August 2011, the Royal Mile Project was initiated to develop solutions to address the key problems in the way the street currently works. The project aimed to follow up one of the strands of the Southern Arc Area Development Framework and help implement actions in the City Centre Retail Strategy.

1.4 It was recognised from the outset that the street performed many roles and involved a wide range of stakeholders. In this respect, it was expected that the solutions would not be confined to those matters within the Council’s control and a broader, partnership approach was required.

1.5 The approach was to hold a one-day charrette (an intensive cross-cutting workshop) at which all the major stakeholders were represented. This took place at the Hub on 12 January 2012. The charrette was preceded by a series of workshops with individual stakeholder groups and an on-line survey, aimed at focusing the discussion and distilling the main issues to be addressed at the charrette.

1.6 The charrette was chaired by Diarmaid Lawlor, Head of Urbanism at Architecture + Design Scotland. It was attended by 76 people representing a wide range of interests. The charrette addressed three main themes:

- the pedestrian experience;

- the retail offering; and

- day-to-day management.

1.7 The discussion generated a large number of actions under the three themes. It was agreed that the Council would develop these into an action plan. Three of these actions were identified to be taken forward immediately to develop confidence in the project and set the framework for future improvements:

- The appointment of a Royal Mile Manager; - A Royal Mile Spring Clean; and - The creation of a Royal Mile Charter.

1.8 The Council appointed a Royal Mile Manager in April 2012 and co-ordinated a Spring Clean in March 2012. The Royal Mile Charter is being developed in partnership with Architecture and Design Scotland and other stakeholders.

1.9 Since April 2012, a cross-departmental Steering Group has developed an Action Plan.

2. Main report

2.1 The draft Royal Mile Action Plan is attached at Appendix 1. When finalised, it will translate the outcomes of the charrette into specific projects and actions. It will link into the commitments developed in the Royal Mile Charter so that all parties will have ownership of the overall project. The plan will to ensure that the project results in clear action and lasting permanent improvements for the street.

2.2 For the purposes of the Action Plan, the Royal Mile has been divided into six distinct zones:

- Castlehill; - Lawnmarket; - Civic Zone (From George IV Bridge to Anchor Close); - High Steet Zone (Anchor Close to St Mary’s Street); - Canongate and Holyrood; and - Closes and Hinterland (the area behind the wall of buildings on either side of the Royal Mile).

2.3 This approach allows for an investigation of the successes and failures within each section of the street, identifying actions required to address problems.

2.4 A series of consultation workshops focusing on the six identified zones will be held between March and June and the finalised plan will be reported to Committee in August. These workshops will bring together the relevant stakeholders for each section of the street to discuss the draft plan and the aims and objectives this sets. The workshops will be aimed at those who attended the charrette and will included local members, community groups, residents, businesses and amenity organisations. Through discussion, the plan will be developed further with an emphasis on the important role that all stakeholders can play in delivering achievable outcomes, not only to help improve each section of the street but the collective whole. During the consultation process for the plan, a separate exercise will take place to develop the Royal Mile Charter. This will be taken forward by stakeholders with a view to securing a commitment to support the outcomes of the plan.

3. Recommendations

3.1 It is recommended that the Committee approves the Royal Mile Action Plan as a draft for consultation.

Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities

Links

Coalition pledges P31 Maintain our City’s reputation as the cultural capital of the world by continuing to support and invest in our cultural infrastructure P40 Work with Edinburgh World Heritage Trust and other stakeholders to conserve the city’s built heritage P44 Prioritise keeping our streets clean and attractive P51 Investigate the possible introduction of low emission zones

Council outcomes CO17 Clean - Edinburgh’s streets and open spaces are clean and free of litter and graffiti 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 CO21 Safe – Residents, visitors and businesses feel that Edinburgh is a safe city 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 SO1. Edinburgh’s economy delivers increased investment, jobs, Agreement and opportunities for all. SO2. Edinburgh’s citizens experience improved health and wellbeing, with reduced inequalities in health. SO4. Edinburgh’s communities are safer and have improved physical and social fabric.

Appendices Appendix 1: Royal Mile Action Plan *

APPENDIX 1

ROYAL MILE ACTION PLAN – DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION

Contents

1. Understanding the Royal Mile 2. Background 3. The Action Plan 4. Issues from the Charrette 5. Desired Outcomes 6. Actions 7. Consultation 8. Royal Mile Action Summary Table

APPENDIX 1 ROYAL MILE ACTION PLAN – DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION

1. UNDERSTANDING THE ROYAL MILE

“This (the Royal Mile) is, perhaps the largest, longest, and finest street for buildings and number of inhabitants not in Britain only, but in the World.” (Daniel Defoe, 1723, A Tour Through the Whole Island of Great Britain)

The Royal Mile is one of the most iconic streets in Scotland. It is a succession of spaces that form the main thoroughfare of the Old Town and is the centre of historic Edinburgh. It sits in the heart of the Old Town as an integral part of the World Heritage Site and is Scotland’s High Street. At the east end sits the Palace of Holyroodhouse and at its west end Edinburgh Castle. Between these two landmarks, spanning an old Scottish mile, are a large variety of buildings, a legacy of the street’s heritage as a place to live and work and also as a centre of power.

It is home to an exceptionally wide variety of people, uses and functions. This great mix helps to make the street a wonderful and unique place, but it also means that conflicts can arise between the different needs of the different users. Over the last few decades the street has become increasingly valued as a tourist attraction. However, the changes in retail profile and increasing awareness of issues associated with motor vehicles, among other things, have raised concerns about the quality of space, leading to suggestions that the Royal Mile is failing to achieve its potential as an important street for Scotland. It is a working street as well as a home, which raises the question of how to balance what makes the street attractive and fulfils the needs of the visitor with the needs of those working, living and using the street on a daily basis.

Beyond the functional purpose of permitting people to get from place to place and to gain access to property, the best streets should help bring people together, build a sense of community, cause people to interact and to achieve together what they cannot achieve alone. A street is not just a passageway between two points but also an instrument that provides an endless number of services to support the vitality of the spaces in‐between.

The vision for the Royal Mile should be to design a place that creates and leaves a positive and everlasting impression on all those who use it; to be the world’s best cultural living street.

2. BACKGROUND

In 2011, the Council initiated a project to deliver improvements in the day‐to‐day workings of the Royal Mile; to collectively identify improvements to the street, how it is used and managed, how the traffic flows and how the residents and business use it. At the beginning of 2012, a charrette was held. The purpose of this charrette was to focus on the wide range of issues affecting the Royal Mile and to identify actions required to help unlock the potential of the street for all its users. Through the charrette three early actions were identified as being essential to build confidence in the project and set the framework for improvements:

2 1. The appointment of a Royal Mile Co‐ordinator;

2. A Royal Mile Spring Clean; and

3. The creation of a Royal Mile Charter.

A Royal Mile Co‐ordinator was appointed in April 2012, a Spring Clean took place in March 2012 and the Royal Mile Charter is under development.

3. THE ACTION PLAN

The Council is committed to ensuring that the project results in clear action and lasting permanent improvements for the street. The action points developed at the charrette have been used as the basis for developing this Action Plan which is designed to tie in with the principles set out in the Charter. Responsibility for delivering the plan will be shared between the Council and various stakeholders. This draft version of the Action Plan should be seen as a catalyst for discussion with stakeholders. It sets out actions for the Council and its partners. It has always been the view that the Royal Mile project is also about the contribution that residents, businesses and other stakeholders can make to the success of the street. The development of the Charter will provide the opportunity for

One key point arising from the project is that the Royal Mile is a succession of different streets and spaces, with different heritage, different character and different associated issues; linked at the top and bottom by Edinburgh Castle and the Palace of Holyroodhouse. For the purposes of this action plan, the Royal Mile has been divided into six distinct zones to allow for an investigation of the successes and failures within each section of the street and to identify actions required to address problems. The zones are shown on the plan attached. They are:

1. Castlehill 2. Lawnmarket 3. Civic Zone (George IV Bridge – Anchor Close) 4. High Street Zone (Anchor Close – St Mary’s Street) 5. Canongate & Holyrood. 6. Closes and Hinterland

Unlike the other five zones, which have easily identifiable boundaries, the Closes and Hinterland of the Royal Mile is harder to define but is considered to be the area behind the facades. The area identified on the attached plan as the Closes and Hinterland is considered to have considerable potential to contribute to the balance and future success of the Royal Mile.

3 4. ISSUES FROM THE CHARRETTE

The following table summarises the issues for each zone. These have been grouped according to the themes used at the charrette.

Public Realm/Traffic Management Retail Other Castlehill ‐Poor maintenance. ‐No issues ‐Predominantly consists of tourist Tourist zone ‐Traffic/pedestrian conflict. attractions. ‐Poor/Inaccurate Signage

Lawnmarket ‐Could give more space to pedestrians. ‐Poor maintenance of street ‐Tourist Shops Tourist zone ‐Pavements narrow and congested with ‐Clutter on pavements including A boards pedestrians. and baskets act as an additional obstacle to pedestrians/movement. Civic Zone ‐Performs well ‐Trade waste build up in the ‐No issues Tourist zone mornings and evenings. ‐Night‐time economy – environmental nuisance. ‐Requires winter strategy for footfall to support winter economy

High Street Zone ‐Traffic congestion on Royal Mile. ‐Trade Waste Bins/Rubbish build ‐Mix of cafes and bars and shops. Tourist zone ‐North Bridge Junction very poor/congested up at certain points of the day. with traffic and pedestrians. (dangerous) Bags left lying. Seagulls pull ‐Taxi rank adds to congestion on road and them apart. pavement. ‐Homeless/people living rough ‐35 bus route. intimidating. ‐Hotel/Tours drop off and pick up. ‐Begging

4 ‐Deliveries. ‐Drug abuse ‐Tourist bus route. ‐ Night‐time economy – environmental nuisance. ‐ Requires winter strategy for footfall to support winter economy

Canongate & Holyrood ‐No space for children to play. ‐ Baskets blocking pavements ‐Not enough for locals. Residential ‐Roundabout at Parliament a problem. and building being used to hang ‐Poor variety of retail offer. Population but ‐Traffic moves too fast. goods from. retailers need to ‐Traffic corridor/route detrimental to ‐ Street lighting needs to be attract more character of street. more welcoming. tourists to stay ‐Pavements too narrow. ‐ Night‐time economy – economically ‐Not pedestrian friendly environmental nuisance. viable year round. ‐Poor quality of road surface compared to ‐Require strategy to drive rest of street. footfall to the area year round. ‐ Poor signage ‐ Volume of buses ‐ Delivery issues for local businesses ‐ Inadequate street lighting – unwelcoming during winter months.

Closes and Hinterland ‐Insufficient shops, open spaces, community ‐People sleeping rough in closes. ‐A Boards in the High Street advertising Hidden Gems facilities etc. ‐Drug and drink abuse hinterland retailers ‐Closes unsafe/unusable. ‐Anti‐social behaviour. ‐Poor lighting in the closes. ‐ existing shops closing/vacant units

5 5. DESIRED OUTCOMES

To address these issues, the Action Plan seeks to achieve four key outcomes, which apply to the Royal Mile as a whole. These are:

1. An improved people experience along the street; ‐ We will seek a better balance between people and vehicles to favour people. It does not mean a complete pedestrianisation of the street but an improvement of the built environment to create a more people friendly street. Pedestrians and cyclists should be given greater priority through the actions set out below and access to all parts of the street will be maintained.

2. A safe, clean and well maintained environment; ‐ We will seek effective management of the street to ensure it is clean and well maintained. It is important that everyone feels safe and comfortable when using the street.

3. A positive residential environment; and ‐ We will address the needs of the residents to ensure that the Royal Mile continues to be a successful living street whilst looking after those who use it on a daily basis.

4. An improved, more diverse, retail offer. ‐ The balance, diversity and quality of the retail offer along the street is something that affects residents and visitors alike. We will seek to promote a more diverse range of retail that enhances the overall experience of the Royal Mile and caters for all users.

6. ACTIONS

To achieve these outcomes we have set out actions that the Council can itself deliver or help others to deliver. These actions are targeted at each of the six zones. This will be the basis of a consultation process that aims to reach an agreed set of actions for the different parts of the Royal Mile. It should be emphasised that the proposed solutions are not yet finalised and the various options set out need to be assessed and discussed to identify what is realistic and achievable both short and long term.

Baseline studies of the commercial, social and public economies will be an essential tool in measuring and monitoring the success of the Action Plan. Along with a series of mapping exercises it is envisaged that these will be undertaken on a yearly basis to ensure that the actions identified below can be monitored for the ongoing success of the street.

6 PUBLIC REALM/TRAFFIC ‐ ACTIONS TASK OWNER Castlehill 1. Change the relationship between traffic and pedestrians to favour pedestrian 1. Planning & Transport. priority by restricting access at the foot of Castlehill whilst retaining good access 2. Planning & Transport. for those with mobility issues. 2. Relocate bus/coach parking for the Castle to Johnston Terrace. 3. Improve the quality of the surfaces. (project began October 2012)

Lawnmarket 1. Change the relationship between traffic and pedestrians by improving the 1. Planning & Transport. pedestrian experience by restricting access through the Lawnmarket. Reduction in the width of the carriageway/widening of the pavements.

Civic Zone ‐No Action High Street 1. Change the relationship between traffic and pedestrians by creating a 1. Planning & Transport. Zone pedestrian, cyclist and bus zone between Niddrie Street and St Mary’s Street with 2. Transport. traffic access hours (6.30‐10.30am). Initially implement this on a temporary basis 3. Transport. as a trial to assess impact on traffic/pedestrian movement. 4. Transport & Environmental Services. 2. Address the congestion at North Bridge junction. Short‐term: improve the 5. Planning & Transport. experience for pedestrians by addressing the timings of the traffic signals to allow for less congestion and better pedestrian flow. 3. Long‐term: look at the possibility of moving the traffic lights further back from the junction to reduce pedestrian congestion and increase safety around the Tron Kirk. 4. Investigate the possibility of making the area a Low Emissions Zone. 5. Investigate the possibility of only allowing the 35 to use the bus stop on the High Street with the tourist bus allowed to access the area but not stop.

Canongate 1. Introduce traffic calming measure at the Canongate Kirk and museums by 1. Planning & Transport. & Holyrood creation of a single level shared surface. 2. Planning & Transport. 2. Investigate potential for traffic calming/pedestrian priority at 3. Planning & Transport. Holyrood/Parliament junction. 4. Transport & Environmental Services 3. Investigate the possibility of changing the 35 bus from Double Deck to Single 5. Planning & Transport. Deck, increasing frequency of service. 6. Planning & Transport. 4. Investigate possibility of making the area a Low Emissions Zone. 7. Planning & Transport.

7 5. Investigate potential to re‐route one of the tourist buses from the Royal Mile to 8. Planning & Transport. Holyrood Road. 9. Planning & Transport. 6. Reduce traffic speeds and vehicle/pedestrian conflict. 10. Planning & Transport. 7. Review on‐street parking (except residents parking). 8. Widen pavements. 9. Investigate the long‐term possibility of resurfacing the street with setts. 10. Investigate and review cycle parking provision in the area and identify potential new locations where appropriate.

Closes and 1. In conjunction with other stakeholders develop projects to improve the closes. 1. Planning. Hinterland

MANAGEMENT ‐ ACTIONS TASK OWNER Castlehill 1. Regular representation from CEC at Castlehill Group Meetings – majority of 1. Economic Development. businesses represented here. 2. Neighbourhood management. 2. Review procedures for day‐to‐day management issues, e.g. graffiti, bent signs, stickers, etc.

Lawnmarket 1. Stricter controls on all street clutter, consistency of regulation both in terms of 1. Neighbourhood management. regular checks and equal treatment. 2. Neighbourhood management. 2. Review procedures for day‐to‐day management issues, e.g. graffiti, bent signs, stickers, etc.

Civic Zone 1. Investigate stricter controls on the presentation of trade waste – bags should 1. Neighbourhood management. not be available for scavengers. Trade waste containers should not be left on the 2. Economic Development. street or in the closes. 3. Neighbourhood management. 2. Winter Strategy for off‐peak events/promotions to attract people to area 3. Review procedures for day‐to‐day management issues, e.g. graffiti, bent signs, stickers, etc.

High Street 1. Investigate stricter controls on the presentation of trade waste – bags should 1. Neighbourhood management Zone not be available for scavengers. Trade waste containers should not be left on the 2. Neighbourhood management.

8 street or in the closes. 3. Neighbourhood management. 2. Stricter controls on all street clutter, consistency of regulation both in terms of 4. Economic Development/Neighbourhood regular checks and equal treatment. management. 3. Liaise with police and relevant bodies to manage anti‐social behaviour 5. Economic Development. 4. Address Walking Tour Boards, identify a solution and reduce street clutter. 6. Neighbourhood management. 5. Winter Strategy for off‐peak events/promotions to attract people to area. 6. Review procedures for day‐to‐day management issues, e.g. graffiti, bent signs, stickers, etc.

Canongate 1. Stricter controls on all street clutter, consistency of regulation both in terms of 1. Neighbourhood management. & Holyrood regular checks and equal treatment. Includes hanging items. 2. Economic development. 2. Work with Canongate Holyrood Initiative and support activity in area. 3. Planning 3. Work with Artisan Real Estate to communicate details of the New Street 4. Planning/Economic Development development. 5. Economic Development. 4. Investigate both seasonal and permanent lighting opportunities. 6. Neighbourhood management. 5. Marketing and promotion activity to encourage footfall to the area. 6. Review procedures for day‐to‐day management issues, e.g. graffiti, bent signs, stickers, etc.

Closes and 1. Liaise with police and relevant bodies to manage anti‐social behaviour 1. Neighbourhood management. Hinterland 2. Review procedures for day‐to‐day management issues, e.g. graffiti, bent signs, 2. Neighbourhood management. stickers, etc. 3. Neighbourhood management. 3. Investigate stricter controls on the presentation of trade waste.

RETAIL ‐ ACTIONS Castlehill 1. No immediate action required. Lawnmarket 1. Impose stricter restrictions on new Council leases. Liaise with private 1. Economic Development property management companies to encourage them to do the same. 2. Neighbourhood management. 2. Address A Boards through net work services. Civic Zone 1. No immediate action required

High Street 1. Impose stricter restrictions on new Council leases. Liaise with private 1. Economic Development.

9 Zone property management companies to encourage them to do the same. Canongate 1. Continue to attract independent retailers by increasing footfall to area 1. Economic Development. & Holyrood through promotion 2. Planning/Economic Development. 2. Identify areas of opportunities for uses that will benefit the community as a whole.

Closes and 1. Produce a strategy to improve the retail offering in the hinterland 1. Economic Development. Hinterland 2. Develop and implement a signage strategy to help identify retail offer in the 2. Economic Development. closes and hinterland without cluttering the Royal Mile with A Boards

7. CONSULTATION

A series of consultation workshops focusing on the six identified zones will be held. These workshops will bring together the relevant stakeholders for each section of the street to discuss the draft plan and the aims and objectives this sets. Through discussion the plan will be developed further with an emphasis on the important role that all stakeholders can play in delivering achievable outcomes, not only to help improve each section of the street but the collective whole. During the consultation process for the plan, a separate exercise will take place to develop the Royal Mile Charter. This will be taken forward by stakeholders with a view to securing a commitment to support the outcomes of the plan.

8. ROYAL MILE ACTION SUMMARY TABLE

PUBLIC REALM/TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT RETAIL Castlehill PR1, PR2 and PR3 M1 and M2 R1 Lawnmarket PR1 M1 and M2 R1 and R2 Civic Zone NONE M1, M2 and M3 R1 High Street Zone PR1, PR2, PR3, PR4 and PR5 M1, M2, M3, M4, M5 and M6 R1 Canongate & Holyrood PR1, PR2, PR3, PR4, PR5, PR6, PR7, M1, M2, M3, M4, M5 and M6 R1 and R2 PR8,PR9 and PR10 Surrounding Area PR1 M1 and M2 R1 and R2

10 Royal Mile Plan

11 Planning Committee

10am Thursday 28 February 2013

Pilrig Proposed Conservation Area- Appraisal of Historic and Architectural Interest

Item number Report number Wards Leith Walk

Links Links

Coalition pledges P40

Council outcomes CO19

Single Outcome SO4 Agreement

Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities

Contact: Jack Gillon, Principal Practitioner

E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 469 3634 Executive summary

Pilrig Proposed Conservation Area - Appraisal of Historic and Architectural Interest

Sum m ary Summary The purpose of this report is to invite the Committee to approve a consultation on the potential to designate Pilrig as a conservation area. The basis of the consultation would be the attached appraisal of historic and architectural interest.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee approves the attached appraisal as a basis for consultation on the potential to designate Pilrig as a conservation area.

Measures of success

The protection of areas of special architectural or historic interest.

Financial impact

The designation of a conservation area will increase the number of planning applications that the authority must process. This could create pressure for additional staff resources in the Planning Service.

Equalities impact

All venue used for the consultation will be DDA compliant.

Sustainability impact

Conservation of the built environment minimises the use of natural resources and helps to reduce carbon emissions. The proposals in this report will help achieve a sustainable Edinburgh because the conservation and management of the historic environment contributes directly to sustainability in a number of ways. These include the energy and materials invested in a building, the scope for adaptation and reuse, and the unique quality of historic environments which provide a sense of identity and continuity.

Consultation and engagement

An extensive consultation will be carried out with the local community. The main part of the consultation will take the form of an exhibition, which will be displayed in McDonald Road Library. Open Evenings will also be held at the library which will provide an opportunity for visitors to discuss the proposals with Council officers.

The exhibition and Open Evenings will be promoted by posters in the local area, on Twitter and online. Local and city wide amenity groups, and local councillors, will also be notified and sent copies of the appraisal.

Background reading / external references

None. Report Proposed Pilrig Conservation Area - Appraisal of Historic and Architectural Interest

1. Background

1.1 Local residents in Pilrig have contacted the Council requesting that the area be considered for designation as a conservation area. The proposal is also supported by the local MP and MSP. Local residents have assisted with the preparation of the appraisal of historic and architectural interest. 2. Main report

The Pilrig Area 2.1 The area under consideration incorporates a mainly residential area to the north west of Leith Walk. The boundary is irregular: to the north west it follows part of Broughton Road from North Pilrig Heights to Stanwell Street, to the north east it follows the boundary of Pilrig Park and the rear of a terraced block on Balfour Street, to the south east it abuts the boundary of the Old Leith Conservation Area at Leith Walk and to the south west it runs irregularly to the western boundary of Rosebank Cemetery. The boundary includes the large open spaces of Rosebank Cemetery and Pilrig Park. The recently approved Pilrig Model Buildings (Shaw's Place) Colony Conservation Area lies immediately to the south of the area.

Criteria for Designation of a Conservation Area 2.2 The statutory definition of a conservation area is ‘an area of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’. The Scottish Historic Environment Policy specifies that it is the character or historic interest of an area created by individual buildings and open spaces and their relationship one with the other which the legislation covering conservation areas seeks to preserve.

2.3 The principles of selection for designation as a conservation area are broadly as follows:

• areas of significant architectural or historic interest in terms of specific listed buildings and/or ancient monuments;

• areas of significant architectural or historic interest in terms of building groupings, which may or may not include listed buildings and/or ancient monuments, and open spaces which they abut;

• areas with features of architectural or historic interest such as street pattern, planned towns and villages and historic gardens and designed landscapes; and

• other areas of distinctive architectural or historic character.

2.4 In designating a conservation area, consideration also has to be given to the reasons why it is felt that it should be protected. These may include:

• its special architectural and historic importance; • its distinct character; • its value as a good example of local or regional style; • its value within the wider context of the village or town; and • its present condition and the scope for significant improvement and enhancement.

2.5 The designation of a conservation area must, therefore, be based on the historic and architectural interest of an area. Conservation area status is not intended to act solely as a means of controlling development.

Assessment 2.6 An appraisal of the historic and architectural interest of the area has been prepared with input from the local community. This is attached at Appendix 1. The appraisal indicates that Pilrig contains a number of interesting buildings and includes areas of high quality residential streets. However, with the exception of Pilrig House, it does not include any buildings of significant architectural or historic interest or distinctive character. The area’s value in terms of the wider context of the city appears to be limited. There are also a substantial number of non- original features, such as more modern windows and doors, in many of the properties. The findings of the appraisal do not provide a strong case for the designation of Pilrig as a conservation area in terms of the criteria set out in paragraph 2.3 and 2.4.

2.7 The normal procedure is to undertake a public consultation prior to the designation of a conservation area. In this case, the consultation process is of particular significance as it will provide the opportunity to generate additional input on the historic and architectural importance of the area and thereby strengthen the case for designation. It will also allow consideration of issues such as a different boundary or the inclusion of parts of the area in adjoining conservation areas. In addition, it is important that the local community is supportive of any conservation area designation.

Implications of Conservation Area Status

2.8 Designation as a conservation area results in a number of additional requirements:

• the permitted development rights which allow any improvement or alteration to the external appearance of a flatted dwelling that is not an enlargement are removed;

• conservation area consent is required for demolition;

• alterations to windows are controlled in terms of the Council’s policy;

• special attention must also be paid to the character and appearance of the conservation area when planning controls are being exercised. Most applications for planning permission for alterations are, therefore, advertised for public comment and any views expressed must be taken into account when making a decision on the application; and

• notice is required to fell or severely lop trees within the conservation area.

Next Steps 2.9 A consultation will be carried out with the local community.

2.10 The main part of the consultation will take the form of an exhibition, which will be displayed in McDonald Road Library. Open Evenings will also be held at the library which will provide an opportunity for visitors to discuss the proposals with Council officers.

2.11 The exhibition and Open Evenings will be promoted by posters in the local area, on Twitter and online. Local and city wide amenity groups, and local councillors, will also be notified and sent copies of the appraisal.

3. Recommendations 3.1 It is recommended that the Committee approves the attached appraisal as a basis for consultation on the potential to designate Pilrig as a conservation area.

Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities

Links

Coalition pledges P40 Work with Edinburgh World Heritage and other stakeholder to conserve the city's built heritage Council outcomes 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 in the maintenance of infrastructure and public realm.

Single Outcome SO4 Edinburgh’s communities are safer and Agreement have improved physical and social fabric. *

Appendix 1: Proposed Pilrig Conservation Area - Appraisal of Historic and Architectural Interest

Appendix 1

PILRIG - APPRAISAL OF HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST

INTRODUCTION

The area under consideration incorporates a mainly residential area to the north west of Leith Walk. The boundary is irregular: to the north west it follows part of Broughton Road from North Pilrig Heights to Stanwell Street, to the north east it follows the boundary of Pilrig Park and the rear of a terraced block on Balfour Street, to the south east it abuts the boundary of the Old Leith Conservation Area at Leith Walk and to the south west it runs irregularly to the western boundary of Rosebank Cemetery. The boundary includes the large open spaces of Rosebank Cemetery and Pilrig Park. The recently approved Pilrig Model Buildings (Shaw's Place) Colony Conservation Area lies immediately to the south of the area.

HISTORICAL ORIGINS & DEVELOPMENT

Pilrig is shown on maps as early as 1654 and is recorded as Peilrig in 1438. The name is Anglian pyll hrycg, a ridge by a stream, and Pilrig House, which was built near the centre of the original estate, stands on a ridge near the Broughton Burn. Another potential derivation of the name is from a tower (pil/peel) at the end of a field (rigg). It is also suggested that the name may have originated from an earlier building on the present site of Pilrig House as the strength and thickness of the basement walls may have been the foundations of an earlier towerhouse.

Legend has it that the country house of Mary of Gueldres, Queen to James II of Scotland, stood here in the 15th century, although there is no documentary evidence for this. However, it is known that the land was owned by the family of Monypenny, Lairds of Pilrig, in the 16th century. Recent archaeological excavations in Pilrig Park revealed the remains of Somerset's Battery, or Mount, an artillery fort constructed during the siege of Leith in 1560. This was one of two major forts linked by trenches that encircled Leith, and these are the only 16th Century siege works in Britain. These excavations also uncovered the 17th and 18th century walled gardens and park associated with Pilrig House.

Pilrig House is a late example of a traditional Scottish Laird’s house. It dates from 1638 and was built for the Edinburgh goldsmith Gilbert Kirkwood. The original L-shaped plain house, in harled rubble was later embellished with a classical doorway and a curvilinear gable. The house passed through several owners, before being purchased in 1718 by James Balfour with money received in compensation for losses made in the failed Darien expedition to colonise Panama in the late 17th century. The author Robert Louis Stevenson's grandfather Lewis Balfour was born in the house in 1777, and Stevenson mentions it in two of his novels. A plaque unveiled in 1985 on the reopening of the restored building has a quote from Stevenson's novel, Catriona - 'I came in view of Pilrig, a pleasant gabled house set by the walkside among brave young woods.' In 1828, the house was extended by the architect William Burn by filling in the angle of the "L” plan. The house was burned out around 1970 with all the interior destroyed. It was comprehensively restored in 1984-5.

John Ainslie's map of 1804 shows that the Balfour estate covered most of the area of the Pilrig area with the exception of Rosebank Cemetery, which was built on land owned by Dr Hamilton, and part of Shrubhill, owned by the Heriot's Hospital. The estate's northern boundary was the

1804 present Bonnington Road, the western boundary followed the present western boundary of Rosebank Cemetery to Shrubhill House, the southern boundary was up to, but not including, Middlefield and the buildings fronting Leith Walk, and the eastern side was roughly parallel to the western side, ending with the present Balfour Street, called on this map Pilrig Avenue. Pilrig Street, which formed the boundary between the burghs of Edinburgh and Leith, was marked here 'New Road from New Haven to Edinburgh'. Apart from Pilrig House, the few buildings shown on the estate in 1804 have not survived.

By the beginning of the 19th century, the expansion of both Edinburgh and Leith meant that house building was increasing in the Pilrig area. Kirkwood's 'Edinburgh and Environs' 1817 show the oldest terraced housing which line the Leith Walk end of Pilrig Street already built, plus a possible feuing plan for later additions. Arthur Street, Balfour Street and James Street (now Spey Terrace) 1817 follow their present street pattern. The map also shows three streets that were never built. These crossed and centred on Pilrig Street, and were to be called Melville Street, Whyte Street and St Cuthbert's Street. These streets were to be feued for detached houses, as was Arthur Street. However James Street appears to have been laid out as terraced houses with individual gardens, similar to those already built on Pilrig Street, while Balfour Street was intended to have tenements.

If this plan had been completed, Pilrig might well have developed as a villa area. However from 1825 onwards, there was a progressive decline in the rate of property development in Edinburgh and Leith as the financial crisis of 1825-6 deepened. This meant that there was now an oversupply of land which, although feued for building, remained undeveloped. The history of building in Pilrig confirms this pattern, and the delay in speculative building and the growing industrialisation of the wider area around Pilrig affected the earlier plans for the creation of a residential suburb.

The next area to be feued was land beside Arthur Street, where detached villas had been envisaged in 1817. Here a row of terraced cottage-style dwellings, called Pilrig Cottages, was built by Robert Simpson, mason, who retained Number 1 and advertised on 26th November 1862, Numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5 for sale or let as 'Now finishing, Private entrance from Arthur Street, Leith Walk. These Cottages have good Family Accommodation with Water Supply, Gas, Grates, W.C., Flower Plot, and Right to Green' (Scotsman 26/11/1862).

The allotments between the cottages and the present Cambridge Avenue date from the time when Pilrig Cottages were built and in 1933, twelve plots were registered here; there are now seven.

The scale of building in these small and almost rural streets of Pilrig can be contrasted with the increasing industrialisation of the surrounding areas in the 1850s and 1860s.

In the Bonnington area to the north of Pilrig House, the old cottages and nursery-gardens were gradually removed, and tenement blocks and factories began to fill the space between Bonnington Road and the Water of Leith. The opposite boundary of the Balfour estate had also become surrounded by building on neighbouring properties, and Johnson's Plan of Edinburgh and Leith of 1851 shows the Shotts Foundry built beside the Leith Walk end of the original driveway to Pilrig House. The main entrance to the house was now opposite the Edinburgh and Leith (later Rosebank) Cemetery on Pilrig Street. By 1868, the railways had arrived on the edge of Pilrig (built on the land owned by Heriot's Hospital) when a passenger station for the the Edinburgh, Leith and Newhaven railway line opened at Leith Walk. 1888

The then Laird, John Balfour, now began the systematic feuing of more of his property. This involved the most easterly section, in the angle formed by Leith Walk and Pilrig Street. In 1868, a feuing plan was drawn up by the architect R Rowand Anderson. Anderson's elevations deliberately followed the old Scottish style of architecture of Pilrig House and thus preserved in the proposed new streets 'a certain resemblance to the ancient mansion which will probably ere long be elbowed out of its place. While reproducing the picturesque forms of a bygone age, the architect has shown no little skill in adapting those forms to the requirements of modern life' (Scotsman 16/6/1870 'Feuing at Pilrig'). The feuing plan had as the main artery the present Balfour Street, which followed the line of the old tree-lined avenue leading from Leith Walk to Pilrig House. The new street was to be about 75 feet wide and it was expected that it eventually would cut through to Bonnington Road. By 1878, there were 13 tenements of working men's houses on the north side of Balfour Street.

Because Balfour intended that the remainder of the new housing should reflect that already built in the area, the aim was not to follow the main tenemental building form of Leith Walk but to retain the character of the existing self-contained houses, and provide accommodation for well-to-do artisans. It was said that ‘So various streets of little pleasant dwellings sprang up in the neighbourhood of Pilrig Street. He (Balfour) refused to make haste to be rich by accepting every bid for ground' (The Balfours of Pilrig).

From Balfour Street, three cross-streets 50ft wide (similar to the earlier feuing plan shown on Kirkwood 1817) were to be carried at right angles through the broad strip of ground between Balfour Street and Pilrig Street. The spaces between the cross streets were to be occupied by two main oblong blocks of dwelling houses plus several smaller blocks of houses were to fill up the angular spaces between Leith Walk, Balfour Street and the northern end of Arthur Street. However the layout of this plan was amended, when the land was feued to James Shaw in 1881 for the erection of the two storey terraced houses at Cambridge Avenue and Cambridge Gardens, which were advertised in January 1886 as 'small self-contained dwelling houses, well built and carefully painted' at a price of between £300 for the corner flats and £500 for the houses. In the same advertisement, the development was described as being 'central and convenient with all the amenity and quiet of a country residence' (Scotsman 30/1/1886).

The growing population in the area in the 1860s and 1870s meant that there was pressure on schools. The Balfour family took a particular interest in education, and Mrs. Balfour formed a committee to start a school at Bonnington Hall until the new Board School on the edge of the Balfour estate was completed. The Education Bill of 1872 put the care of the children under the School Boards, and Bonnington School was opened in 1875.

Building on the Edinburgh side of Pilrig Street continued during the 1880s, first with Rosslyn Crescent and Rosslyn Street (1888). This development was followed by two storey terraced houses along Pilrig Street, with three storey tenements at the corners of the cross streets such as Dryden Terrace.

In 1922, the Council purchased twenty acres of the Balfour Estate for recreational use by the 'population of the congested area in its neighbourhood with Pilrig House'. (Scotsman 11/1/1921). This also fulfilled a condition of the Extension Act of 1920, when Edinburgh and Leith were amalgamated, which required Edinburgh Council to provide and maintain a public park in close proximity to the Leith district.

Under the terms of the sale to the Council, the house and ground in its immediate vicinity (approximately 5.6 acres) were not to be transferred until the death of the last of the Balfour spinster sisters who lived there. The surviving sister, Miss Balfour-Melville, died in 1941 and the house was gifted to the Council with the intention that it became a museum or a charitable institute. It was subsequently used as a civil defence centre, a boys' club and a firemen's hostel and in 1946 provided emergency accommodation for ten homeless families. By 1954, it was vacant and in the early 1970s fires destroyed the roof and upper floors. The fortunes of the house improved in 1983 when, following an architectural competition, restoration and conversion to six flats was undertaken by Michael Laird Architects.

The Caledonian (Goods) railway branch, which was built in 1903 from Newhaven to Leith Docks, ran diagonally on an over-bridge across the intersection of Pilrig Street/Newhaven Road and Bonnington Road. The railway track ran close to the back of Pilrig House and diagonally across the present Pilrig Park. The railway embankment which used to enclose the Park on its west and north sides, was removed in the 1980s. An earlier railway line, the Edinburgh, Leith and Newhaven Railway (later the North British Railway) had a station at Leith Walk which opened in 1868. The station was closed to passengers in 1930, but traces of the platform remain near Shrubhill.

Rosebank Cemetery (previously the Edinburgh and Leith Cemetery) at the north end of Pilrig Street was one of six cemeteries opened in Edinburgh between 1843 and 1847 (the others are Warriston, Dean, Newington, Dalry and Grange) by a number of speculative cemetery companies.. The cemetery that is now Rosebank was laid out by the Edinburgh and Leith Cemetery Company to a plan by David Cousin and opened on 20th September 1846.

The Cemetery contains monuments to several minor historical figures, including the grave of Christian Salvesen and a tombstone erected by Queen Victoria to the memory of a maid who died in 1854 on a visit to Edinburgh. The main historical interest is the Gretna Memorial, erected Gretna War Memorial in 1916, to those who died in the Gretna Rail disaster. This occurred on 22nd May 1915 at Quintinhill near Gretna, and involved a south-bound troop train which crashed into a stationary local train and was then hit by the north-bound express. There were 226 fatalities, the greatest loss of life ever for a rail crash in Britain. The dead included 214 soldiers from the 7th Battalion, the Royal Scots, on their way to Gallipoli. The soldiers were known as the 'Leith Battalion' due to the large number who came from the area. 107 of the dead were brought to the former Drill Hall in Dalmeny Street, which was used as a temporary mortuary. A service was held there (the Scotsman reported that painful and heartrending scenes were witnessed) followed by a funeral procession down Pilrig Street, which was lined with crowds of people, to Rosebank, where most of the dead were buried in a mass grave. An annual remembrance service is held at the Cemetery. A plaque on the gates of the cemetery incorrectly gives the date of the disaster as 1916.

In 1893, Edinburgh Corporation started to replace all the horse-drawn tram routes with cable power. This was a different system to that used in Leith, which had electrified trams since 1905. Pilrig was the point where passengers going between Edinburgh and Leith had to change trams from Leith's electrified system to Edinburgh's cable system. This inconvenience was known as the "Pilrig Muddle" and remained until Edinburgh's cable cars were replaced by electric trams in June 1922, allowing a through journey between Edinburgh and Leith.

SPATIAL STRUCTURE AND TOWNSCAPE

The (proposed) Pilrig Conservation Area lies midway between Edinburgh and Leith to the west of Leith Walk and is intersected by Pilrig Street, which formed the historical boundary between the two burghs. In spite of the fact that the area was governed by different town councils until 1920, when Edinburgh and Leith were amalgamated, the layout of the area reflects its long history as a coherent entity as the former Balfour family estate.

The spatial structure of 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 area is situated on the gentle slope down to Newhaven and Leith, with the large area of open space of Pilrig Park and Rosebank Cemetery in the northern half, and most of the housing and former industrial development in the south. This reflects the Balfour family’s aim to maintain the rural setting of Pilrig House by first feuing land for housing development nearer to Leith Walk. The area was planned incrementally and the spatial structure is characterised by varied street patterns and different scales of the mainly terraced housing, built from the early 19th century until the 1930s.

The area is relatively low density, given its proximity to central Edinburgh, and although there are some streets, such as Balfour Street, Dryden Place and Spey Street which follow the traditional tenemental scale of Leith Walk, other streets consist mainly of stone-built terraced housing. The larger houses are along Pilrig Street, with the early 19th century housing at the southern end of the street and infill Victorian development towards the north. Pilrig Street is built up on the western side, with the houses having a pleasant open view over Pilrig Park. The cross streets, as a contrast to this, have a sense of enclosure, with speculatively built small-scale housing for skilled artisans and lower middle class owner occupation. At an even smaller scale, some of the streets that were built in the mid 19th century for rental take the form of urban cottages. The wide spectrum of housing, from rather grand terraced housing to urban cottages and small flats, has resulted in an unusually high level of social mix in the area.

The area is mainly comprised of low rise residential development. The predominant height is two storeys but there are a small number of flatted elements of mainly three and four storeys. The buildings are complemented by garden settings and stone boundary walls. The stone boundary walls give definition to the street layout and create a clear distinction between public and private spaces.

Essential Character: Spatial Structure and Townscape

• Tranquillity due to lack of through traffic within the residential streets;

• Extensive use of a restricted palette of natural stone, slate and cast iron details, similarity of proportions and terraced forms provide a unity of character to the area;

• Most of the residential development is in the form of terraces; and

• Residential streets separated from surrounding development and from major traffic routes.

VISTAS

The area contains two of the key protected views across Edinburgh to Calton Hill, from the north-east corner of Pilrig Park and from Pilrig Street, near Bonnington Road and Pilrig House. There are also views of Nelson's Monument and the National Monument from the north corner of Pilrig Park and from the centre of the Park a particularly fine view of these monuments, the City Observatory and the open sky space beyond Calton Hill.

Cutting through the area, the view down Pilrig Street towards the green space of Pilrig Park (which is bordered along the Pilrig Street side by a strip of community woodland) is attractive, as is the view down the tree-lined Balfour Street to Pilrig House.

Essential Character: Vistas

• A number of important key views within the area.

ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER

The key building in the area is the restored category ‘A’ listed Pilrig House which dates from 1638 and forms a dominating feature in Pilrig Park. The main (south-east) elevation overlooking Pilrig Pilrig House Park has a 3-bay elevation with a curvilinear gable of circa 1700. The early 19th century columned doorway at first floor level is accessed by stone stairs with carved steps. Single windows flank the stairs at ground floor and there are two single windows at second floor level with a bull's-eye window to the gablehead. There is a modern, square, wall-mounted sundial to outer left at second floor level, over a carved armorial stone with angel heads. Aspects of the house, for example the crowstepped gables, influenced the design of other buildings in the area, particularly some of the Balfour Street tenements.

The category ‘C’ listed Bonnington School was designed by James Simpson in 1875, with additions in 1907. It is a large two-storey T-plan school, built in cream sandstone with gothic details, together with a detached single storey janitor’s house and play shelters. The rear block has a narrow linking section and separate doorways inscribed 'Girls' Entrance' (NE) and 'Boys' Entrance' (SW) to each side of the link.

The category ‘B’ listed Rosebank Cemetery has a near rectangular plan, was designed by David Cousin and opened on 20th September 1846. It has sandstone rubble coped and stepped boundary walls enclosing and dividing the site. The headstones are predominantly later 19th century, with several column memorials (with urns surmounting some). There is a central walled pend to the middle of the site and some gravestones are now set in the boundary wall, The Gretna War Memorial is on a granite plinth to the south- east and there is also notable pink sandstone gothic memorial, 1911, to Christian Salvesen.

Pilrig Street is characterised by terraced housing dating from the late 19th century.

Pilrig Street

The two storey Baronial villa at 94 Pilrig Street dates from 1857 and is category ‘B’ listed.

94 Pilrig Street 94 Pilrig Street

Rosslyn Crescent/Street is a bottle-shaped development of mainly two-storey terraced houses surrounding a narrow central garden space.

Rosslyn Crescent

Cambridge Gardens and Avenue consists of terraces of bay-windowed single storey houses with slate mansard roofs.

Cambridge Gardens

The surviving remains of the industrial development at Shrub Place – the Shrubhill Tramway Workshops and Power Station are of industrial archaeological interest. The oldest buildings were built in 1898. The original buildings are red brick with sandstone bands and have a number of interesting features, such as large round arched recessed openings, shaped pediments and circular windows. Internally, there is a grand painted brick interior with recesses through from the exterior arches and an exposed steel roof construction with a clerestory band. The chimney is included in the listing, although it was reduced in height around 1975. The gabled retaining wall to Shaw's Colonies has been kept after demolition of the tram works.

The predominant building material within the area is grey sandstone. A few of the traditional building are also harled. The boundary walls throughout the area are in natural stone. The most widely used roof covering is grey slate. A significant number of original sash and case windows and timber doors have been replaced throughout the area.

Essential Character: Architectural Character

• The architectural significance of individually designed villas in the area;

• The variety of architectural styles that contribute to the overall character;

• Quality stone-built architecture of restricted height enclosed by stone boundary walls; and

• The significant degree of uniformity resulting from the predominant use of traditional building materials: local sandstone for buildings and boundary walls and Scots slate for roofs.

NATURAL HERITAGE

There is a high proportion of green space for an area close to the centre of Edinburgh. Pilrig Park is an extensive area with many mature trees and play areas which is used for a variety of recreational activities. Rosebank Cemetery also makes a significant contribution to the extent of green spaces in the area. Cambridge Gardens Allotments

There are large areas of allotments behind Cambridge Gardens, with 30 plots, and more allotments behind Pilrig Cottages. Allotments, especially those in built up areas, contribute significantly to the biodiversity of the urban environment, providing food and shelter to many plant and animal species, as well as functioning as an important link in the greenspace network.

Private gardens are particularly important for providing suitable habitats for birds and wildlife and there is also a recently designated Community Garden for Cambridge Gardens and Cambridge Avenue.

Essential Character: Natural Heritage

• The biodiversity importance of the allotment sites;

• The importance of Pilrig Park as a central area of open space; and

• The significance of mature trees.

ACTIVITIES AND USES

The area is predominantly residential with Pilrig Park forming a significant area of open space. The main retail spaces in the area are on Leith Walk, with small corner shops for daily needs on Dryden Street/Spey Terrace and Balfour Street/Cambridge Avenue.

One of the earliest groups of immigrants to the area were migrants from the Northern Isles. This resulted in the formation of the Edinburgh and District Shetland Association in 1928. In 1962, premises at 11 Pilrig Street were purchased as their headquarters and named the Zetland Hall. Although this was sold in 1983, the heritage lives on in the fiddle classes for local children held in the hall of Pilrig Church and the designation of the (former) Bonnington School as the new Gaelic primary school for Edinburgh.

Essential Character: Activities & Uses

• Predominance of residential use; and

• Contrast between activity on Pilrig Street and general tranquillity in the residential streets.

CONCLUSIONS

The appraisal of the historic and architectural interest of the area indicates that Pilrig contains a number of interesting buildings and includes areas of high quality residential streets. However, with the exception of Pilrig House, it does not include any buildings of significant architectural or historic interest or distinctive character. The area’s value in terms of the wider context of the city appears to be limited. There are also a substantial number of non-original features, such as more modern windows and doors, in many of the properties.

Planning Committee

10am Thursday 28 February 2013

Edinburgh Colonies – Further Assessment

Item number Report number Wards Leith, Fountainbridge/Craiglockhart

L inks Links

Coalition pledges P40

Council outcomes CO19

Single Outcome Agreement SO4

Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities

Contact: Jack Gillon, Principal Practitioner

E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 469 3634 Executive summary

Edinburgh Colonies – Further Assessment

S um ma ry Summary

The purpose of this report is to advise Committee of the outcome of the additional consultation on the proposed designation of the Leith Links (Industrial Road) Colonies as a conservation area and the extension of the proposed Slateford (Flower) Colonies Conservation Area to include a section of railway line. This report provides details of the additional consultation and recommends that the Leith Links (Industrial Road) Colonies are not designated as a conservation area and that the extension of the proposed Slateford (Flower) Colonies Conservation Area to include a section of railway line is not supported.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee:

1. Agrees that the Leith Links (Industrial Road) Colony group is not taken forward for conservation area designation.

2. Agrees that the boundary of the proposed Slateford (Flower) Colonies Conservation Area is not extended to include the section of railway line to the south east.

Measures of success

The protection of areas of special architectural or historic interest.

Financial impact

This report has no financial implications.

Equalities impact

There is no direct equalities impact arising from this report.

Sustainability impact

None.

Consultation and engagement

A further consultation was carried out specifically with the residents of the Leith Links (Industrial Road) Colonies.

Every resident received a letter which outlined the implications of conservation area status, provided a link to information on the internet and enclosed a short questionnaire which requested their views on the proposed conservation area designation. A freepost envelope was included for the responses.

An exhibition was displayed at Leith Academy and Open Evenings were held at the school on consecutive days on 9 and 10 of January 2013 which provided an opportunity for visitors to discuss the proposals with Council officers.

There has been no further consultation on the issue of boundary change at the Slateford (Flower) Colonies as consultees had sufficient opportunity to comment on this during the consultation in summer 2012.

Background reading / external references

Report to Planning Committee of 14 June 2012: The Edinburgh Colonies: Historic and Architectural Character Appraisals.

Report to Planning Committee of 6 December 2012: Edinburgh Colonies Conservation Areas.

Link to Colonies film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7apSEtwnE&feature=player_embedded Report

Edinburgh Colonies – Further Assessments

1. Background

1.1 The Planning Committee on 6 December 2012 recommended the designation of the majority of the Colonies developments as conservation areas. The only exception was the Leith Links (Industrial Road) Colonies which were considered of more marginal architectural and historic importance. The Committee noted that the Head of Planning and Building Standards intended to report to Committee on a further assessment of the Leith Links (Industrial Road) Colonies and asked additionally that the Head of Planning and Building Standards report on the feasibility of extending the Slateford (Flower) Colonies Conservation Area to include an adjacent section of railway land.

2. Main report

Leith Links

2.1 The Leith Links (Industrial Road) Colonies have been the subject of a more recent intervention of red brick terraced houses in one of the blocks and have a significant number of non-original doors and windows. They are also not a development by the Edinburgh Co-operative Building Company which was responsible for the main grouping of Colonies in Edinburgh. This reduces both their historic and architectural interest and makes them more marginal for conservation area status. It was, therefore, recommended that a more detailed evaluation of their condition and relative merit as a stand-alone development is made, together with further consultation with the local community, prior to considering their designation.

Consultation

2.2 A further consultation was carried out specifically with the residents of the Leith Links (Industrial Road) Colonies during December 2012 and January 2013.

2.3 Every resident (218) received a letter which outlined the implications of conservation area status, provided a link to information on the internet and enclosed a short questionnaire which requested their views on the proposed conservation area designation. A freepost envelope was included for the responses. This was in addition to the general consultation on all colonies developments that had previously been carried out over the autumn of 2012.

2.4 An exhibition was displayed at Leith Academy and Open Evenings were held at the school on consecutive days on 9 and 10 January 2013 which provided an opportunity for visitors to discuss the proposals with Council officers.

2.5 A total of 27 responses were received with 15 (60%) in favour of the conservation area designation and 12 (40%) against. This is an approximate 12% response.

2.6 Those supporting the designation considered that conservation area status would help to stop the deterioration of the area. It is also considered that the Industrial Road Colonies are comparable in quality to the other Colony developments in Edinburgh.

2.7 Those against the designation are concerned that conservation area status will limit flexibility to make alterations to the buildings.

Criteria for Designation of a Conservation Area 2.8 The statutory definition of a conservation area is ‘an area of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’. The Scottish Historic Environment Policy specifies that it is the character or historic interest of an area created by individual buildings and open spaces and their relationship one with the other which the legislation covering conservation areas seeks to preserve.

2.9 The principles of selection for designation as a conservation area are broadly as follows:

• areas of significant architectural or historic interest in terms of specific listed buildings and/or ancient monuments;

• areas of significant architectural or historic interest in terms of building groupings, which may or may not include listed buildings and/or ancient monuments, and open spaces which they abut;

• areas with features of architectural or historic interest such as street pattern, planned towns and villages and historic gardens and designed landscapes; and

• other areas of distinctive architectural or historic character.

2.10 In designating a conservation area, consideration also has to be given to the reasons why it is felt that it should be protected. These may include:

2.11 The designation of a conservation area must, therefore, be based on the historic and architectural interest of an area. Conservation area status is not intended to act solely as a means of controlling development.

Assessment 2.12 Using the criteria, set out above, it is clear that the main historic interest of the Colonies is based on their construction by the Edinburgh Co-operative Building Company, the company that developed the unique colony building form. The Leith Links (Industrial Road) Colonies were built by a private building company. This does reduce their historic, if not architectural, interest and renders them an inferior example of this particular style of design and build lacking in the distinct character associated with other colony developments across Edinburgh.

2.13 Within the wider context of Edinburgh, the Leith Links Colonies are a less significant example of a particular building type and style, built by a private building company and significantly modified to the detriment of the developments authenticity and character.

2.14 A substantial section of one of the terraced blocks in the Leith Links (Industrial Road) Colonies was also not historically developed as Colonies and now contains a 1980s housing group finished in red brick. This reduces the architectural interest and overall authenticity of the development. The authenticity is further reduced by the substantial number of non-original windows and doors. As such, the Leith Links Colonies are in a relatively poor condition and would need considerable local commitment and support over time to enhance the buildings.

2.15 The consultation shows a high level (40%) of objection to the proposed designation. This compares unfavourably with the overall level of objection across all the colonies of 14%. This, together with the assessment above, suggests that Leith Links not only fails to meet the architectural and historic standards required to achieve conservation area status, but also lacks the essential support of the residents.

2.16 It is therefore concluded that the Leith Links (Industrial Road) Colonies should not be taken forward for conservation area designation.

Slateford Road (Flower) Colonies 2.17 The Flower Colony Area Residents Association considered that the railway line which adjoins the Slateford (Flower) Colonies should be included in the proposed conservation area.

2.18 The boundaries of all the proposed Colony conservation areas have been drawn tightly around the Colony developments. This reflects the fact that the Colonies, themselves, were often ‘shoehorned’ into small pieces of land, bordering areas of industry where the residents worked. The value of the Colony developments lies in the historic significance of the co-operative housing movement and the unique building form. It is usually an internally-facing layout providing a distinctive intimate atmosphere for the residents. Its character is not dependent on its setting.

2.19 The ambience of the wider area may be beneficial to those now living in the Colonies but it does not provide the rationale for their designation as a conservation area. Indeed the wider area is more likely to have been considerably less attractive at the time of their construction, often consisting of industrial land.

2.20 Railway lines adjoin the boundaries of a number of other Colony areas and have not been included within the proposed conservation areas as they do not contribute to the distinctive character. In the case of the existing Shandon Conservation Area, a railway line runs through the middle of the area and is therefore included for practical purposes. However, the railway that bounds the Shandon Conservation Area is excluded.

2.21 It is, therefore, recommended that the proposed boundary of the Slateford (Flower) Colonies is not adjusted to include the railway line.

3. Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee:

1. agrees that the Leith Links (Industrial Road) Colony group is not taken forward for conservation area designation.

2. agrees that the boundary of the proposed Slateford (Flower) Colonies Conservation Area is not extended to include the section of railway line to the south east.

Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities

Links

Coalition pledges P40 Work with Edinburgh World Heritage and other stakeholder to conserve the city's built heritage

Council outcomes 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 in the maintenance of infrastructure and public realm.

Single Outcome SO4 Edinburgh’s communities are safer and Agreement have improved physical and social fabric.

Appendix 1: Leith Links (Industrial Road) Appendices Colonies * Appendix 2: Slateford Road (Flower) Colonies Appendix 3: Implications of Conservation Area status

Appendix 1

LEITH LINKS – INDUSTRIAL ROAD COLONIES

Introduction The Leith Links Colonies are located to the south of Leith Links and East Hermitage Place and west of Restalrig Road. The streets which form the immediate boundaries are: Industrial Road (north), Somerset Place (west), Summerfield Place (east) and Rosevale Terrace (south). The development consists of eight parallel rows (Cochrane Place, Elm Place, Fingzies Place, Rosevale Place, Parkvale Place, Noble Place, Lindean Place) of two storey terraced blocks running perpendicular to the south of Industrial Road.

Statutory Designations

None.

Historical Background

The development was initiated by the Industrial Building Society in 1868 and was the final phase of the redevelopment of the grounds of Hermitage House. However, the Society was affected by financial problems and the development was completed by the local Leith building company of A and W Fingzies (the spelling Fingies and Finzies is also given). The final phase of development was completed in 1878. Building progressed from west to east. The first group of streets appeared in the Post Office Directory of 1869 - including Cochrane Place, named for the then owner of Hermitage House and Elm Place, probably named for trees in the gardens of the House. The second group of streets appear in the Post Office Directory of 1872 – Noble Place, named for Grace Noble, wife of Fingzies the builder and Waverley Place, which was renamed Lindean Place in 1969. The final group of streets, occupying the site of Hermitage House, included Parkvale Place (1875), Rosevale Place (1878) and Fingzies Place (1878). Industrial Road was named for the Industrial Building Society.

Townscape and Architectural Character

The development follows a typical Colonies pattern of two storey terraces, with access to the lower and upper flats from opposite sides of the buildings, and small gardens for each house. In this case the access stairs to the upper floors are internal.

The buildings are constructed in stone with slate roofs and originally had wooden window sash and case windows (a number of which have been replaced in uPVC). The ten year phasing of the development resulted in variations of detailing in items such as window and door surrounds. A large section of Elm Place consists of a more modern two storey terraced block in brick.

The most westerly five terraces take vehicular access by Somerset Place and Fingzies Place El Pl from East Hermitage Place, and have good circulation by way of Industrial Road to the north and Rosevale Terrace to the south. The three most easterly terraces are culs-de-sac to the south. Conclusions

The Leith Links Colonies have no statutory protection. There is a relatively high level of number of non-original features (c65% of windows and c40% of doors are non-original). This has resulted in a degree of loss of architectural authenticity and a large section of the block at Elm Place consists of a more modern brick terraced block. They are also not by the Edinburgh Co-operative Building Company which reduces their historical significance. It is recommended that they are not taken forward for conservation area designation. Appendix 2

SLATEFORD, NORTH MERCHISTON PARK (FLOWER COLONIES)

Introduction

The Slateford (Flower) Colonies are located approximately two miles west of Edinburgh city centre, due South of Gorgie. The area is bounded by Slateford Road to the north, Harrison Road to the east, Harrison Gardens to the south, Harrison Place tenement buildings to the South-East, and Merchiston Grove tenement buildings to the west. The Shandon Colonies Conservation Area is located in close proximity to the south east.

The former Caledonian Railway Line and North Merchiston Station were located to the south-east of the site. This area now comprises a footpath, heavily planted with trees and thick foliage. St Michael’s Parish Church lies to the north-east, the building is category ‘A’ listed, dates from 1881-3 and was designed by John Honeyman. Its 41 metre high tower forms a local landmark.

The development was originally named North Merchiston Park, however, it is better known as the “Flower Colonies”, as each terrace is named after a flower. The development consists of seven terraced streets (Violet, Laurel, Primrose, Myrtle, Ivy, Lily and Daisy Terraces).

Statutory Designations

None.

Historical Development

In 1877, the Edinburgh Co- operative Building Company purchased the site from the Merchant Company. This followed a year of negotiations which centred around whether shops should be allowed on the site. It was close to areas of employment, whilst the proximity to a railway line, which formerly ran to the south-east, reduced the overall cost of the site.

The development was constructed in phases from 1878 to 1883 with a total of 159 houses completed - Violet (12 houses), Laurel (12 houses), Primrose (36 houses), Myrtle (38 houses), Ivy (42 houses), Lily (11 houses), Daisy (8 houses):

1878 - thirty six buildings had been built and twelve were in progress on Primrose Terrace and Myrtle Terrace.

1879 - the twelve buildings were completed and twenty were in progress.

1880 - those twenty buildings were completed and a further twenty four on Laurel and Violet Terrace were in progress.

1881 - the twenty four had been completed, eighteen buildings completing Myrtle Terrace had also been built and twenty-two buildings on Ivy Terrace were in progress.

1882 - the twenty-two buildings on Ivy Terrace had been built and eight buildings on Daisy Terrace were in progress.

1883 - Daisy Terrace had been completed and ten buildings on Lily Terrace were approaching completion.

Townscape and Architectural Character

The seven rows of the Flower Colonies vary in length, with groups of between eight and forty-two houses on each terrace. The form of the Flower Colonies is more irregular than other Colony developments. The three long terraces (Primrose, Myrtle and Ivy) run perpendicularly to Slateford Road and are separated from two short terraces (Laurel and Violet) to the north east which run parallel to Slateford Road, by a commercial building and a four-storey tenement block on Slateford Road. Another two short terraces (Daisy and Lily) are located to the south-west of the longer blocks.

The site which divides the two segments of Colonies was Gorgie Mains Farm at the time when the development was constructed (1878-83). In 1933, it became a biscuit factory and is now used for industrial warehousing.

The buildings are complemented by the profusion of mature trees, small gardens, and stone boundary walls. The stone boundary walls provide definition to the street layout and create a clear distinction between public and private spaces. The terraced rows are separated by narrow cobbled stone lanes and footpaths which form culs-de-sac and provide vehicular access and limited parking.

The site was developed in a number of phases, which is demonstrated in changes to the form of the buildings. These include variations in window and door surrounds and additional floors. The external access stair to the upper flats was also abandoned at Slateford for a more conventional internal stair and bay windows were introduced. Plaques representing the various building trades and the Company’s beehive emblem are displayed at the end of the terraces facing Slateford Road.

The former bleaching green, a small open space at the north-east of the area, is privately owned by the residents of Violet Terrace and provides a focal point for activities in the summer months.

Conclusions

The Flower Colonies have no statutory protection. There is a relatively high level of number of non-original features (c70% of windows and c40% of doors are non-original). This has resulted in a degree of loss of architectural authenticity. However, this has not seriously affected the overall integrity of their architectural importance and they are historically significant in terms of the development work by the Edinburgh Co-operative Building Company. Conservation area status provides the opportunity to limit any further erosion of architectural detailing. It is recommended that they be designated as the Flower Colonies Conservation Area. Appendix 3

Implications of Conservation Area Status

Designation as a conservation area has the following implications:

1. The permitted development right which allows any improvement or alteration to the external appearance of a flatted dwelling that is not an enlargement is removed.

2. Special attention must be paid to the character and appearance of the conservation area when planning controls are being exercised. Most applications for planning permission for alterations will, therefore, be advertised for public comment and any views expressed must be taken into account when making a decision on the application.

3. Within conservation areas the demolition of unlisted buildings requires conservation area consent.

4. Alterations to windows are controlled in terms of the Council’s policy.

5. Trees within conservation areas are covered by the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The Act applies to the uprooting, felling or lopping of trees having a diameter exceeding 75mm at a point 1.5m above ground level, and concerns the lopping of trees as much as removal. The planning authority must be given six week’s notice of the intention to uproot, fell or lop trees. Failure to give notice renders the person liable to the same penalties as for contravention of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

Planning Committee

10am, Thursday 28 February 2013

Review of Scottish Planning Policy

Item number Report number Wards All

L inks Links

Coalition pledges P8, P17 and P50 Council outcomes CO7 and CO19 Single Outcome Agreement SO4

Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities

Contact: Lindsay Robertson, Planning Officer

E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 469 3932

Executive summary

Review of Scottish Planning Policy

S um m a ry Summary

The purpose of this report is to approve the Council’s response to the Scottish Government’s review of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). SPP states Scottish Government Policy on nationally important land use matters. The review will update policy, focus it on sustainable economic growth and emphasise place-making. The Council’s response welcomes the review and the opportunity to provide better connections between national policies. There are elements of the current policy which work well and provide flexibility for local authorities to implement policy at local level. There are elements of the policy which could be improved. These are identified within the Council’s response set out in this report.

The deadline for responding to the consultation was 11 January 2013. Because of the timescale for consultation, it has not been possible to bring it to Committee before responding. Therefore the proposed response was submitted by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, explaining in the covering letter that the response may be amended following Committee’s consideration. Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee approves Appendices 1 and 2 as the Council’s response to the Scottish Government review of Scottish Planning Policy.

Measures of success

The Council’s views are taken account of in the review of national planning policy.

Financial impact

There is no financial impact arising from the report.

Equalities impact

There is no equalities impact arising as a result of this report. The Scottish Government will undertake an ERIA of the revised Scottish Planning Policy.

Sustainability impact

There is no sustainability impact as the report forms a response to a consultation on the formulation of national policy which is yet to be set out.

Consultation and engagement

There is no requirement for public consultation or external engagement on the content of this report.

Background reading / external references

Scottish Planning Policy February 2010

R e p o r t Report

Review of Scottish Planning Policy

1. Background

1.1 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) is a statement of Scottish Government Policy on nationally important land use planning matters. SPP was published in February 2010. SPP currently contains:

an overview of the key components and overall aims and principles of the planning system;

cross-cutting policies on sustainable economic growth, community engagement and sustainable development;

subject-specific policies on: economic development, town centres and retailing, housing, rural development, coastal planning, fish farming, historic environment, landscape and natural heritage, open space and physical activity, green belts, transport, renewable energy, flooding and drainage, waste management, minerals, on-shore oil and gas, surface coal mining and communications infrastructure; and

desired outcomes from the planning system, including the creation of high quality sustainable places, and increased sustainable economic growth.

1.2 The review will:

up-date policy; focus the policy on sustainable economic growth; and emphasise place-making.

1.3 The review is taking place alongside the review of the National Planning Framework (NPF). This is intended to allow better alignment between the strategy for the development of Scotland and how it should be delivered.

The timescale for the review is:

Autumn 2012 Announcement & Priorities for Change Winter 2012/13 Pre-draft engagement & drafting Spring 2013 Publish Draft SPP & consultation Summer 2013 Analyse responses & re-drafting Before end 2013 Publish finalised SPP

2. Main report

Current Consultation – priorities for change 2.1 The current consultation seeks priorities for change. The purpose is to identify what policy works well, where there are issues and to provide solutions. While principally providing the context for the planning system, SPP has implications for other services within the Council. A process of internal consultation has taken place with Economic Development, Transport, Housing, Sustainability and Climate Change, and Culture & Sport.

Response by the City of Edinburgh Council 2.2 The review of SPP is welcomed. The review will update national policy and ensure it is relevant to the current context. The review offers an opportunity to consider how policy topics relate to each other and provide better integration. This should assist in identifying conflicts between the outcomes for planning and setting priorities for dealing with them.

2.3 There are many areas of SPP which work well. It is important that those elements are not lost in the review. Flexibility to apply policy to suit local circumstances, such as in affordable housing policy, should be retained.

2.4 The current document sets out policy on a broad range of topics. Separation of policy into subjects is helpful to the user in identifying relevant policy. However, this can make it difficult to properly interpret the connections between policy subjects and the priority to be given where policies compete against each other. There needs to be better linkages throughout the policy and a balance between brevity and provision of sufficient explanation to allow interpretation of policy.

2.5 Planning is outcome focussed. The emphasis on achieving desired outcomes is highlighted through the Planning Performance Framework. The present document contains a section on outcomes at the rear of the document. Within the revised SPP more prominence should be given to outcomes.

2.6 The review of SPP intends to focus the policy on sustainable growth while emphasising place making. The planning system should be judged by the extent to which it maintains and creates places where people want to live, work and spend time. This should be reflected throughout the policy. It is acknowledged that SPP does not intend to restate policy provided elsewhere. However the policy framework set out in Designing Places is critical to delivery of the policy and it would be useful if it were referred to within the document. It would also be helpful to set out the role of Architecture and Design Scotland in supporting the creation of successful places.

2.7 The policy needs to recognise that ultimately the planning system is about providing successful places. Creating such places will lead to sustainable economic growth.

2.8 The following provides a summary of comments relating to specific sections of the current SPP. Full comments are set out in Appendix 2.

Development Plans 2.9 Policy is provided on the preparation, content, implementation, monitoring and review of development plans. The policy generally works well and provides clear expectations for development plans. There are some useful terms which should be retained.

Development Management 2.10 Policy is set out on determining planning applications, enforcement, the role of the Scottish Government and appeals and local reviews. The policy is considered to be generally sound.

Community Engagement 2.11 SPP sets out expectations for community engagement which remain relevant. It is important that policy continues to refer to community engagement and refers to PAN 3/2010. This provides an important link between policy and guidance.

Sustainable Development 2.12 Policy states that the planning system should promote development that supports the move towards a more economically, socially and environmentally sustainable society. The policy provides a good overall setting of the context of sustainable development, however phrases used are general. The current SPP is limited in terms of setting an agenda for adapting to the consequences of unavoidable climate change.

Sustainable Economic Growth 2.13 The planning system should proactively support development that will contribute to sustainable economic growth and to high quality sustainable places. The current policy provides signposting which helps to identify the context in which sustainable economic growth is to be understood. The narrative however says very little on the topic and does not provide a clear definition of sustainable economic growth and the meaning of ‘sustainable’ in this context. The parameters for delivery of sustainable economic growth through the planning system need to be clearly established by the SPP.

Retailing and Town Centres 2.14 SPP states that town centres should be the focus for a mix of uses and a diverse range of community and commercial activities should be supported. Development plans should identify a network of centres, identify appropriate locations for new development and assess how centres can accommodate development. Current policy also recognises the key role of town centre strategies in delivering improvements in town centres. A sequential approach to locating retail and commercial leisure development is set out giving preference to town centres. SPP contains a good balance between pro-active and restrictive measures, and leaves enough discretion for planning authorities to take local circumstances into account whilst also supporting national priorities. There is a need for strong policies to ensure that town centres can continue to provide a focus for a mix of uses. The sequential approach supports the aims of place making and economic growth. It is a necessary element to protect centres and should be retained however there are elements of the policy relating to the sequential approach that are confusing.

2.15 It would be helpful for policy to acknowledge the particular significance of Scotland’s city centres to place-making and sustainable economic growth, and the need to take a long-term view of their vitality and viability in the face of cumulative development pressures in the surrounding area over many years.

Housing 2.16 SPP requires that the planning system should enable the development of well designed, energy efficient, good quality housing in sustainable locations and allocate a generous supply of land to meet identified housing requirements across all tenures. Policy is set out on housing land, location and design of new development and affordable housing.

2.17 The flexibility which the current policy allows is welcome, particularly in relation to affordable housing. There are certain elements of the policy which require clarification and some terms which are unclear. More evidence on applying the term “generous” would be particularly helpful. There are elements within the housing section which are important to creating successful places generally and should not be attributed to housing alone.

2.18 Policy on affordable housing could benefit from a statement of aims to provide clarity over what should be achieved through the provision of affordable housing. A range of perpetual and non-perpetual housing tenures are set out including shared equity. It would be helpful if perpetual tenures of affordable housing were the preference unless viability dictates otherwise.

Historic Environment 2.19 Policy is set out on listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments and designed wrecks, World Heritage Sites, Gardens and Designed Landscapes, archaeology and non-designated historic assets and areas of historical interest.

2.20 The policies relating to the historic environment are important in providing protection for undesignated sites. The policy assists planning authorities to use the planning system to manage and protect Scotland’s undesignated heritage assets. Cross referencing of the historic environment within the document should be retained. There are some changes to the wording of the current policy which would be helpful. There should be reference to the public realm as part of the historic environment.

2.21 Where archaeological discoveries are made during any development, the policy should reflect PAN 2/2011 which states that the local authority archaeologist will offer advice on the mitigation measures which should be applied by the developer to ensure appropriate excavation, reporting and analysis. This would provide clarity on the role of the developer.

Landscape and Natural Heritage 2.22 SPP states that planning authorities should take a broad approach to landscape and natural heritage taking account of the ecosystems and natural processes in their areas. Policy is provided on designations, protected species and trees and woodland. There is a need to update the policy to take account of new issues and principles which have emerged since its publication. There are a number of inclusions which would improve the policy:

siting and design of development should be informed by local designations and related policy;

Local Biodiversity Action Plans should be referenced;

concept of Integrated Habitat Networks and importance of River Basin Management Planning and consideration of SUDS should be included;

clearer steer on the relationship between planning and the Habitats Regulations Appraisal process; and

importance of tree surveys and constraints assessment to inform initial site appraisal and contribute to design and place making process added.

Open Space and Physical Activity

2.23 SPP states that planning authorities should support, protect and enhance open space and opportunities for sport and recreation. Policy is set out on open space audits and strategies requiring authorities to take a long term approach to managing open space and assessing needs and providing protection to meet those needs. There are many positive aspects of the open space policy which it is important are retained.

2.24 There are some minor changes which would improve the policy. The current policy is that only valued and functional open space identified in the strategy and audit or open space that is capable of being brought into functional use to meet an identified need is identified and protected in the development plan. The policy could require the inclusion of all open space regardless of its value. Policy requires that alternative sites are considered. Policy also states that proposals for alterations to open space to address deficits should be included in the development plan. This could include proposals that in some cases would be too detailed for inclusion in the development plan.

Green Belts 2.25 SPP sets out the purpose of green belt designation. Green belt designation should be used to direct development to suitable locations not to prevent development from happening. There are many positive elements to the current green belt policy. There are terms which should be retained.

2.26 Clarification of the intention that “inner boundaries should not be drawn too tightly around the urban edge” is required. This suggests the concept of “white land” for development in the longer term. If land is suitable for development, it should be identified as a proposal.

Transport 2.27 SPP provides policy on parking, strategic transport network, airports and seaports, freight and roadside facilities. Development should be supported in locations that are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport, making best use of or adding to existing networks and creating new networks.

2.28 The section could be rebranded ‘movement’ to reflect the importance of walking to creating sustainable places and the prioritisation which the policy gives to walking. Infrastructure is key to delivering development. Transport is one element of this. It would be helpful if the policy referred to infrastructure and recognised its importance in delivering development. The policy should recognise that, within some areas, creating the necessary accessibility will need significant investment in transport infrastructure and/or services. There are a number of improvements which could be made to the policy:

reference to Transport Assessment Guidance;

in relation to new rail stations the need to balance the effects on passengers using existing services and any effects on freight with the benefits of a new station should be expressed;

a statement about the need for disabled parking spaces to be suitably located should be included;

parking standards should be related to public transport accessibility;

requirement to set standards for cycle parking that are consistent with the Scottish Government’s Cycling Action Plan for Scotland should be included; and

strengthen requirement for transport accessibility for significant travel generating uses.

Renewable Energy 2.29 SPP states that planning authorities should support the development of a range of renewable energy technologies, guide development to appropriate locations and provide clarity on issues to be taken into account in assessing proposals. Policy is set out on wind farms, off-shore renewables and other energy sources which includes biomass, hydro-electric and waste. The general thrust of the policy works, however there are some elements which would benefit from clarification:

including conditions for the decommissioning of renewable energy generation development presents practical difficulties due to the lifespan of some developments; designation of sites for offshore renewables should be at national level; the term ‘large scale biomass plants’ should be defined; and policy should reflect current Scottish Government guidance on biomass.

Flooding and Drainage 2.30 SPP states that planning authorities must take the probability of flooding into account when preparing development plans and determining planning applications. Development which would have a significant probability of being affected by flooding or would increase the probability of flooding elsewhere should not be permitted. Policy is set out relating to flood risk management, flood protection, land raising and drainage and culverts. There are some positive elements within the policy which should be retained. There are other areas of the policy which could be usefully changed:

requirement for local development plans to “indicate circumstances where a freeboard allowance should apply” should be deleted;

surface water management plans should be required;

clarity on what is meant by new flood risk management measures in relation to new development;

SUDs should be identified within a separate section of the document and the visual/biodiversity aspects of SUDs features should be included;

a clearer link between the objectives of the Water Framework Directive and the River Basin Management Plans; and

SPP treats surface water only in terms of its effects on a watercourse, not as a flood risk in itself. Surface water is usually dealt with by the drainage system, but the policy does not take account of the different standards.

Waste Management 2.31 SPP sets out policy in relation to locations for new facilities and landfill. SPP should continue to advise, based on the proximity principle, that waste transfer stations, separation and handling installations are best located in towns and cities. Currently, energy from waste facilities and their locational factors are set out in the renewable energy section. It would be useful to have these together in the waste section. Clarity is required on where the national guidance on identifying sites and assessing suitability will be. Guidance should be provided on which facilities should be identified in Strategic Development Plans and which in Local Development Plans.

3. Recommendations

3.1 It is recommended that the Committee approves Appendices 1 and 2 as the Council’s response to the Scottish Government review of Scottish Planning Policy.

Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities

Links

Coalition pledges P8 – Make sure the city’s people are well-housed, including encouraging developers to build residential communities, starting with brownfield sites. P17 - Continue efforts to develop the city’s gap sites and encourage regeneration. P50 – Meet greenhouse gas targets, including the national targets of 42% by 2020. 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. Single Outcome SO4 – Edinburgh’s communities are safer and have improved Agreement physical and social fabric.

Appendices Appendix 1 - Response by the City of Edinburgh Council to the Scottish Government’s Consultation “Scottish Planning Policy – * Priorities for Change”

Appendix 2 - Priorities for Change Forms

Appendix 1

Response by the City of Edinburgh Council to the Scottish Government’s Consultation “Scottish Planning Policy – Priorities for Change"

The review of SPP is welcomed. There is a need to bring the document up to date and ensure it is relevant to the current context. The review offers an opportunity to consider how policy topics relate to each other and provide integration. A more integrated approach should assist in identifying conflicts between the outcomes for planning and setting priorities for dealing with them.

There are many areas of the SPP which work well. It is important that those elements which are working well are not lost in the review.

Flexibility to apply policy to suit local circumstances, such as in affordable housing policy, should be retained. The current policy states that, where there are conflicts between objectives, decisions should be made in line with local priorities. This balance between setting what is required and allowing local priorities to be set should be retained.

The current document sets out policy on a broad range of topics. Separation of policy into subjects is helpful to the user in identifying relevant policy. However presenting the policy under so many separate sections can make it difficult to properly interpret the connections between policy subjects and the priority that should be given where policies compete against each other. There needs to be better linkages throughout the policy. Presenting the document on a more themed basis may be more helpful. In particular housing, town centres and transport should be better linked.

The document is dense and text based. The breadth of policy which is included necessitates a lengthy document. The document could be more user friendly by separating out the policies from the explanation to make them more readily identifiable.

Clearer focus is required upfront setting out what the policy is trying to achieve. Planning is outcome focussed. The emphasis on achieving desired outcomes is highlighted through the Planning Performance Framework. The present document contains a section on outcomes at the rear of the document. Within the revised SPP, more prominence should be given to outcomes, and how progress towards them can be measured through the Planning Performance Framework.

The review of the SPP intends to focus the policy on sustainable growth while emphasising place making. Para 257 of the current SPP states that the planning system should be judged by the extent to which it maintains and creates places where people want to live, work and spend time. This is key and should be reflected throughout the policy. Place making is about providing places that people want to live in and spend time in. There is little reference to people within the current policy. It is acknowledged that the SPP does not intend to restate policy provided elsewhere, however the policy framework set out in Designing Places is critical to delivery of the policy and it would be useful if it were referred to within the document. It would also be helpful to set out the role of Architecture and Design Scotland in supporting the creation of successful places.

The policy should recognise that ultimately the planning system is about providing desirable places. Creating successful places will lead to sustainable economic growth.

Priorities for Change forms are provided for the following cross-cutting and subject policy areas:

Development Plans

Community Engagement

Sustainable Development

Sustainable Economic Growth

Town Centres and Retailing

Housing

Historic Environment

Landscape and Natural Heritage

Open Space and Physical Activity

Green Belts

Transport

Renewable Energy

Flooding and Drainage

Waste Management

Appendix 2

Response by the City of Edinburgh Council to the Scottish Government’s Consultation “Scottish Planning Policy”.

Priorities for Change

Contact Details

Name : Lindsay Robertson Organisation : City of Edinburgh Council Telephone No : 0131 469 3932 Email : [email protected] Address : G3 Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Policy Ideas The review is of the SPP as a whole – please consider connections and tensions between policy subjects

Policy Subject/s : Development Plans

What works?

Current SPP on development plans is helpful. In particular: • Para 11. Very useful to say development plans should indicate where development, including regeneration, should happen and where it should not. And that development plans should be accessible and concise and written in plain language; • Para 14. Inclusion of infrastructure is important; • Very useful to include ‘Only policies that provide a clear indication of how a decision maker will react to a development proposal should be included in the plan.’; • Para 16. Important to continue policy that issues of infrastructure investment are addressed in development plans and not left to be resolved through the development management process; and • Para 17. Expectations of development plans are useful: • sharp focus on land and infrastructure • make more use of maps and plans • contain policies and proposals that will achieve predictable outcomes. • Para 20. Monitoring should focus on what has changed • Para 21. Should focus on what has to change rather than invite the re-opening of settled issues.

What doesn’t work? • Para 10 and 19. There should not be an assumption that supplementary guidance will form part of the development plan. • Para 18. The reference to action programmes assumes a two yearly update. An annual update should be required.

Why? See above.

Whilst we need to understand the issues, we ask that comments focus on the possible solutions.

What changes and/or solutions could be made to the policy to focus it on sustainable economic growth and to emphasise place making? No changes suggested in relation to development plans.

Contact Details

Name : Lindsay Robertson Organisation : City of Edinburgh Council Telephone No : 0131 469 3932 Email : [email protected] Address : G3 Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Policy Ideas

The review is of the SPP as a whole – please consider connections and tensions between policy subjects

Policy Subject/s : Community Engagement

What works? SPP sets out expectations for community engagement. Engagement should be meaningful and occur from the earliest stages in the planning process. The expectations remain relevant. It is important that policy continues to refer to community engagement and refers to PAN 3/2010. This provides an important "hook" within Scottish Policy to what is then simply advice.

What doesn’t work? The policy works.

Why?

N/A

Whilst we need to understand the issues, we ask that comments focus on the possible solutions.

What changes and/or solutions could be made to the policy to focus it on sustainable economic growth and to emphasise place making? There are no changes suggested to the policy.

Contact Details

Name : Lindsay Robertson Organisation : City of Edinburgh Council Telephone No : 0131 469 3932 Email : [email protected] Address : G3 Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Policy Ideas

The review is of the SPP as a whole – please consider connections and tensions between policy subjects

Policy Subject/s : Sustainable Development

What works? SPP provides a good overall setting of the context of sustainable development.

What doesn’t work?

• Very limited in terms of setting an agenda for adapting to the consequences of unavoidable climate change. Successful adaptation of current and future infrastructure is crucial in the light of the growing consensus that limiting global warming to below 2 degrees is now unavoidable.

• Phrases used are general and as a result meaningless. It is not clear how some of them relate to the planning system. E.g. “promote the development of mixed communities, consider the lifecycle of the development”.

Why?

See above.

Whilst we need to understand the issues, we ask that comments focus on the possible solutions.

What changes and/or solutions could be made to the policy to focus it on sustainable economic growth and to emphasise place making?

A national policy/priority/focus on supporting the development of 'sustainable food cities' (sfc).

Sfc's can broadly be described as cities which recognise food as a key driver for positive change. Features include collaboration between the community, public, and private sectors to develop a reliable resilient and equitable system for producing and distributing healthy food in a way which enhances environmental, social and economic wellbeing.

So, for example, to support sfc's therefore would involve looking at land use both in the cities and in their rural hinterlands where 'local' food is/could be produced.

Contact Details

Name : Lindsay Robertson Organisation : City of Edinburgh Council Telephone No : 0131 469 3932 Email : [email protected] Address : G3 Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Policy Ideas

The review is of the SPP as a whole – please consider connections and tensions between policy subjects

Policy Subject/s : Sustainable Economic Growth

What works? • Signposting is provided which helps to identify the context in which sustainable economic growth is to be understood.

What doesn’t work? • The SPP narrative has very little to say about sustainable economic growth. It fails to provide it’s a clear definition of sustainable economic growth and the meaning of ‘sustainable’ in this context.

Why?

• The planning system cannot be effective in delivering sustainable economic growth if the parameters for its delivery by the planning system are not clearly established by the SPP.

Whilst we need to understand the issues, we ask that comments focus on the possible solutions.

What changes and/or solutions could be made to the policy to focus it on sustainable economic growth and to emphasise place making?

See above

Contact Details

Name : Lindsay Robertson Organisation : City of Edinburgh Council Telephone No : 0131 469 3932 Email : [email protected] Address : G3 Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Policy Ideas

The review is of the SPP as a whole – please consider connections and tensions between policy subjects

Policy Subject/s : Town Centres and Retailing

What works?

The general thrust of the policy remains appropriate. While the economic context may have changed the overall approach that town centres should be the focus for retail and commercial leisure should continue. The sequential approach supports the aims of place making and economic growth. The policy of assessing centres is important in providing the evidence base for the development plan. It is important that this is retained. The policy of identifying a network of centres and defining the role of these centres provides a useful approach.

What doesn’t work?

The policy generally works however there are some areas where clarification is required.

• Emphasis should be placed upon the character of town centres and the mix of uses that they have. The importance of town centres as places needs to be emphasised.

• For policy purposes town centres encompass centres of widely differing scale and role, ranging from major regional centres to suburban centres and centres in smaller towns. It would be helpful for policy to acknowledge the particular significance of Scotland’s city centres to place-making and sustainable economic growth, and the need to take a long-term view of their vitality and viability in the face of cumulative development pressures in their hinterland over many years.

• The network of centres sets out what a commercial centre is but does not explain its role in the network.

• Policy states that investment to maintain and improve commercial centres should be supported where the centres are part of the network and where such investment will not undermine town centres (para. 55). It would be helpful to include a further stipulation that such investment should support the role of the commercial centre as set out in the development plan (in accordance with the guidance in para 53).

• Vitality and viability indicators refer to pedestrian flows. An understanding of how town centres are used is required to assess the health of a town centre. .Should also take account of the length of time people spend within an area. An understanding of public space analysis is needed.

• The sequential approach is a necessary element to protect centres and should be retained however there are elements of the policy that are confusing. Para 64 sets out that when a proposed development is contrary to the development plan, planning authorities should ensure that certain criteria are met. One of the criteria is that the proposal will help to meet qualitative and quantitative deficiencies identified in the development plan. It would seem to be impossible to satisfy this criterion as if the development were required it would be identified in the plan and therefore would not be contrary to it. More generally, the 4 criteria in para. 64 are often incorporated in development plan policies, and so have to be evaluated before establishing whether a proposal is contrary to the development plan. This potentially leads to a circular argument.

• For clarification the reference in para 63 (line 7) to “more central options” could be changed to “sequentially preferable”.

• Clarification on the relationship between “need” (para. 55) or “deficiency” (para. 64) and the sequential approach would be helpful. Is the purpose of the sequential approach to identify the most appropriate location to remedy a deficiency ? If no quantitative or qualitative deficiency is identified, does this render the sequential approach potentially unhelpful as it could lead to unnecessary development in inappropriate locations ?

• Planning authorities should ensure in assessing applications that the criteria have been met. It should be made clear in the policy (para 64) that the onus is on the developer to demonstrate that the criteria have been addressed.

• More guidance on the scope of ‘cumulative’ impact (para 64) and how this is taken into account over the longer term would be useful, i.e. the impact of several developments over many years can undermine the role of a city or town centre, but how should this be factored into the consideration of individual development proposals which on their own may only lead to modest trade diversion ?

• It should be made clear that there are other circumstances in which RIA will be necessary not just based on size. Smaller developments not in accordance with the development plan strategy should also be subject to this requirement.

• Commercial leisure and retail are subject to ‘retail impact assessment’. The methodology and data for assessing commercial leisure proposals are poorly developed and guidance on a national methodology would be useful.

Why?

• Clarity required on certain issues.

Whilst we need to understand the issues, we ask that comments focus on the possible solutions.

What changes and/or solutions could be made to the policy to focus it on sustainable economic growth and to emphasise place making?

• The current policy supports the aims of economic growth and place making. It contains a good balance between pro-active and restrictive measures, and leaves enough discretion for planning authorities to take cognisance of local circumstances whilst also supporting national priorities.

• It would be helpful to set out the objectives of retail policy. Objectives set out in previous policy were useful. In particular the reference to not using the planning system to protect the competitive interests of individual retailers. • Promote distinct, competitive places and encourage regeneration, in order to create town centres that are attractive to investors and suited to the generation of new employment opportunities. This means identifying the most appropriate location for retailing and other related activities. • Create a climate that enables all sectors of the community to have access to a wide choice of shopping, leisure and other services and for gaps and deficiencies in provision to be remedied. This means supporting an efficient, competitive and innovative retail and leisure sector which meets the needs of the entire community. It does not mean using the planning system to protect the competitive interests of individual retailers or other businesses. • Improve the physical quality and sustainability of our town centre environments. This means promoting good quality design, protecting and enhancing existing quality, supporting the creation of town centres which are safe, inclusive and attractive for everyone and which promote sustainable management of water and energy. • Support development in existing accessible locations or in locations where accessibility can be improved. This means encouraging developments that are accessible to all, reduce the need to travel and provide alternatives to car use by being served by a choice of modes of transport.

• The policy should refer to the pressure that town centres are under. There is a need for strong policies to ensure that town centres can continue to provide a focus for a mix of uses. The balance of the policy should remain. All centres are finding the current economic circumstances difficult. It is important that the strategy is not thrown off track for short term thinking. The policy does not prevent new entrants from entering the market in the right places.

• There is little evidence that retail developments lead to new net job creation except in the very short- term; instead they appear to have a displacement effect, and this should perhaps be recognised and evaluated under the heading of retail impact assessments.

• Cross referencing between policy areas would be helpful to recognise the role of retailing in creating successful places. Para 52 refers to integration with residential areas. There needs to be mention of retail and its role in creating places within the housing section.

• City centres are key drivers of the economy and key contributors to sustainable economic growth. Policy should recognise the role of city centres as a focus for a mix of uses and ensure that the legitimate aspirations for city centres can be realised.

• Town centre strategies and analysis will result in better places. The use of supplementary guidance can provide unique solutions for town centres. The engagement associated with supplementary guidance can provide an understanding of how places work.

Contact Details

Name : Lindsay Robertson Organisation : City of Edinburgh Council Telephone No : 0131 469 3932 Email : [email protected] Address : G3 Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Policy Ideas

The review is of the SPP as a whole – please consider connections and tensions between policy subjects

Policy Subject/s : Housing

What works?

The flexibility which the policy allows is welcome, particularly in relation to affordable housing. The use of terms such as ‘generous supply’ create much debate, however it is recognised that the policy applies to areas with widely differing circumstances and it would not be helpful to further define what is meant by this term.

What doesn’t work?

There are certain elements of the policy which require clarification:

• There is often confusion about the figures set out in local housing strategies and requirement identified in the development plan. Para 70 states that the ‘housing requirement for an area identified in the local housing strategy and development plan should be based on the outcome of the housing need and demand assessment’. There should be qualification within this section that the demand figure may be different to the housing requirement and that this is acceptable.

There are terms used within the SPP which are unclear:

• Para 80. ‘whether the development can be achieved within the required timeframe’. ?

• The Glossary defines effective housing land supply and housing requirement. This definition of housing requirement is not appropriate. Housing requirement should not necessarily be based upon projected population.

SPP acknowledges that the delivery of housing land is not solely reliant on allocation of land. Para 75 requires a 5 year effective land supply. There should be less emphasis on allocations as consents may be in place but not being delivered.

The section on affordable housing lacks focus. It would be helpful to set out the purpose of providing affordable housing.

The affordable housing policy sets out a range of housing tenures. This includes perpetual and non- perpetual tenures. As an approved tenure it is difficult to reasonably refuse the provision of shared equity housing within affordable housing contributions. Shared equity provides affordable housing for a short time and could be questioned as a tenure to achieve sustainable communities. Perpetual tenures appear to be an exception. Para 87 sets out the use of supplementary guidance in circumstances where housing to meet an identified need for affordable housing should remain in perpetuity. This should be the preference unless viability dictates otherwise.

Why? Interpretation of terms set out in policy can create issues. There needs to be a clear direction set out to focus on what the policy is trying to achieve otherwise interpretation is difficult.

Whilst we need to understand the issues, we ask that comments focus on the possible solutions.

What changes and/or solutions could be made to the policy to focus it on sustainable economic growth and to emphasise place making?

Affordable housing could benefit from a statement of aims to provide clarity over what should be achieved through the provision of affordable housing. The main purpose should be set out: ‘To meet identified allocation of housing need by using approved affordable tenures in ways that create integrated mixed, sustainable communities’.

Promoting perpetual affordable housing tenures within the policy could assist in creating integrated mixed sustainable communities.

Not singling out housing and framing policy around the creation of places. There are elements within the housing section which apply to development in general. The importance of these elements to creating successful places is important and should not be attributed to housing alone. Para 77, 84,85 relating to settlements would be better placed elsewhere.

More focus on delivery and what the planning system can and can’t do to facilitate this.

Contact Details

Name : Lindsay Robertson Organisation : City of Edinburgh Council Telephone No : 0131 469 3932 Email : [email protected] Address : G3 Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Policy Ideas

The review is of the SPP as a whole – please consider connections and tensions between policy subjects

Policy Subject/s : Historic Environment

What works?

The policies relating to the historic environment are important in providing protection and in particular for our undesignated archaeological sites and monuments. The policy assists planning authorities to use the planning system to manage and protect Scotland’s undesignated heritage assets. The policy does not impede development rather supports the aims of Scottish Governments Planning and Historic Environment Policies (SHEP). The cross referencing to the historic environment throughout the document is welcomed. It is important that the policy is retained and its link to PAN2/2011 emphasised.

What doesn’t work?

• Reference to the role of development plans in providing the framework for the historic environment should be included at the beginning of the section. Para 110 Sentence beginning “Development Plans (beginning of paragraph 112) remove the word should and move the sentence to para 110 beginning after the sentence “Planning authorities can help safeguard historic assets through development plans and development management decisions”. • Policy on conservation areas includes the term neutral effect. Concern with regards to the use of the phrase “neutral effect”. Does no harm, in effect, is the same as preserves as it neither enhances nor detracts from the character or appearance of the conservation area. Suggest “A proposed development that does no harm should be treated as one that preserves the character or appearance” • There should be reference to the public realm as part of the historic environment. Para 111 sets out that that the ‘historic environment includes ancient monuments, archaeological sites and landscape, historic buildings, townscapes, parks and gardens and designed landscapes and other features. Public realm should be included here. • Para 111- ‘In most cases, the historic environment can accommodate change’ should be changed to say ‘in many cases.’ • Reference to setting within para 113 would be more logically located within para 111 to begin after the sentence “Planning authorities should support the best viable use that is compatible with the fabric, setting and character of the historic environment.” • Where archaeological discoveries are made during any development the policy should reflect PAN 2/2011 which states that the local authority archaeologist will offer advice on the mitigation measures which should be applied by the developer to ensure appropriate excavation, reporting and analysis. This would provide clarity on the role of the developer. • Could include a reference to proposals which benefit from permitted development rights and the need to consult the local authority archaeologist.

Why? Clarification required on certain issues.

Whilst we need to understand the issues, we ask that comments focus on the possible solutions.

What changes and/or solutions could be made to the policy to focus it on sustainable economic growth and to emphasise place making?

• The current policy allows for the development of Scotland’s heritage which contributes to sustainable economic growth. • There could be a statement to say that character appraisals should be mandatory prior to the designation of conservation areas.

Contact Details

Name : Lindsay Robertson Organisation : City of Edinburgh Council Telephone No : 0131 469 3932 Email : [email protected] Address : G3 Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Policy Ideas

The review is of the SPP as a whole – please consider connections and tensions between policy subjects

Policy Subject/s : Landscape and Natural Heritage

What works?

The document works well and includes most relevant and appropriate topics. Apart from necessary updates and new issues substantial change would not be desirable.

What doesn’t work?

There is confusion over some terms used in the policy: SNH Guidance 2005 proposed that for consistency all local authorities should name their local designations Special Landscape Area (SLA). The term Local Landscape Area causes potential confusion with Local Character Area. Policy should be clear about following SNH guidance and advise that updated landscape designations should be called SLAs

There are a number of inclusions which would improve the policy:

• Para 127 states that siting and design of development should be informed by landscape character. This should also be informed by local designations and related policy.

• The importance of local priorities should be mentioned in relation to the duty to conserve biodiversity. Many species of local importance may not be protected under national or international law, but nevertheless are important considerations in the planning process. Local Biodiversity Action Plans should be referenced.

• The concept of Integrated Habitat Networks as a tool for planning green networks and promotion of the multi-functional aspect of green networks should be included at para 130. The importance of River Basin Management Planning and consideration of SUDS should also be included.

• There needs to be a clearer steer on the relationship between planning and the HRA process.

Why? There is confusion over some terms and some inclusions which could improve the policy.

Whilst we need to understand the issues, we ask that comments focus on the possible solutions.

What changes and/or solutions could be made to the policy to focus it on sustainable economic growth and to emphasise place making?

• Guidance on Green Infrastructure Design and Placemaking should be specifically referred to and integrated into the document reflecting the increased importance and significance of place making.

• Green networks are important for people and nature. Green network is referenced throughout the SPP. There could be a clearer link to Central Scotland Green Network to recognise its importance in contributing to a range of planning outcomes including creating successful places. Multi disciplinary teams are best placed to implement multifunctional green networks.

• In relation to trees and woodland the importance of tree surveys and constraints assessment to inform initial site appraisal and contribute to design and place making process should be added.

Contact Details

Name : Lindsay Robertson Organisation : City of Edinburgh Council Telephone No : 0131 469 3932 Email : [email protected] Address : G3 Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Policy Ideas

The review is of the SPP as a whole – please consider connections and tensions between policy subjects

Policy Subject/s : Open Space and Physical Activity

What works?

There are many positive elements to the current open space policy.

There are elements of the current SPP which it is important to retain: • Para 151. Should continue to require that authorities undertake audits of open space and how well it meets the needs of their community. • Reference to ‘quality, community value, accessibility and use of open space, not just the quantity’ in para 152. • Para 152. Open space strategy should provide the justification for seeking contributions from developers and should be taken into account when preparing development plans and deciding planning applications. • Para 152. Open space strategies should be reviewed regularly, linked to development plan preparation. • Para 153. When a planning authority grants permission for development which would result in or exacerbate a deficit, replacement open space of an appropriate type, quantity, accessibility and quality should be provided. Poor maintenance and neglect should not be used to justify development of open space which may otherwise be potentially functional and valued. • Para 154. On and off-site provision should be considered, depending on site specific circumstances. • Para 154. Should identify opportunities to create and enhance networks between open spaces and avoid fragmentation.

What doesn’t work?

• The current policy singles out valued and functional open spaces to be identified and protected in the development plan. It would be better to audit all open space and identify it all in the development plan. • Inclusion of proposals for alterations to open space to address deficits or surpluses within the local plan are in some cases too detailed for the development plan. • Para 153. Justification should include evidence from the open space audit that the development will not result in a deficit of open space provision of that type within the local area. However the requirement that alternative sites have been considered is not helpful as there is always an alternative to open space, but it is always more costly.

Why? See above.

Whilst we need to understand the issues, we ask that comments focus on the possible solutions.

What changes and/or solutions could be made to the policy to focus it on sustainable economic growth and to emphasise place making?

There are no changes suggested to focus the open space policy on sustainable economic growth and emphasise place making.

Contact Details

Name : Lindsay Robertson Organisation : City of Edinburgh Council Telephone No : 0131 469 3932 Email : [email protected] Address : G3 Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Policy Ideas

The review is of the SPP as a whole – please consider connections and tensions between policy subjects

Policy Subject/s : Green Belts

What works?

There are many positive elements to the current green belt policy. There are terms which should be retained: • Para 160 – there may be circumstances where coalescence would create a more sustainable settlement pattern. • Para 162 – Green belt boundaries should be clearly identifiable on the ground, using strong visual or physical landscape features such as rivers, tree belt, railways or main roads. Hedges and field enclosures will rarely provide a sufficiently robust boundary.

What doesn’t work? • It is not clear what is intended by the sentence ‘inner boundaries should not be drawn too tightly around the urban edge’ - other than plan releases. This suggests the concept of white land for development in the longer term. But if land is suitable for development it should be identified as a proposal.

Why? Lack of clarity

Whilst we need to understand the issues, we ask that comments focus on the possible solutions.

What changes and/or solutions could be made to the policy to focus it on sustainable economic growth and to emphasise place making?

• In relation to green belt boundaries policy should include reference to the combination of physical landscape features creating a relationship between the developed settlement and countryside which is easily read. This would help authorities set green belt boundaries consistently.

Contact Details

Name : Lindsay Robertson Organisation : City of Edinburgh Council Telephone No : 0131 469 3932 Email : [email protected] Address : G3 Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Policy Ideas

The review is of the SPP as a whole – please consider connections and tensions between policy subjects

Policy Subject/s : Transport

What works?

The policy provides a degree of flexibility which is useful.

What doesn’t work?

• Infrastructure is key to delivering development. Transport is one element of this. It would be helpful if the policy referred to infrastructure and recognised its importance.

• SPP states that development should be supported in locations that are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport, making best use of or adding to existing networks and creating new networks. The policy should recognise that within some areas creating the necessary accessibility will need significant investment in transport infrastructure and/or services.

• Policy relating to transport assessment should refer to Transport Assessment Guidance produced by Transport Scotland.

• Policy relating to the provision of new rail stations is very negative. It would be more helpful to say that there is a need to balance the effects on passengers using existing services and any effects on freight with the benefits of a new station.

• Policy provides minimum car parking requirements for disabled people. It would be helpful to make a statement about the need for these to be suitably located.

• National standards are set for car parking. However the policy then states that, depending on the area, more or less restrictive standards may be appropriate. It would be clearer to make a statement that parking standards should be related to public transport accessibility. Wording could be amended to say that ‘Where an area is well served by sustainable transport modes more restrictive standards should be considered’.

• It would be helpful to introduce wording asking Council’s to set standards for cycle parking that are consistent with the objective in the Scottish Government’s Cycling Action Plan for Scotland of achieving 10% of all trips by bike by 2020. Such standards should include secure and undercover provision for new housing and for all employment –generating land uses.

• Policy states that planning permission should not be granted for significant travel generating uses in locations which would encourage reliance on the private car where certain conditions cannot be met. This could be strengthened by rewording the first two bullets. “For example where • safe convenient and direct walking and cycling links to nearby housing are not available or cannot be made available • there is no immediate and convenient access to a frequent public transport service.”

Why? See above.

Whilst we need to understand the issues, we ask that comments focus on the possible solutions.

What changes and/or solutions could be made to the policy to focus it on sustainable economic growth and to emphasise place making?

• The section could be rebranded ‘movement’ to reflect the importance of walking to creating sustainable places and the prioritisation which the policy gives to walking within para 169. • Transport, housing, retailing and town centres could be brought together to reflect the linkages.

Contact Details

Name : Lindsay Robertson Organisation : City of Edinburgh Council Telephone No : 0131 469 3932 Email : [email protected] Address : G3 Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Policy Ideas

The review is of the SPP as a whole – please consider connections and tensions between policy subjects

Policy Subject/s : Renewable Energy

What works?

The general approach of the policy that planning authorities support the development of range of renewable energy technologies, guide development to appropriate locations and provide clarity on issues to be taken into account when assessing proposals remains sound.

What doesn’t work?

• Clarification is required of the practical implication of the policy to include conditions for the decommissioning of developments. For example, if decommissioning is considered to be necessary then it is not a problem from a legal/planning perspective. However, it can be a bit more difficult from a practical perspective as this may mean holding onto money for 30 years or longer. The alternative would be a requirement on the title (by S75) that the site is properly decommissioned should the land no longer be used for the production of energy. Equally there could be difficulties with this too.

Designation of sites for offshore renewables should be at a national level, and indeed Leith Docks is identified in the National Renewables Infrastructure Plan as an opportunity for manufacturing industry to support off shore renewable energy industry. In January 2012, the Scottish Government also identified Leith Port (low carbon/renewables) in recognition of its importance to the national economy. It should be recognised that flexibility should be given to use classes designation within the areas designated to support the renewable energy industry to allow for a wider diversity of uses.

• Policy only refers to ‘large’ biomass. A planning authority assess biomass applications up to 50MW(e). The definition of large should be clarified in terms of the Planning and Electricity Acts.

• SPP should reflect Scottish Government guidance set out on biomass which states that biomass should only be deployed in heat-only or combined heat and power schemes, be located off the gas- grid, be located outside the urban area and have appropriate and effective abatement systems to control emissions.

Why? • Changes since policy produced. • Definitions unclear.

Whilst we need to understand the issues, we ask that comments focus on the possible solutions.

What changes and/or solutions could be made to the policy to focus it on sustainable economic growth and to emphasise place making?

• A national spatial framework for onshore wind could illustrate and debate how 2020 targets might be met.

Contact Details

Name : Lindsay Robertson Organisation : City of Edinburgh Council Telephone No : 0131 469 3932 Email : [email protected] Address : G3 Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Policy Ideas

The review is of the SPP as a whole – please consider connections and tensions between policy subjects

Policy Subject/s : Flooding and Drainage

What works?

• Flexibility in relation to functional flood plains is useful. Para 203 – states the importance of functional flood plains, without defining them too strictly. This is important, since it gives the local authority the chance to assess every application on its own merits. It would not be possible to classify land as functional flood plains with any certainty of including everything; also many existing developments are at risk of flooding because they are already on flood plains. CEC has drawings showing areas of importance for flood control which are undeveloped flood plain, but makes it clear that a development outwith those areas may well be functional flood plain.

• Risk framework provided is generally good (but see below).

What doesn’t work?

• There are elements of the policy that are difficult to implement. Para 204 states that planning authorities and developers should take into account a number of factors including the “effects of a flood on access including by emergency services “. The policy does not give any guidance on how this is to be done, particularly with respect to road levels. A further factor to be taken into account is “effects of a flood on proposed open spaces including gardens “ likewise, there is no guidance. It would be best removed from the policy.

• Risk framework, low to medium risk areas: o Policy states that “A flood risk assessment may be required at the upper end of the probability range (i.e. close to 0.5%) or where the nature of the development or local circumstances indicate heightened risk. “ This is confusing. Unless a flood risk assessment has been carried out it would be difficult to establish this. It would be better to require a flood risk assessment for every development, but acknowledge that it could be very simple (reference to ground levels or SEPA maps) or complex (full hydraulic modelling). SEPA’s guidelines on flood risk assessment assume the full complex model, which does not help.

o Policy states that low to medium risk areas are generally not suitable for civil infrastructure and “where such infrastructure must be located in these areas or is being substantially extended it should be capable of remaining operational and accessible during extreme flooding events.“ This statement is meaningless as it is not possible to achieve.

o Para 205 states that local development plans should “indicate circumstances where a freeboard allowance should apply”. This is unnecessary and should be deleted.

o Para 205 states that local development plans should “indicate when a drainage assessment will be required because of flood risk “. A drainage assessment should always be necessary, but it is Scottish Water that require a drainage impact assessment, not the local authority. A surface water management plan should be required, perhaps with a lower limit on the area of the site.

• Para 207 –states that “Proposals for development that would require new flood risk management measures should only be promoted through the development plan.” It is difficult to see how this can be achieved and it is not clear what is meant by new measures. After para 206, this is unnecessary.

• Policy on SUDs is set out within the section drainage and culverts. To reflect the importance of SUDs this should be identified within a separate section of the document.

• Para 209 states that where flooding is an issue, SUDS should be designed…… “ In practice, it is assumed flooding is always an issue and always require SUDS. The phrase “where flooding is an issue” should be removed.

• The main omission from the policy is that it treats surface water only in terms of its effects on a watercourse, not as a flood risk in itself. There is no mention of flood risk to new developments from surface water runoff, either from the site or elsewhere. This is a risk which is difficult to predict with any accuracy, but can generally be mitigated by appropriate design of the development. Surface water is usually dealt with by the drainage system, but the policy does not take account of the different standards – drainage & sewerage is usually only designed for a 1:30 event, far lower than the standards required for fluvial (river) flooding. The risk framework gives clear standards of protection but, because of the above, it is assumed that it does not include surface water flood risk.

Why? See above.

Whilst we need to understand the issues, we ask that comments focus on the possible solutions.

What changes and/or solutions could be made to the policy to focus it on sustainable economic growth and to emphasise place making?

• There should be a clearer link between the objectives of the Water Framework Directive and the River Basin Management Plans. • Para 209 sets out policy relating to SUDS. The visual/biodiversity aspects of SUDs features should be included i.e. designed in such a way that they contribute to amenity.

Contact Details

Name : Lindsay Robertson Organisation : City of Edinburgh Council Telephone No : 0131 469 3932 Email : [email protected] Address : G3 Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Policy Ideas

The review is of the SPP as a whole – please consider connections and tensions between policy subjects

Policy Subject/s : Waste Management

What works?

• The preference for waste transfer stations, separation and handling installations to be located in towns and cities based on the proximity principle.

What doesn’t work?

Currently energy from waste facilities and their locational factors, are set out in the renewable energy section. It would be useful to have these together in the waste section. This may avoid repetition.

Clarification is required on a number of elements: • Clarity is required on where the national guidance on identifying sites and assessing suitability will be. This should be made clear in the SPP.

• It should be made clear that the proximity principle is not a matter on which SEPA will comment if waste is from within Scotland. The existing definition of the proximity principle in para 213 is general ‘as close as possible’. This is perhaps not enforceable as long as waste is generated within Scotland.

Why? Lack of clarity.

Whilst we need to understand the issues, we ask that comments focus on the possible solutions.

What changes and/or solutions could be made to the policy to focus it on sustainable economic growth and to emphasise place making?

SPP states that where facilities of more than local importance are required authorities should work together to identify appropriate locations. The National Planning Framework states that provision required at city region level must be made in strategic development plans. There should be more guidance on which facilities should be identified in SDP and which in LDP.

Planning Committee

10.00 a.m, Thursday 28 February 2013

Civic Trust Awards Ceremony 2013 - Invitation

Item number Report number Wards City wide

L inks Links

Coalition pledges P15 Council outcomes CO19 Single Outcome Agreement

Alastair D Maclean Director of Corporate Governance

Contact: David Emerson,

E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 4230

Executive summary

Civic Trust Awards 2013 – Invitation to Attend Awards Ceremony

S um m a ry Summary

The Civic Trust is to present its 2013 Awards at a ceremony to be held at the City Hall, Cardiff, on 9 March 2013. The Council has been invited to present the awards at the ceremony to winners of categories in Scotland.

The Head of Planning and Building Standards considers it would be more appropriate for an elected member to accept the invitation rather than an officer of the authority. The Convener has suggested that Councillor Howat represent the authority at the ceremony.

Recommendations

The Planning Committee is asked to accept the invitation to attend the Civic Trust Awards 2013 ceremony and to nominate a member to represent the authority.

Measures of success

The Council participates in the Civic Trust Awards which recognise and promote the importance of high standards in planning and design.

Financial impact

The organisers have made the invitation and there would be no fee for attendance at the ceremony. The Council would require to meet the travel, subsistence and accommodation costs of any delegate attending.

Equalities impact

There are no equalities impacts arising from attendance at this conference.

Sustainability impact

Travel arrangements will be made in accordance with the Council’s sustainable travel plans.

Consultation and engagement

Planning Committee – 28 February 2013 Page 2 of 3 There are no consultation requirements arising. The invitation provides an opportunity to engage with representatives of UK planning authorities and other professionals in the field.

Background reading / external references

Programme details for the 2013 Civic Awards Ceremony – available on website: www.civictrustawards.org.uk

Links

Coalition pledges P15 - Work with public organisations, the private sector and social enterprise to promote Edinburgh to investors

Council outcomes 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. Single Outcome Agreement Appendices

Planning Committee – 28 February 2013 Page 3 of 3