Do I Need Planning Permission?

Notice of meeting and agenda

The City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body (Panel 1) 10.00am, Wednesday 26 June 2019 Dean of Guild Court Room, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh This is a public meeting and members of the public are welcome to attend.

Contact Email: [email protected]

Tel: 0131 529 4085

1. Appointment of Convener

1.1 The Local Review Body is invited to appoint a Convener from its membership. 2. Order of business

2.1 Including any notices of motion and any other items of business submitted as urgent for consideration at the meeting. 3. Declaration of interests

3.1 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. 4. Minutes

4.1 Minute of the Local Review Body (Panel 1) – 29 May 2019 (circulated) – submitted for approval as a correct record 5. Local Review Body – Procedure

5.1 Note of the outline procedure for consideration of all Requests for Review (circulated) 6. Requests for Review

6.1 76 Clermiston Road, Edinburgh - Extension to mansion to create garage, swimming pool and ancillary accommodation (as amended) – application no 17/05461/FUL (a) Decision Notice and Report of Handling (circulated) (b) Notice of Review and *Supporting Documents (circulated) Notes: 1) The applicant has requested that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents and a site inspection. 2) *Due to the large file size of the supporting documents, these have been circulated in hard copy format to Review Body members. 6.2 70 Greenbank Road, Edinburgh – Formation of a driveway – application no 18/09904/FUL (a) Decision Notice and Report of Handling (circulated) (b) Notice of Review and Supporting Documents (circulated) Note: The applicant has requested that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents only.

The City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 26 June 2019 Page 2 of 4

6.3 41 Saughton Road North, Edinburgh - Demolish existing rear extension and replace existing garage with new single storey side and rear extension; alterations to rear elevation with new windows and doors; erect new garden store within boundary wall with stone to match existing – application no 19/00191/FUL (a) Decision Notice and Report of Handling (circulated) (b) Notice of Review and Supporting Documents (circulated) Note: The applicant has requested that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents only. 6.4 80 (3F1) Spottiswoode Street Edinburgh - Internal alterations to top floor flat to form external roof terrace – application no 18/10286/FUL (a) Decision Notice and Report of Handling (circulated) (b) Notice of Review and Supporting Documents (circulated) Note: The applicant has requested that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents and a site inspection. 7. Extracts of Relevant Policies from the Edinburgh Local Development Plan

7.1 Extracts of Relevant Policies from the Edinburgh Local Development Plan for the above review cases (circulated) Local Development Plan Online Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy DES 5 (Development Design - Amenity) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy DES 12 (Alterations and Extensions) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy ENV 3 (Listed Buildings - Settings) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy ENV 4 (Listed Buildings - Alterations and Extensions) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy ENV 6 (Conservation Areas - Development) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy ENV 12 (Trees) 7.2 Non-Statutory Guidance (a) Guidance for Householders (b) Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Guidance (c) The Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

The City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 26 June 2019 Page 3 of 4

Note: The above policy background papers are available to view on the Council’s website www.edinburgh.gov.uk under Planning and Building Standards/local and strategic development plans/planning guidelines/conservation areas, or follow the links as above.

Laurence Rockey Head of Strategy and Communications Membership Panel 1 Councillors Gordon, Griffiths, Mitchell, Mowat and Staniforth. Information about the City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body

The City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body (LRB) has been established by the Council in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008. The LRB’s remit is to determine any request for a review of a decision on a planning application submitted in terms of the Regulations. The LRB comprises a panel of five Councillors drawn from the eleven members of the Planning Committee. The LRB usually meets every two weeks, with the members rotating in two panels of five Councillors. It usually meets in the Dean of Guild Court Room in the City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh. There is a seated public gallery and the meeting is open to all members of the public. Further information

Members of the LRB may appoint a substitute from the pool of trained members of the Planning Committee. No other member of the Council may substitute for a substantive member. Members appointing a substitute are asked to notify Committee Services (as detailed below) as soon as possible. If you have any questions about the agenda or meeting arrangements, please contact Blair Ritchie on 0131 529 4085, [email protected].

Committee Services, Strategy and Insight, City of Edinburgh Council, Business Centre 2:1, Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh EH8 8BG. A copy of the agenda and papers for this meeting will be available for inspection prior to the meeting at the main reception office, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh. The agenda, minutes and public reports for this meeting and all the main Council committees can be viewed online by going to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/cpol. Unless otherwise indicated on the agenda, no elected members of the Council, applicant, agent or other member of the public may address the meeting.

The City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 26 June 2019 Page 4 of 4

Item 4.1 - Minutes

The City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body (Panel 1) 10.00am, Wednesday 29 May 2019 Present: Councillors Dixon (substituting for Councillor Gordon), Griffiths, Mitchell, Mowat and Staniforth. 1. Appointment of Convener

Councillor Staniforth was appointed as Convener. 2. Minutes

To approve the minute of the Local Review Body (LRB Panel 1) of 1 May 2019 as a correct record. 3. Planning Local Review Body Procedure

Decision To note the outline procedure for consideration of reviews. (Reference – Local Review Body Procedure, submitted) 4. Request for Review – 9 Boswall Green, Edinburgh

Details were submitted of a request for a review for the refusal of planning permission for the alteration to dwellinghouse at 9 Boswall Green, Edinburgh. Application no 18/09743/FUL. Assessment At the meeting on 29 May 2019, the LRB had been provided with copies of the notice of review, including a request that the review proceed on the basis 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 Chief Planning Officer. The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development and responded to further questions. The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01-08 of Scheme 1, being the drawings shown under the application reference number 18/09743/FUL on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services. The LRB, having considered these documents, felt that they had sufficient information before it and agreed to determine the review using the information circulated. The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following:

1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy DES 12 (Alterations and Extensions) 2) Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines. ‘Guidance for Householders’ ‘The Old Town Conservation Area Character Appraisal’ 3) The procedure used to determine the application. 4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward in the request for a review. The LRB carefully considered all the arguments put before it in respect of the proposed planning application and discussion took place in relation to the following issues: • Clarification on whether the application requested modifications to the existing building or a demolition of the existing property • Whether the removal of the hedge and replacement with a fence required planning permission or could be allowed under permitted development and clarification that a 1m fence would be allowed as the proposal was not within a conservation area. • That the extension would be contrary to LDP Policy Des 12. Conclusion Having taken all the above matters into consideration, 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 Chief Planning Officer. Decision To uphold the decision by the Chief Planning Officer to refuse planning permission. Reasons for Refusal: The proposal would be contrary to Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy Des 12 because its scale, form and design were unacceptable and would not accord with the character and appearance of the host property or the surrounding area. This was contrary to ELDP Policy Des 12 and the non-statutory Guidance for Householders. (References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted) 5. Request for Review – 42 Grange House, Edinburgh

Details were submitted of a request for a review for the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a single storey extension to form a fully accessible dwellinghouse at 42 Grange Road, Edinburgh. Application no 18/10070/FUL. Assessment At the meeting on 29 May 2019, the LRB had been provided with copies of the notice of review, including a request that the review proceed on the basis of the review

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 29.05.19 Page 2 of 8 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 Chief Planning Officer. The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development and responded to further questions. The plans used to determine the application were numbered 1, 2, 3a, 4a, 5 of Scheme 2, being the drawings shown under the application reference number 18/10070/FUL on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services. The LRB, having considered these documents, felt that they had sufficient information before it and agreed to determine the review using the information circulated. The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy DES 1 (Design Quality and Context) Policy DES 3 (Development Design – Incorporating and Enhancing Existing and Potential Features) Policy DES 4 (Development Design – Impact on Setting) Policy DES 5 (Development Design – Amenity) Policy DES 12 (Alterations and Extensions) Policy ENV 6 (Conservation Areas - Development) Policy ENV 16 (Species Protection) Policy ENV 21 (Flood Protection) Policy HOU 1 (Housing Development) Policy HOU 3 (Private Green Space in Housing Development) Policy TRA 2 (Private Car Parking) Policy TRA 4 (Design of Off-Street Car and Cycle Parking) 2) Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines. ‘Edinburgh Design Guidance’ ‘The Grange Conservation Area Character Appraisal’ ‘Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Guidance’ 3) The procedure used to determine the application. 4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward in the request for a review. The LRB carefully considered all the arguments put before it in respect of the proposed planning application and discussion took place in relation to the following issues: • That many gardens of upper flats within the city are not directly accessed and therefore this is not a reason for refusal.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 29.05.19 Page 3 of 8 • That many of the policies listed in the Report of Handling could be interpreted differently, as under LDP Des 1 it could be argued that this is a good design, however under LDP Env 6, it could be argued that the proposal would be out of character with the large gardens typical of the area. • That the design was attempting to reflect the surrounding area. • That the LRB were sympathetic to the need to transform a residence for health purposes. • That the extension was more appropriate than the collection of outbuildings that were currently on the site. • That the extension would not overwhelm the existing property. • That the extension would not be highly visible behind the boundary wall. • That it was important that the applicant was able to stay within their community. • That it was a well-designed plan that would not be detrimental to the area. • That there would still be a substantial garden area remaining. Conclusion Having taken all these matters into consideration, the LRB determined that the proposals would not be contrary to either LDP Policy Des 1 as the proposed design was acceptable for this location, nor Env 6 as the removal of the existing extension would have a positive impact on the area and the proposed development would not be highly visible behind the boundary wall, and therefore would be in keeping with the character of the area. It therefore overturned the decision of the Chief Planning Officer and granted planning permission. Decision To not uphold the decision by the Chief Planning Officer and to grant planning permission subject to: The following informatives: (a) The development hereby permitted should be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent. (b) No development should take place on the site until a ‘Notice of Initiation of Development’ had been submitted to the Council stating the intended date on which the development was to commence. Failure to do so constituted a breach of planning control under section 123(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. (c) 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)

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 29.05.19 Page 4 of 8 6. Request for Review – 44 Harlaw Road (at Land 94m East of), Edinburgh

Details were submitted of a request for a review for the refusal of planning permission for the construction of single storey dwelling at 44 Harlaw Road (at Land 94m East of), Edinburgh. Application no 18/02748/FUL. Assessment At the meeting on 29 May 2019, the LRB had been provided with copies of the notice of review, including a request that the review proceed on the basis of the review documents only. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Chief Planning Officer. The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development and responded to further questions. The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01-04 of Scheme 1, being the drawings shown under the application reference number 18/02748/FUL on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services. The LRB, having considered these documents, felt that they had sufficient information before it and agreed to determine the review using the information circulated. The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy DES 1 (Design Quality and Context) Policy DES 3 (Development Design – Incorporating and Enhancing Existing and Potential Features) Policy DES 4 (Development Design – Impact on Setting) Policy DES 5 (Development Design – Amenity) Policy DES 12 (Alterations and Extensions) Policy ENV 6 (Conservation Areas - Development) Policy ENV 10 (Development in the Green Belt and Countryside) Policy ENV 12 (Trees) Policy ENV 16 (Species Protection) Policy ENV 21 (Flood Protection) Policy HOU 1 (Housing Development) Policy HOU 3 (Private Green Space in Housing Development) Policy HOU 4 (Housing Density) Policy TRA 2 (Private Car Parking) Policy TRA 3 (Private Cycle Parking) 2) Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 29.05.19 Page 5 of 8 ‘Development in the Countryside and Green Belt’ ‘Edinburgh Design Guidance’ 3) The procedure used to determine the application. 4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward in the request for a review. The LRB carefully considered all the arguments put before it in respect of the proposed planning application and discussion took place in relation to the following issues: • Clarification on the photographs shown in the supporting statement and that Scottish Water works were taking place partially within the site area. • Clarification on whether the site was currently in use and that it was a horse paddock. • That there was sympathy for the proposal of an eco-house but that the development was not permitted in the green belt. • That the claim that the site was a brownfield site was erroneous. • That there was a question of whether the accommodation would support countryside activities but the LRB did not think it applied in this case. • That there was not sufficient evidence to overturn the officer recommendations in this instance. Conclusion Having taken all the above matters into consideration, 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 Chief Planning Officer. Decision To uphold the decision by the Chief Planning Officer to refuse planning permission. Reasons for Refusal: 1) The proposal would be contrary to policy Env 10 of the adopted Local Development Plan (LDP) and the Council's Guidance for Development in the Countryside and Green Belt as it would involve the development of a new build dwellinghouse in a green belt location with no exceptional planning reason to justify a dwelling house in this location and would detract from the landscape quality and rural character of the area. 2) The proposal would be contrary to the adopted Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policies Des 3 and Env 11 as the location of the proposal would have an adverse impact on the special character and quality of this Special Landscape Area. 3) The proposal would be contrary to the Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Env 16 Species Protection, as an inadequate level of information had been submitted to allow for the assessment of any protected species.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 29.05.19 Page 6 of 8 4) The proposal would be contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Env 21 Flood Protection, as it could not be demonstrated that the proposal would not raise any concerns in respect of flooding. (References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted) 7. Request for Review – 20 Whitson Grove, Edinburgh

Details were submitted of a request for a review for the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a house at 20 Whitson Grove, Edinburgh. Application no 18/10212/PPP. Assessment At the meeting on 29 May 2019, the LRB had been provided with copies of the notice of review, including a request that the review proceed on the basis of the review documents only. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Chief Planning Officer. The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development and responded to further questions. The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01-03 of Scheme 1, being the drawings shown under the application reference number 18/10212/PPP on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services. The LRB, having considered these documents, felt that they had insufficient information before it and agreed to visit the site before determining the review. When they returned from the site visit, the LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy DES 1 (Design Quality and Context) Policy DES 4 (Development Design – Impact on Setting) Policy HOU 1 (Housing Development) Policy HOU 4 (Housing Density) 2) Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines. ‘Edinburgh Design Guidance’ 3) The procedure used to determine the application. 4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward in the request for a review. The LRB carefully considered all the arguments put before it in respect of the proposed planning application and discussion took place in relation to the following issues: • Whether there were any indicative sizes of the proposed dwellinghouse. • Whether the garden space was for the existing property.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 29.05.19 Page 7 of 8 • That it was for planning permission in principle and therefore the decision needed to be based on the area and whether a house would be acceptable there. • That there was a need to increase the housing stock in the city as long as it was not detrimental to the area. • That conditions would need to be attached if permission was granted. • That corner plots of land like these provided vital greenspace to the area that would better serve the area than housing. • That a site visit was needed to fully understand the dimensions of the plot. • That the LRB did not feel like a suitable house that would comply to policy could be built on the plot. Conclusion Having taken all the above matters into consideration, 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 Chief Planning Officer. Decision To uphold the decision by the Chief Planning Officer to refuse planning permission. Reasons for Refusal: The proposal would be contrary to policies Hou 1, Hou 4, Des 1 and Des 4 of the adopted Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP) and the Edinburgh Design Guidance. The proposal would not be acceptable as it would have a detrimental impact on the spatial character of the surrounding area. (References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted)

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 29.05.19 Page 8 of 8 Item 5.1

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body (the LRB)

General 1. Each meeting of the LRB shall appoint a Convener. A quorum of a meeting of the LRB will be three members. 2. The Clerk will introduce and deal with statutory items (Order of Business and Declarations of Interest) and will introduce each request for review. 3. The LRB will normally invite the planning adviser to highlight the issues raised in the review. 4. The LRB will only accept new information where there are exceptional circumstances as to why it was not available at the time of the planning application. The LRB will formally decide whether this new information should be taken into account in the review. The LRB may at any time ask questions of the planning adviser, the Clerk, or the legal adviser, if present. 5. Having considered the applicant’s preference for the procedure to be used, and other information before it, the LRB shall decide how to proceed with the review. 6. If the LRB decides that it has sufficient information before it, it may proceed to consider the review using only the information circulated to it. The LRB may decide it has insufficient information at any stage prior to the formal decision being taken. 7. If the LRB decides that it does not have sufficient information before it, it will decide which one of, or combination of, the following procedures will be used: • further written submissions; • the holding of one or more hearing sessions; and/or • an accompanied or unaccompanied inspection of the land to which the review relates. 8. Whichever option the LRB selects, it shall comply with legislation set out in the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 (the Regulations). The LRB may hold a pre-examination meeting to decide upon the manner in which the review, or any part of it, is to be conducted. If the LRB decides to seek further information, it will specify what further information is required in a written notice to be issued to the applicant, Chief Planning Officer and any interested parties. The content of any further submissions must be restricted to the matters specified in the written notice. In determining the outcome of the review, the LRB will have regard to the requirements of paragraphs 11 and 12 below. 9. The LRB may adjourn any meeting to such time and date as it may then or later decide. Considering the Request for Review 10. Unless material considerations indicate otherwise, the LRB’s determination must be made in accordance with the development plan that is legally in force. Any un-adopted development plan does not have the same weight but will be a material consideration. The LRB is making a new decision on the application and must take the ‘de novo’ approach. 11. The LRB will: • Identify the relevant policies of the Development Plan and interpret any provisions relating to the proposal, for and against, and decide whether the proposal accords with the Development Plan; • identify all other material planning considerations relevant to the proposal and assess the weight to be given to these, for and against, and whether there are considerations of such weight as to indicate that the Development Plan should not be given priority; • take into account only those issues which are relevant planning considerations; • ensure that the relevant provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 are assessed when the review relates to a listed building and/or conservation area; and • in coming to a determination, only review the information presented in the Notice of Review or that from further procedure. 12. The LRB will then determine the review. It may: • uphold the officer’s determination; • uphold the officer’s determination subject to amendments or additions to the reasons for refusal; • grant planning permission, in full or in part; • impose conditions, or vary conditions imposed in the original determination; • determine the review in cases of non-determination. Procedure after determination 13. The Clerk will record the LRB’s decision. 14. In every case, the LRB must give notice of the decision (“a decision notice”) to the applicant. Every person who has made, and has not withdrawn, representations in respect of the review, will be notified of the location where a copy of the decision notice is available for inspection. Depending on the decision, the planning adviser may provide assistance with the framing of conditions of consent or with amended reasons for refusal. 15. The Decision Notice will comply with the requirements of regulation 22. 16. The decision of the LRB is final, subject to the right of the applicant to question the validity of the decision by making an application to the Court of Session. Such application must be made within 6 weeks of the date of the decision. The applicant will be advised of these and other rights by means of a Notice as specified in Schedule 2 to the regulations. Item 6.1(a)

W N Thomson & Co. Mr Tuli. James Ringham 74 Clermiston Road 84 Main Street Edinburgh Edinburgh EH12 6UZ EH4 5AB

Decision date: 5 March 2019

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACTS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013

Extension to mansion to create garage, swimming pool and ancillary accommodation (as amended). At 76 Clermiston Road Edinburgh EH12 6UX

Application No: 17/05461/FUL DECISION NOTICE

With reference to your application for Planning Permission registered on 22 November 2017, this has been decided by Local Delegated Decision. The Council in exercise of its powers under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts and regulations, now determines the application as Refused in accordance with the particulars given in the application.

Any condition(s) attached to this consent, with reasons for imposing them, or reasons for refusal, are shown below;

Conditions:-

Reasons:-

1. The proposals do not comply with Policy Env 3, Env 4, Env 12 and Des 12 of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan, Non-Statutory Guidance for Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas and Non-Statutory Guidance for Householders. The proposed extension is not of an appropriate scale, form or design and would have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the listed building. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

Alan Moonie, Team manager, Local Developments and LB West, Place Directorate. Tel 0131 529 3909, Email [email protected], Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Please see the guidance notes on our decision page for further information, including how to appeal or review your decision.

Drawings 01A -12A, represent the determined scheme. Full details of the application can be found on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services

The reason why the Council made this decision is as follows:

The proposals do not comply with Policy Env 3, Env 4, Env 12 and Des 12 of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan, Non-Statutory Guidance for Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas and Non-Statutory Guidance for Householders. The proposed extension is not of an appropriate scale, form or design and would have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the listed building. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

This determination does not carry with it any necessary consent or approval for the proposed development under other statutory enactments.

Should you have a specific enquiry regarding this decision please contact Alan Moonie directly on 0131 529 3909.

Chief Planning Officer PLACE The City of Edinburgh Council

NOTES

1. If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision to refuse permission for or approval required by a condition in respect of the proposed development, or to grant permission or approval subject to conditions, the applicant may require the planning authority to review the case under section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 within three months beginning with the date of this notice. The Notice of Review can be made online at www.eplanning.scot or forms can be downloaded from that website. Paper forms should be addressed to the City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body, G.2, Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG. For enquiries about the Local Review Body, please email [email protected].

2. If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions and the owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state and cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, the owner of the land may serve on the planning authority a purchase notice requiring the purchase of the owner of the land's interest in the land accordance with Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Report of Handling

Application for Planning Permission 17/05461/FUL At 76 Clermiston Road, Edinburgh, EH12 6UX Extension to mansion to create garage, swimming pool and ancillary accommodation (as amended).

Item Local Delegated Decision Application number 17/05461/FUL Wards B03 - Drum Brae/Gyle

Summary

Links

Policies and guidance for LDPP, LEN03, LEN04, LDES12, NSG, NSHOU, this application NSLBCA, LEN12,

Development Management report of handling – Page 1 of 10 17/05461/FUL Report of handling

Recommendations

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

2.1 Site description

The site is a large three storey sandstone Victorian mansion house within 2.765 hectares of secluded and wooded grounds on the south west end of Corstorphine Hill. A private driveway runs up the hill in the form of an avenue up to the mansion from its junction at Cairnmuir Drive/Clermiston Road. The site is protected by a Council Tree Preservation Order (no.T.P.O. 22)

The building is category C listed and was designed by MacGibbon and Ross in 1872 in the Baronial style. It was listed in November 1997 ref: LB44747.

Edinburgh Green Belt and Area of Great Landscape Value.

2.2 Site History

28 December 2005 - Change of Use from Office to single dwelling (06/00008/FUL). Approved.

23 January 2007 - Minor alterations to extend stair to underground floor and to form new kitchen area (06/5060/LBC). Granted

9 September 2015 - New entrance portico and associated walls and lights (15/3300/FUL). Approved.

Main report 3.1 Description Of The Proposal

Scheme Two

The proposal, as revised, is to provide a four car garage with a games room and gym situated above, and an L shaped building containing a swimming pool, bar with connecting kitchen and entrance hall. The new east range buildings will measure 52.5 metres in length and the swimming pool 24.5metres as a northern range. The building is currently 20 metres in length.

The 1.5 storey garage block would be built in course rubble sandstone with crow steps on the most exposed elevations with a slated roof. The swimming pool would be

Development Management report of handling – Page 2 of 10 17/05461/FUL constructed in a powder coated steel glazing system in dark grey. The part solid, part glazed roof would be clad in slate also.

Scheme One

The extensions covered a larger footprint and directly affected 15 trees. The revised scheme has brought closer to the existing building. The external courtyard areas have been deleted to allow this. The garage block has also been reduced in width by 1 metre and moved half a metre west away from the hill so that only three trees will have to be removed on the bank to the rear (east).

3.2 Determining Issues

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

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

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

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

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

3.3 Assessment To address these determining issues, it needs to be considered whether: a) the proposal is of an acceptable scale, form and design and will not be detrimental to neighbourhood character; b) the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on character or setting of the listed building; c) the proposal will result in an unreasonable loss of neighbouring amenity; d) the proposal will result in the loss of trees; e) any impacts on equalities or human rights are acceptable; f) any public comments raised have been addressed. a) Neighbourhood Character The proposal is to form a wraparound extension to the side and rear of the mansion. The side elevation would extend beyond the existing building line and stretches along almost the full width of the rear elevation. The building is relatively concealed from public view by the surrounding wooded area. Therefore, the proposal would have little impact on the visual amenity of the area.

Development Management report of handling – Page 3 of 10 17/05461/FUL b) Character and Setting of Listed Building: The proposed scale of the extension would form an incongruous addition, dominating the front elevation and approach to the listed building. The original building is relatively compact in design, contrasting with the proposed wraparound extension.

The building has been designed in the round and has a distinctive character from all elevations. Accordingly, the scale of the proposal, encompassing two elevations would be detrimental to the building's character and setting.

The proposal includes various architectural styles, some of which constitute a pastiche approach to design with some contemporary elements, including large expanses of flat roof to the rear elevation and a glazed gable. Overall, this leads to a disjointed approach to the design and fails to respect or distinguish itself from the original building.

Some of the proposed materials are similar to the existing building and would result in the loss of the original buildings legibility. Extensions to listed buildings should normally provide a clear distinction between the original building and new design. In these particular circumstances, the design would result in a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the building. c) Neighbouring Amenity The proposal complies with the aims and objectives of the non-statutory guidance in relation to the protection of neighbouring, residential amenity. d) Loss of Trees: The proposed extension would require the loss of three yew trees and excavation of the bank on which they sit. The trees are subject to a Tree Preservation Order and any works are usually only permitted for arboricultural reasons. As the proposal fails to comply with other relevant policies the infringement on Policy Env 12 of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan is not justified. e) Equalities and Human Rights The proposal has been assessed in terms of impact on equalities and human rights. No impact was identified. f) Representations Four neutral representations were received relating to an issue with neighbour notification. No material planning issues were raised.

Conclusion: The proposals do not comply with Policy Env 3, Env 4, Env 12 and Des 12 of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan, Non-Statutory Guidance for Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas and Non-Statutory Guidance for Householders. The proposed extension is not of an appropriate scale, form or design and would have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the listed building. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

Development Management report of handling – Page 4 of 10 17/05461/FUL It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Reasons:-

Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

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

5.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

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

Consultation and engagement

6.1 Pre-Application Process

There is no pre-application process history.

6.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised incorrectly as no.74 on 22 December 2017. Two non- materials letters were received regarding notification/ the lack of available documents on line. The address was corrected to No.76 on 29 November 2017 and the application was re-advertised on 12 January 2018, plus neighbour notification re-served. Subsequently, no representations have been received. Background reading / external references

Development Management report of handling – Page 5 of 10 17/05461/FUL  To view details of the application go to  Planning and Building Standards online services

Development Management report of handling – Page 6 of 10 17/05461/FUL ort of handling

Statutory Development Plan Provision The site is allocated as Green Belt, Special Landscape Area and Local Nature Conservation Site.

Date registered 22 November 2017

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01A -12A

Scheme 2

David R. Leslie Chief Planning Officer PLACE The City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Alan Moonie, Team manager E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3909

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Local Development Plan.

LDP Policy Env 3 (Listed Buildings - Setting) identifies the circumstances in which development within the curtilage or affecting the setting of a listed building will be permitted.

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

LDP Policy Des 12 (Alterations and Extensions) sets criteria for assessing alterations and extensions to existing buildings.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

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

Development Management report of handling – Page 7 of 10 17/05461/FUL Non-statutory guidelines 'LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS' provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

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

Development Management report of handling – Page 8 of 10 17/05461/FUL Appendix 1

Consultations

Archaeology:

No comments received

Badger Group: No comments received.

Biodiversity:

Bats - The report has identified that further bat surveys are required in relation to trees with Bat Roost Features (BRF). In order to understands the full impact of the proposal on bats and if any protected species licence are required, these surveys should be undertaken prior to any planning consent being issued.

Breeding Birds - It is an offence to disturb a nesting bird or damage a nest therefore a condition relating to this matter should be added to any consent given.

Condition Clearance of vegetation from the proposed construction area has the potential to disturb nesting birds; therefore clearance should be carried out outside the bird nesting season March - August (inclusive). Should it be necessary to clear ground during the bird nesting season the land should be surveyed by a suitably qualified ecologist and declared clear of nesting birds before vegetation clearance starts.

Badgers - Badgers are known to be active in this area. I would advise that a badger survey is carried out. The survey area should include all areas of the woodland to be impacted upon as a result of development, including any areas likely to be subject to disturbance.

This approach would ensure that the application is in accordance with policy Env 16 - Species Protection.

Roads Authority

No objections

Development Management report of handling – Page 9 of 10 17/05461/FUL END

Development Management report of handling – Page 10 of 10 17/05461/FUL Comments for Planning Application 17/05461/FUL

Application Summary Application Number: 17/05461/FUL Address: 74 Clermiston Road Edinburgh EH12 6UZ Proposal: Extension to House to create Garage, Swimming Pool and Ancillary Accommodation. Case Officer: Duncan Robertson

Customer Details Name: Mrs Sarah Tolley Address: 12 Cairnmuir Rd Edinburgh

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments neither objecting to or supporting the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:no information about this application available. Please notify when it can be viewed. Comments for Planning Application 17/05461/FUL

Customer Details Name: Mrs Sarah Tolley Address: Not Available

Application Summary Application Number: 17/05461/FUL Address: 76 Clermiston Road Edinburgh EH12 6UX Proposal: Extension to House to create Garage, Swimming Pool and Ancillary Accommodation. Case Officer: Duncan Robertson

Customer Details Name: Mrs C Logue Address: 18 Cairnmuir Road Edinburgh

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments neither objecting to or supporting the Planning Application Comment Reasons: - Councillor's Reference Comment:No documents have been uploaded and it is not possible to see or understand the nature of this application. Until these documents are made available, it is not possible to comment.

As 7 days have already elapsed since the planning application went live, there are now only 14 days left for neighbour comments. However, I assume that the application will not be progressed until all neighbours have been given time to comment after the documents are made available (ie 21 days) in line with the statutory requirements.

I shall be grateful if you will advise of the position in this regard. Regards Comments for Planning Application 17/05461/FUL

Customer Details Name: Mrs C Logue Address: Not Available

I shall be grateful if you will advise of the position in this regard. Regards Item 6.1(b)

Business Centre G.2 Waverley Court 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG Tel: 0131 529 3550 Fax: 0131 529 6206 Email: [email protected]

Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid.

Thank you for completing this application form:

ONLINE REFERENCE 100161335-001

The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application.

Applicant or Agent Details

Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application)  Applicant Agent Agent Details

Please enter Agent details

Scott Hobbs Planning Company/Organisation:

Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Laura 24a First Name: * Building Name:

Roddy Last Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Stafford Street Telephone Number: * 01312267225 (Street): *

Extension Number: Address 2:

Edinburgh Mobile Number: Town/City: *

United Kingdom Fax Number: Country: *

EH3 7BD Postcode: *

Email Address: * [email protected]

Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? *

 Individual  Organisation/Corporate entity

Page 1 of 5 Applicant Details

Please enter Applicant details

Mr Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Other Title: Building Name:

Sundeep 76 First Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Tuli Clermiston Road Last Name: * (Street): *

C/O Scott Hobbs Planning Company/Organisation Address 2:

Edinburgh Telephone Number: * Town/City: *

United Kingdom Extension Number: Country: *

EH12 6UX Mobile Number: Postcode: *

Fax Number:

Email Address: *

Site Address Details

Planning Authority: City of Edinburgh Council

Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available):

76 CLERMISTON ROAD Address 1:

Address 2:

Address 3:

Address 4:

Address 5:

Town/City/Settlement: EDINBURGH

EH12 6UX Post Code:

Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites

673635 320347 Northing Easting

Page 2 of 5 Description of Proposal

Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters)

Extension to mansion to create garage, swimming pool and ancillary accommodation (as amended).

Type of Application

What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? *

 Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals).  Application for planning permission in principle.  Further application.  Application for approval of matters specified in conditions.

What does your review relate to? *

 Refusal Notice.  Grant of permission with Conditions imposed.  No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal.

Statement of reasons for seeking review

You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters)

Note: you are unlikely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account.

You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances.

Full details can be found in the Planning Appeal and Review Statement submitted with this application.

Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the  Yes  No Determination on your application was made? *

If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters)

Page 3 of 5 Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters)

See Documents List.

Application Details

Please provide details of the application and decision.

What is the application reference number? * 17/05461/FUL

What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * 22/11/2017

What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * 05/03/2019

Review Procedure

The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case.

Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. *  Yes  No

Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the handling of your review. You may select more than one option if you wish the review to be a combination of procedures. Please select a further procedure *

By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates

Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it will deal with? (Max 500 characters) Site visit required as the house can not be seen from the public road.

In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion:

Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? *  Yes  No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? *  Yes  No

If there are reasons why you think the local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here. (Max 500 characters) Site hidden from surroundings, private access required.

Page 4 of 5 Checklist – Application for Notice of Review

Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid.

Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. *  Yes  No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this  Yes  No review? *

If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name  Yes  No  N/A and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the review should be sent to you or the applicant? * Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what  Yes  No procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? *

Note: You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. You may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on  Yes  No (e.g. plans and Drawings) which are now the subject of this review *

Note: Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice (if any) from the earlier consent.

Declare – Notice of Review

I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated.

Declaration Name: Mrs Laura Roddy

Declaration Date: 20/05/2019

Page 5 of 5 Proposal Details Proposal Name 100161335 Proposal Description Appeal against refusal of planning applications 17/05461/FUL and 17/05461/LBC. Address 76 CLERMISTON ROAD, EDINBURGH, EH12 6UX Local Authority City of Edinburgh Council Application Online Reference 100161335-001

Application Status Form complete Main Details complete Checklist complete Declaration complete Supporting Documentation complete Email Notification complete

Attachment Details Notice of Review System A4 Document 1 1705461FUL Decision Posted A4 Notice Document 2 1705461LBC Decision Posted A4 Notice Document 3 1705461FUL Handling Posted A4 Report Document 4 1705461LBC Handling Posted A4 Report Document 5 1705461FUL Application Posted A4 Form Document 6 1705461LBC Application Posted A4 Form Document 7 Covering Letter Posted A4 Document 8 Location Plan Posted A3 Document 9 Block Plan Posted A3 Document 10 Site Plan Posted A1 Document 11 Existing Ground Floor Posted A1 Plan Document 12 Existing North West Posted A1 Elevations Document 13 Existing South East Posted A1 Elevations Document 14 Proposed Ground Floor Posted A1 Plan Document 15 Proposed First Floor Posted A1 Plan Document 16 Proposed Roof Plan Posted A1 Document 17 Proposed North East Posted A1 Elevations Document 18 Proposed South Posted A1 Elevation Document 19 Proposed West Posted A1 Sectional Elevations Document 20 Site Plan Posted A1 Document 21 Image 1 Posted A4 Document 22 Image 2 Posted A4 Document 23 Image 3 Posted A4 Document 24 Image 4 Posted A4 Document 25 Image 5 Posted A4 Document 26 Tree Survey Part 1 Posted A4 Document 27 Tree Survey Part 2 Posted A4 Document 28 Tree Survey Part 3 Posted A4 Document 29 Listing C Posted A4 Document 30 TPO - 22 Posted A4 Document 31 Appeal Review Design Posted A4 Statement Document 32 Appeal Decision Posted A4 LBA2302171 Document 33 ELDP Posted A4 Document 34 Scottish Planning Policy Posted A4 Document 35 HES Policy Statement Posted A4 Document 36 HES Managing Change Posted A4 - Setting Document 37 HES Managing Change Posted A4 - Extensions Document 38 CEC Listed Buildings Posted A4 and Conservation Areas Document 39 Non-Statutory Guidance Posted A4 for Householders Document 40 CEC Review of Local Posted A4 Landscape Designations Document 41a Site Location Plan SS Posted A3 Document 41b Block Plan SS Posted A3 Document 41c A-Site Plan SS Posted A1 Document 41d B-Site Plan SS Posted A1 Document 41e C-Site Plan SS Posted A1 Document 41f Site Plan SS Posted A1 Document 41g Existing Ground Floor Posted A1 Plan SS Document 41h Existing South and Posted A1 East Elevations SS Document 41i Existing North Elevation Posted A1 SS Document 41j Proposed Ground Floor Posted A1 Plan SS Document 41k Proposed Upper Floor Posted A1 Plan SS Document 41l Proposed Roof Plan SS Posted A1 Document 41m Proposed South and Posted A1 East Elevations SS Document 41n Proposed South and Posted A1 West Elevations SS Document 41o Proposed West and Posted A1 East Elevations SS Document 41p Proposed North Posted A1 Elevations SS Document 41q Sketch Up Views SS Posted A1 Document 41r Site Layout Plan SS Posted A1 Document 41s Green Belt Site Layout Posted A1 Plan SS Document 42a Photo 1 Posted A4 Document 42c Photo 3 Posted A4 Document 42b Photo 2 Posted A4 Document 42d Photo 4 Posted A4 Document 42e Photo 5 Posted A4 Document 42f Photo 6 Posted A4 Document 42g Photo 7 Posted A4 Document 42h Photo 8 Posted A4 Appeal Documents List Attached A4 Appeal Statement Posted A4 Notice_of_Review-2.pdf Attached A0 Application_Summary.pdf Attached A0 Notice of Review-001.xml Attached A0 Item 6.2(a)

HLP Architects Mr Peter Dickie FAO: Greg Holstead 70 Greenbank Road 35 Joppa Road Edinburgh Edinburgh UK United Kingdom EH10 5RJ EH15 2HB

Decision date: 22 February 2019

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACTS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013

Formation of a driveway. At 70 Greenbank Road Edinburgh EH10 5RJ

Application No: 18/09904/FUL DECISION NOTICE

With reference to your application for Planning Permission registered on 15 November 2018, this has been decided by Local Delegated Decision. The Council in exercise of its powers under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts and regulations, now determines the application as Refused in accordance with the particulars given in the application.

Any condition(s) attached to this consent, with reasons for imposing them, or reasons for refusal, are shown below;

Conditions:-

Reasons:-

1. The proposed driveway would be detrimental to the appearance of the property itself and the character of the wider area. The proposal is contrary to Policy Des 12 of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan and the non-statutory Guidance for Householders.

Weronika Myslowiecka, Planning Officer, Householders and Enforcement East, Place Directorate. Tel 0131 529 3903, Email [email protected], Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Please see the guidance notes on our decision page for further information, including how to appeal or review your decision.

Drawings 01-02, represent the determined scheme. Full details of the application can be found on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services

The reason why the Council made this decision is as follows:

The proposal is of an unacceptable scale, form and design which will have an adverse impact on neighbourhood character. The proposal is contrary to Policy Des 12 of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan and the non-statutory Guidance for Householders. There are no material considerations that justify approval.

This determination does not carry with it any necessary consent or approval for the proposed development under other statutory enactments.

Should you have a specific enquiry regarding this decision please contact Weronika Myslowiecka directly on 0131 529 3903.

Chief Planning Officer PLACE The City of Edinburgh Council

NOTES

Report of Handling

Application for Planning Permission 18/09904/FUL At 70 Greenbank Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5RJ Formation of a driveway.

Item Local Delegated Decision Application number 18/09904/FUL Wards B10 - Morningside

Summary

Links

Policies and guidance for LDPP, LDES12, NSG, NSHOU, this application

Development Management report of handling – Page 1 of 7 18/09904/FUL Report of handling

Recommendations

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

2.1 Site description

The application site is a detached bungalow located on the west side of Greenbank Road. There is an existing driveway on the north boundary of the property leading to a garage located to the rear.

2.2 Site History

02.07.2013 - Planning permission granted for a single storey flat roofed extension to rear with raised patio area (ref. 13/01693/FUL). 14.02.2014 - Non material variation for minor alterations to roof and length of garage (ref. 13/01693/VARY).

Main report 3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The application proposes the formation of a second access through an existing boundary wall and the laying of a hard surface within the front garden of the property to facilitate parking.

3.2 Determining Issues

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

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

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

3.3 Assessment To address these determining issues, it needs to be considered whether:

Development Management report of handling – Page 2 of 7 18/09904/FUL a) the proposal is an acceptable scale, form and design and will not be detrimental to neighbourhood character; c) the proposal will result in an unreasonable loss of neighbouring amenity; d) any public comments raised have been addressed. a. The proposed driveway is not considered to be of an acceptable scale and form and would be detrimental to the character of the surrounding area.

The non-statutory Guidance for Householders states that only one access will be permitted per property. There is already an existing access and driveway on the northern boundary.

Furthermore, parking spaces will normally be allowed if the front garden is at least 6 metres deep with a maximum area of 21 sq m or 25% of the front garden, whichever is greater. The proposed driveway does not meet the relevant criteria in terms of depth, as the proposed rive area is only 4.920m in depth. In addition, the proposal will occupy an area of 20sq.m (64% of the total front garden area for this property) and also fails to comply with guidance in this regard. b. Road Authority Issues:

The proposed application is considered to be contrary to the Council's Guidance for Householders dated 2017 which requires off-street parking to be a minimum of 6m deep and a maximum of 3m wide and only permits one access per property. The proposed application is 4.92m deep and 3.8m wide and introduces a second access to the property (see http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20069/local_plans_and_guidelines/63/planning_guide lines c. No loss of daylight or sunlight to neighbouring properties. The drive will be located directly adjacent to windows which are in the ownership of the applicant only. d. No comments were received.

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

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Reasons:-

Development Management report of handling – Page 3 of 7 18/09904/FUL Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

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

5.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

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

Consultation and engagement

6.1 Pre-Application Process

There is no pre-application process history.

6.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

No representations have been received.

Background reading / external references

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

Development Management report of handling – Page 4 of 7 18/09904/FUL ort of handling

Statutory Development Plan Provision Edinburgh Local Development Plan

Date registered 15 November 2018

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01-02

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Chief Planning Officer PLACE The City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Weronika Myslowiecka, Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3903

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Local Development Plan.

LDP Policy Des 12 (Alterations and Extensions) sets criteria for assessing alterations and extensions to existing buildings.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

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

Development Management report of handling – Page 5 of 7 18/09904/FUL Appendix 1

Consultations

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 PLANNING APPLICATION NO: 18/09904/FUL FOR: FORMATION OF A DRIVEWAY AT: 70 GREENBANK ROAD, EDINBURGH, EH10 5RJ

ROADS AUTHORITY ISSUES

The application should be refused. Reasons:

Should you be minded to grant permission, the following should be included as conditions or informatives as necessary:

1. Any off-street parking space should comply with the Council's Guidance for Householders dated 2017 (see http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20069/local_plans_and_guidelines/63/planning_guide lines including: a. Access to any car parking area is to be by dropped kerb (i.e. not bell mouth); b. A length of 2 metres nearest the road should be paved in a solid material to prevent deleterious material (e.g. loose chippings) being carried on to the road; c. Any gate or doors must open inwards onto the property; d. Any hard-standing outside should be porous; e. The works to form a footway crossing must be carried out under permit and in accordance with the specifications. See Road Occupation Permits http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/1263/apply_for_permission_to_create_or_ alter_a_driveway_or_other_access_point

Development Management report of handling – Page 6 of 7 18/09904/FUL END

Development Management report of handling – Page 7 of 7 18/09904/FUL Business Centre G.2 Waverley Court 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG Tel: 0131 529 3550 Fax: 0131 529 6206 Email: [email protected]

Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid.

Thank you for completing this application form:

ONLINE REFERENCE 100143819-002

Applicant or Agent Details

Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application)  Applicant Agent Agent Details

Please enter Agent details

HLP Architects Company/Organisation:

Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Greg First Name: * Building Name:

Holstead 35 Last Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Joppa Road Telephone Number: * 01316699300 (Street): *

Extension Number: Address 2:

Edinburgh Mobile Number: Town/City: *

United Kingdom Fax Number: Country: *

EH15 2HB Postcode: *

Email Address: * [email protected]

Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? *

 Individual  Organisation/Corporate entity

Page 1 of 5 Applicant Details

Please enter Applicant details

Mr Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Other Title: Building Name:

Peter 70 First Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Dickie Greenbank Road Last Name: * (Street): *

Company/Organisation Address 2:

Edinburgh Telephone Number: * Town/City: *

UK Extension Number: Country: *

EH10 5RJ Mobile Number: Postcode: *

Fax Number:

Email Address: *

Site Address Details

Planning Authority: City of Edinburgh Council

Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available):

70 GREENBANK ROAD Address 1:

Address 2:

Address 3:

Address 4:

Address 5:

Town/City/Settlement: EDINBURGH

EH10 5RJ Post Code:

Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites

669943 323732 Northing Easting

Page 2 of 5 Description of Proposal

Formation of driveway and new drop kerb.

Type of Application

What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? *

What does your review relate to? *

Statement of reasons for seeking review

Please see attached review statement.

Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the  Yes  No Determination on your application was made? *

Review statement Planning decision notice Report of handling Location plan Proposed plan

Application Details

Please provide details of the application and decision.

What is the application reference number? * 18/09904/FUL

What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * 15/11/2018

What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * 22/02/2019

Review Procedure

In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion:

Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? *  Yes  No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? *  Yes  No

Checklist – Application for Notice of Review

Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. *  Yes  No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this  Yes  No review? *

Page 4 of 5 Declare – Notice of Review

I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated.

Declaration Name: Mr Robert Lukas

Declaration Date: 15/05/2019

Page 5 of 5 Proposal Details Proposal Name 100143819 Proposal Description Formation of driveway and new drop kerb. Address 70 GREENBANK ROAD, EDINBURGH, EH10 5RJ Local Authority City of Edinburgh Council Application Online Reference 100143819-002

Application Status Form complete Main Details complete Checklist complete Declaration complete Supporting Documentation complete Email Notification complete

Attachment Details Notice of Review System A4 1891-Review statement Attached A4 Decision notice Attached A4 Report of handling Attached A4 1891-000 Attached A3 1891-002 Attached A3 Notice_of_Review-2.pdf Attached A0 Application_Summary.pdf Attached A0 Notice of Review-002.xml Attached A0

p hL

a r c h i t e c t s REVIEW STATEMENT-V1 This document to be read in conjunction with Local Review Body Appeal documents and the Architects drawings Project: 70 Greenbank Road, Edinburgh EH10 5RJ

Subject: Review statement supplementary to planning application lodged by hLp architects ref no. 18/09904/FUL and in support of the application for review of refusal.

Date: 14.05.19

Client: Mr Peter Dickie

Author: Colin Gibson (hLp architects)

Reference no: 1891

Review statement in support of planning application

Site situation:

The property is a detached bungalow on the West side of Greenbank road, the segment of the road the existing driveway exits onto is a blind summit with poor visibility.

Proposal:

New drop kerb access and removal of low level wall to form second driveway at South East corner of property boundary.

Reason for refusal:

• “The proposed driveway would be detrimental to the appearance of the property itself and the character of the wider area. The proposal is contrary to Policy Des 12 of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan and the non-statutory Guidance for Householders.

Rebuttal:

It is our opinion that removing the low level wall and forming a vehicular access dropped kerb does not have a detrimental effect on the appearance of the property itself. The proposals do not affect the actual building. The reduction of front garden green space amenity is not unusual in the street.

Of a visual survey of Greenbank Road through even numbers 48 to 162 and odd numbers 61 to 143. Exactly 50% (of 100) properties have had alterations to their driveways.

p hL

a r c h i t e c t s • There is 1 property which is a mirror image of our proposal. • A further 4 properties have two accesses with drive through access in the front garden. • 16 have doubled the overall width of their existing driveway. • 15 have widened the drive to some extent and utilised the front garden. • There are 5 that are now triple driveways and 1 which has 4 spaces.

It is not known how many of these 50 other alterations sought formal approval. Regardless, they exist and there is a strong argument to be made that the character of the driveways in the area is not uniform and that our proposal is not out of the ordinary for the wider area.

The second issue in the reason for refusal is that it is contrary to Policy Des 12 of the Edinburgh Local Development plan. We accept that the driveway does not conform to the Non-Statutory Guidance for Householders. It is too short but we do believe there are compelling reasons for this to be overruled.

Given the incline of the hill, the access and angle of approach there is no way to widen the existing driveway on this site without failing to comply by a greater degree than the proposals show. The proposal is short by just over 1m to the non-statutory guidance, however an angled approach into the drive is possible which allows a diagonal across the drive of 6.2m.

Greenbank Road is a well-known rat run. There have been at least 4 road traffic accidents on this stretch of road within our client’s recent memory. On street parking is quite regularly nose to tail making egress from the drive even more hazardous due to the reduced sight lines of the blind summit and speed of oncoming traffic.

The design solution to locate the proposed second drive way closer to the crest of the hill improves the sightlines over what was previously a blind summit for the owners of No.70 when exiting their driveway.

It is our opinion that increasing the safety of, and access to the road coupled with the fact that 50% of the street have undertaken similar alterations are sufficiently compelling reasons to have this decision overturned and allow this development to be undertaken.

Signed Colin Gibson BArch(Hons)DipArch

Dated 15.05.19

p hL

a r c h i t e c t s

Example of neighbouring driveway alterations on Greenbank Road:

p hL a r c h i t e c t s

...\1891 Dickie drive.dgn 13/11/2018 14:30:07 ...\1891 Dickie drive.dgn 13/11/2018 14:30:59 Item 6.3(a)

A449 LTD Mr Jeremy Southam FAO: Alex Shaw 41 Saughton Road North 266-268 Portobello High Street Edinburgh Edinburgh EH12 7HN Scotland EH15 2AT

Decision date: 23 April 2019

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACTS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013

Demolish existing rear extension and replace existing garage with new single storey side and rear extension; Alterations to rear elevation with new windows and doors; Erect new garden store within boundary wall with stone to match existing. At 41 Saughton Road North Edinburgh EH12 7HN

Application No: 19/00191/FUL DECISION NOTICE

With reference to your application for Planning Permission registered on 4 February 2019, this has been decided by Local Delegated Decision. The Council in exercise of its powers under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts and regulations, now determines the application as Refused in accordance with the particulars given in the application.

Any condition(s) attached to this consent, with reasons for imposing them, or reasons for refusal, are shown below;

Conditions:-

Reasons:-

1. The proposal by reason of the specification of materials, increase in height and length of the development along the northern boundary of the property will result in a prominent and obtrusive building which will have a detrimental visual impact on Meadowhouse Road and the open character of the corner plot contrary to policy Des 12 of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan and non-statutory 'Guidance for Householders'.

Brian Fleming, Senior planning officer, Householders and Enforcement West, Place Directorate. Tel 0131 529 3518, Email [email protected], Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Please see the guidance notes on our decision page for further information, including how to appeal or review your decision.

Drawings 01 - 10, represent the determined scheme. Full details of the application can be found on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services

The reason why the Council made this decision is as follows:

The proposal, by reason of the specification of materials, increase in height and length of the development along the northern boundary of the property, will adversely affect the character and appearance of the house and the immediate area. The proposal therefore fails to comply with the development plan and non-statutory 'Guidance for Householders'.

This determination does not carry with it any necessary consent or approval for the proposed development under other statutory enactments.

Should you have a specific enquiry regarding this decision please contact Brian Fleming directly on 0131 529 3518.

Chief Planning Officer PLACE The City of Edinburgh Council

NOTES

Report of Handling

Application for Planning Permission 19/00191/FUL At 41 Saughton Road North, Edinburgh, EH12 7HN Demolish existing rear extension and replace existing garage with new single storey side and rear extension; Alterations to rear elevation with new windows and doors; Erect new garden store within boundary wall with stone to match existing.

Item Local Delegated Decision Application number 19/00191/FUL Wards B06 - Corstorphine/Murrayfield

Summary

Links

Policies and guidance for LDPP, LDES12, NSG, NSHOU, this application

Development Management report of handling – Page 1 of 8 19/00191/FUL Report of handling

Recommendations

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

2.1 Site description

Two storey semi-detached dwelling house with garden ground to the front and rear located on the southern corner of Saughton Road North and Meadowhouse Road. The property has a linked garage positioned along the northern boundary with access off Saughton Road North.

The house is stone built with a protruding bay in an off white paint. It is characteristic of the properties in this locale.

2.2 Site History

There is no relevant planning history for this site.

Main report 3.1 Description Of The Proposal

It is proposed to remove the existing garage and replace it with a single storey flat roofed extension along the northern boundary of the property. It is also proposed to remove the existing single storey extension positioned along the southern boundary. A garden store is also proposed within the rear garden area.

The side extension will be set behind the front wall of the house and extend approximately 18.8m into the rear garden. At its maximum, the extension will be 6.0m wide.

The proposed materials include a facing brick finish to the walls with a cast stone cope, grey aluminium clad timber doors and windows.

The proposed garden store is positioned on the eastern boundary of the property and is a flat roofed structure finished in facing brick. It will be approximately 4.0m wide by 4.0m deep by 3.0m high.

Alterations are also proposed to the rear elevation of the house. These include the alteration of windows and doors and the formation of new openings. These alterations constitute permitted development under Part 1, Class 2B of the Town and Country

Development Management report of handling – Page 3 of 8 19/00191/FUL Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended). No assessment of their merits is therefore taken.

3.2 Determining Issues

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

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

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

3.3 Assessment To address these determining issues, it needs to be considered whether: a) The proposal will have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the house or the surrounding area; and b) The proposal adversely affects neighbouring residential amenity. a) Character and Appearance

The proposal includes a single storey flat roofed extension along the northern boundary.

This extension will break the building line of the side road (Meadowhouse Road), and will protrude above the existing boundary wall. The current boundary comprises a stone wall approximately 1.5m high with a section of corrugated steel above which matches the height of the existing garage (2.1m overall). The proposal will result in an extension a further 800mm higher (2.95m overall) for a length of 18.8m.

Whilst the extension has a modern appearance using traditional materials, the specification of the brick proposed in addition to the increase in height and length of the development along the northern boundary will result in a dominant building which will have a detrimental visual impact on Meadowhouse Road contrary to policy Des 12 of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan and non-statutory 'Guidance for Householders'.

In terms of the spatial pattern, out shots located behind the existing houses are typically on the shared boundary with the neighbours. This out shot encroaches beyond the building line and detracts from the open character of this corner property and harms the character of the street.

The proposed garden store is a flat roofed structure of a simple design and will be 3.5m wide by 4.0m deep by approximately 2.8m high. The store will be positioned against

Development Management report of handling – Page 4 of 8 19/00191/FUL the eastern boundary wall away from the northern boundary and therefore it will have little visual impact on the street.

Overall, the proposal will have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the house and the surrounding area. b) Residential Amenity

The proposed side extension is positioned such that it raises no daylighting or sunlight issues.

In terms of privacy, windows and fully glazed doors to the side extension are on its east and south sides. In respect of the windows and doors on the south side, these largely comply with guidance. However, a full height window will be less than 9.0m away from the boundary at 6.3m. However, there is screening by way of a 1.5m high stone boundary wall and whilst this falls short of the required height and distance, the combination should be sufficient for safeguarding the privacy of the neighbours to the south. The windows and doors on the east side are over nine metres from the boundary and comply with guidance.

The proposed garden store complies with guidance in relation to daylighting. In respect of sunlight, the proposed store will result in approximately 2.0 sq.m. of overshadowing above that considered to have no adverse effect in non-statutory guidance. However, this will fall on the access path between the affected boundary and the west side of the neighbouring property. The private rear garden will not be affected by the proposal.

The garden store raises no privacy issues.

Overall, the proposal will not adversely affect neighbouring residential amenity.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the proposal will adversely affect the character and appearance of the house and the surrounding area. Refusal is recommended. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

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

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Reasons:-

Development Management report of handling – Page 5 of 8 19/00191/FUL Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

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

5.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

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

Consultation and engagement

6.1 Pre-Application Process

There is no pre-application process history.

6.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

Neighbours have been notified of the application. No letters of representation have been received. Background reading / external references

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

Development Management report of handling – Page 6 of 8 19/00191/FUL ort of handling

Statutory Development Plan Provision Urban Area - Edinburgh Local Development Plan

Date registered 4 February 2019

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01 - 10

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Chief Planning Officer PLACE The City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Brian Fleming, Senior planning officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3518

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Local Development Plan.

LDP Policy Des 12 (Alterations and Extensions) sets criteria for assessing alterations and extensions to existing buildings.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

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

Development Management report of handling – Page 7 of 8 19/00191/FUL Appendix 1

Consultations

No consultations undertaken.

END

Development Management report of handling – Page 8 of 8 19/00191/FUL Item 6.3(b)

Business Centre G.2 Waverley Court 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG Tel: 0131 529 3550 Fax: 0131 529 6206 Email: [email protected]

Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid.

Thank you for completing this application form:

ONLINE REFERENCE 100165562-001

Applicant or Agent Details

Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application)  Applicant Agent Agent Details

Please enter Agent details

A449 LTD Company/Organisation:

Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Alex First Name: * Building Name:

Shaw 266-268 Last Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Portobello High Street Telephone Number: * 07833246449 (Street): *

Extension Number: Address 2:

Edinburgh Mobile Number: Town/City: *

Scotland Fax Number: Country: *

EH15 2AT Postcode: *

Email Address: * [email protected]

Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? *

 Individual  Organisation/Corporate entity

Page 1 of 5 Applicant Details

Please enter Applicant details

Mr Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Other Title: Building Name:

Jeremy 41 First Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Southam SAUGHTON ROAD NORTH Last Name: * (Street): *

Company/Organisation Address 2:

EDINBURGH Telephone Number: * Town/City: *

UK Extension Number: Country: *

EH15 7HN Mobile Number: Postcode: *

Fax Number:

Email Address: *

Site Address Details

Planning Authority: City of Edinburgh Council

Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available):

41 SAUGHTON ROAD NORTH Address 1:

Address 2:

Address 3:

Address 4:

Address 5:

Town/City/Settlement: EDINBURGH

EH12 7HN Post Code:

Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites

672498 320127 Northing Easting

Page 2 of 5 Description of Proposal

DEMOLISH EXISTING REAR EXTENSION AND REPLACE EXISTING GARAGE WITH NEW SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSION; ALTERATIONS TO REAR ELEVATION WITH NEW WINDOWS AND DOORS; ERECT NEW GARDEN STORE WITHIN BOUNDARY WALL WITH STONE TO MATCH EXISTING.

Type of Application

What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? *

What does your review relate to? *

Statement of reasons for seeking review

PROVIDED AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT.

Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the  Yes  No Determination on your application was made? *

REVIEW STATEMENT ANNEX TO STATEMENT CONTAINING PHOTOS ANNOTATED DIAGRAM OF NORTH ELEVATION

Application Details

Please provide details of the application and decision.

What is the application reference number? * 19/00191/FUL

What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * 17/01/2019

What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * 23/04/2019

Review Procedure

In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion:

Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? *  Yes  No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? *  Yes  No

If there are reasons why you think the local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here. (Max 500 characters) THE HOUSE IF PRIVATELY OWNED. IF A SITE INSPECTION IS CARRIED OUT, ACCESS TO THE HOUSE AND REAR GARDEN WOULD BE OF BENEFIT

Page 4 of 5 Checklist – Application for Notice of Review

Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. *  Yes  No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this  Yes  No review? *

Declare – Notice of Review

I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated.

Declaration Name: Mr Alex Shaw

Declaration Date: 23/05/2019

Page 5 of 5 Proposal Details Proposal Name 100165562 Proposal Description Demolish existing rear extension and replace existing garage with new single storey side and rear extension. Alterations to rear elevation with new windows and doors, erect new garden store within boundary wall with stone to match existing. Address 41 SAUGHTON ROAD NORTH, EDINBURGH, EH12 7HN Local Authority City of Edinburgh Council Application Online Reference 100165562-001

Application Status Form complete Main Details complete Checklist complete Declaration complete Supporting Documentation complete Email Notification complete

Attachment Details Notice of Review System A4 REVIEW STATEMENT Attached A4 ANNEX Attached A4 0452_GA_402_DIAGRAM 1 Attached A3 Notice_of_Review-2.pdf Attached A0 Application_Summary.pdf Attached A0 Notice of Review-001.xml Attached A0 Review Statement

Planning Ref: 19/00191/FUL – 41 SAUGHTON ROAD NORTH, EH12 7HN A449 Architects Ltd 23rd May 2019

REASONS FOR SEEKING A REVIEW

We don’t believe the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the house and the surrounding area, or that the assessment carried out by the planning officer correctly reflects the proposal or the surrounding area.

Procedurally, we’re dissatisfied with the lack of opportunity given by the planning department to discuss the proposals before the application was determined. Had the planning department presented us with the opportunity to meet, discuss and perhaps alter the submitted drawings it would have been taken. The planning officer had verbally indicated, separately to both the agent and the applicant that, in their view, the application was acceptable; however, shortly before the decision due date, the opposite view was taken.

Little consideration seems to have been given to the uncharacteristic nature of both the existing extensions to the property and the 3-storey block of flats opposite (annex fig 1).

Further information below is given in order to provide further context to our request for a review.

LOCATION

The site is located on Saughton Road North, on the south corner of the junction with Meadowhouse Road. Although located close to the Corstorphine Conservation Area, this site is part of an, albeit older, residential suburb.

SITE CONTEXT

The site has an overall area of 550m², with an open garden to the front and a large enclosed, overlooked garden to the rear. There’s a mixture of residential property types surrounding the site, generally semi-detached or terraced bungalows, cottages and villas; all are of a similar domestic scale.

Directly opposite the property, on the north corner of Meadowhouse Road is a more modern, larger scale, 3-storey, linear block of flats constructed of concrete, finished with render and precast masonry; a low brick boundary wall and precast concrete screen walls are also prominent features on this corner plot.

EXISTING BUILDING

The existing dwelling consists of a 2-storey, coursed sandstone, semi-detached villa. The original house has been previously extended with single storey, flat roofed additions, forming a garage to the north and a long kitchen to the east. Both additions are without architectural merit and would be demolished. The windows and doors are generally of white uPVC, and there’s also a white uPVC conservatory attached to the end of the kitchen extension which would also be removed.

©A449 Architects 2019 The property occupies a corner plot, set back approx. 9m from the public footpath. Its primary elevation has an open, west-facing aspect onto Saughton Road North, and the proposed scheme seeks to maintain the openness along the main road.

The existing garage extension to the north has been built up to the boundary wall and already runs 5.7m east along Meadowhouse Road. The north boundary wall, along Meadowhouse Road, is of random sandstone rubble construction with dressed openings and copes. At its tallest, the wall is approx. 1.7m high with the adjoining, existing garage a further 0.6m higher; the boundary wall forming the rear garden has also been increased in height by another 0.6m by a corrugated sheet metal fence; an attempt to provide privacy from the flats opposite, but using low quality materials.

DESIGN PROPOSAL

The application seeks to present a considered scheme of demolition and extension to improve the living environment of the current owners while maintaining the characteristics of the original property.

Although unusual, by relocating the rear extension to the north side of the rear garden the original form of the house can be reinstated, allowing significantly more daylight to enter the building at ground floor level; also, it will significantly reduce overlooking from the 3-storey block of flats on the opposite side of Meadowhouse Road. The new extension will be south facing, improving internal qualities of space, resulting in a positive physiological impact on the occupants living in a brighter space.

The scheme does not seek to remove the existing stone boundary walls, which are characteristic of the area, or reduce the amenity to neighbouring properties.

Scale and Massing

As the character appraisal of the neighbouring conservation area states, a mixture of architectural styles, plot sizes, building types and forms already exists in the surrounding area, including the conservation area. Compared to the more close-knit structure of the conservation area, the proposed scheme will maintain the lower density of the surrounding fabric. The scheme attempts to turn the corner into Meadowhouse Road in a similar, linear manner to the much larger block of flats opposite. It also attempts to maintain the contrast between the busy main road and the peaceful residential developments along Meadowhouse Road.

While it would be necessary to increase the height and length of the building along the north boundary, the new accommodation being provided is of a modest scale e.g. floor to ceiling heights of 2.4m and a 13m² master bedroom.

When compared to the existing garage and metal fencing along the north boundary, the proposed extension is less than 0.8m higher than the existing condition, but of much higher quality materials (diagram 1).

We recognise each application is assessed on a case by case basis, but we find it difficult to reconcile the decision made by the case officer about our considered proposal when there are examples of far less sympathetic interventions within the neighbouring conservation area itself. We believe our proposal is a more contextual response compared to other, recent consented schemes (annex fig 4).

©A449 Architects 2019 Materials

The current proposal seeks permission to use brick for the new extension, which is stepped back from the principle elevation, and to increase the height at the boundary; however, stone to match the existing wall, or other materials, could also be considered (annex fig 2 & 3).

We feel it’s entirely appropriate for the proposed new additions to the existing property to be contemporary in nature. The proposed brick is a high quality, handmade Danish product. Tonally, the proposed brick colour is similar to the existing stone of the house, but sufficiently distinct. The planning officer was invited to view a sample of brick on-site but didn’t visit. Brick has been used in the boundary wall at the other side of Meadowhouse Road - as are flat roofs and masonry screens; new windows and doors will be generally hidden from public view.

CONCLUSION

We feel a quality palette of contemporary materials, when used in a sympathetic, modest sized development gives a sense of incremental change, while considering and respecting the prevailing appearance of the original house and character of the surrounding area.

©A449 Architects 2019 Annex

Planning Ref: 19/00191/FUL – 41 SAUGHTON ROAD NORTH, EH12 7HN A449 Architects Ltd 23rd May 2019

Figure 1 (a+b)

The 3-storey linear block of flats at the north corner of Saughton Road North and Meadowhouse Road.

©A449 Architects 2019 Figure 2

A high, random stone boundary wall on Saughton Road North, located within the Corstorphine Conservation Area.

©A449 Architects 2019 Figure 3

An example of a recent domestic development against an existing stone boundary wall at 1a Inverleith Terrace, Edinburgh.

©A449 Architects 2019 Figure 4 (a+b)

An example of a modern domestic development on the corner of Glebe Road and Glebe Gardens, within the Corstorphine Conservation Area.

©A449 Architects 2019

Item 6.4(a)

LSM Architecture Mr Ulf And Mrs Sonia Theilen FAO: Scott McAllister 3F1 35 Guthrie Street 80 Spottiswoode Street Edinburgh Edinburgh United Kingdom UK EH1 1JG EH9 1DJ

Decision date: 13 February 2019

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACTS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013

Internal alterations to top floor flat to form external roof terrace. At 3F1 80 Spottiswoode Street Edinburgh EH9 1DJ

Application No: 18/10286/FUL DECISION NOTICE

With reference to your application for Planning Permission registered on 7 December 2018, this has been decided by Local Delegated Decision. The Council in exercise of its powers under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts and regulations, now determines the application as Refused in accordance with the particulars given in the application.

Any condition(s) attached to this consent, with reasons for imposing them, or reasons for refusal, are shown below;

Conditions:-

Reasons:-

1. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Plan Policy Env 6 in respect of Conservation Areas - Development, as the proposals will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the largely unaltered roofscape of the conservation area.

2. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Plan Policy Des 5 in respect of Development Design - Amenity, as the activities carried out on the roof terrace will encroach on the amenity of neighbouring residents.

3. The proposal is contrary to the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Character Appraisal as the proposals will not preserve the uniformity in the height, massing and

Sheila Bernard, Assistant Planner, Local Developments and LB East, Place Directorate. Tel 0131 529 4905, Email [email protected], Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

materials of the existing roofscapes, which contribute to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

4. The proposals are contrary to non-statutory guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas as they fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area.

Please see the guidance notes on our decision page for further information, including how to appeal or review your decision.

Drawings 01-03, represent the determined scheme. Full details of the application can be found on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services

The reason why the Council made this decision is as follows:

The proposals are contrary to policies ENV6 and DES5 of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan, the non-statutory guidance for listed buildings and conservation areas and the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area. There are no material considerations to justify the granting of planning permission and therefore refusal is recommended.

This determination does not carry with it any necessary consent or approval for the proposed development under other statutory enactments.

Should you have a specific enquiry regarding this decision please contact Sheila Bernard directly on 0131 529 4905.

Chief Planning Officer PLACE The City of Edinburgh Council

NOTES

Report of Handling

Application for Planning Permission 18/10286/FUL At 3F1 80 Spottiswoode Street, Edinburgh, EH9 1DJ Internal alterations to top floor flat to form external roof terrace.

Item Local Delegated Decision Application number 18/10286/FUL Wards B10 - Morningside

Summary

Links

Policies and guidance for LDPP, LDES05, LEN06, NSG, NSLBCA, CRPMAR, this application

Development Management report of handling – Page 1 of 9 18/10286/FUL Report of handling

Recommendations

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

2.1 Site description

The application site forms the roof of a four storey tenement block. The roof has a front and rear pitch with a flat central section. The proposed site is located in the centre of the east side of Spottiswoode Street. The surrounding area is primarily residential.

This application site is located within the Marchmont, Meadows And Bruntsfield Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

08/03/18 - An application for planning permission was withdrawn for internal alterations to the top floor flat to form an external roof terrace. (ref: 17/05633/FUL)

Main report 3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The proposal is for the creation of a roof terrace with a glass balustrade stepped back 1m from the edge of the roof and will be 1.1m in height. The roof terrace will measure 35sqm in total and will include a rooflight looking down into the property. The proposed roof terrace will consist of timber/composite decking. The access to the roof will be a 0.8m x 3m hinged rooflight.

3.2 Determining Issues

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

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

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

Development Management report of handling – Page 2 of 9 18/10286/FUL If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?

3.3 Assessment To address these determining issues, it needs to be considered whether: a) There is any adverse impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. b) There is any adverse impact on neighbouring amenity. c) There are any other considerations. d) Public comments have been addressed. e) Equalities and human rights impacts have been addressed. a) CHARACTER & APPEARANCE

Policy ENV6 states that development within a conservation area will be permitted where it preserves or enhances the special character of the conservation area and is consistent with the relevant character appraisal.

The Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Character Appraisal states that this part of the conservation area is characterised by Victorian and Georgian tenemental perimeter blocks that are uniform in height, massing and in the use of stone and slated roofs. The success of Marchmont is in the uniform detailing within the streets in terms of height, materials and unaltered roofscapes. The roofscape within Spottiswoode Street has remained largely unaltered since its original development and there is a great unity created by the consistent use of central cupolas on slated roofs.

In terms of the appearance of the conservation area, the roofs within the surrounding area are largely unaltered and are generally an unused space. The introduction of such an alteration to the largely unaltered roofscape is likely to encourage further similar alterations and should be resisted. To introduce a roof terrace in a typical stone tenement block would be introducing an alien element to the visual appearance of the roof and will impact on its uniformity. Items placed on the roof terrace, people enjoying the use of the roof terrace and lighting in the evening will make it highly visible and will have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the street and of the conservation area.

Being of a size to hold parties and social gatherings, this would not only have a significant impact on the appearance of the conservation area with the roof becoming highly visible but would impact on the area's special character by altering the roofscape both in terms of its visual quality and overall use. This proposal would undermine the strong character of the conservation area.

The addition of the roof terrace will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposals will neither preserve nor enhance that character and appearance of the conservation area and is unacceptable. b) AMENITY

Development Management report of handling – Page 3 of 9 18/10286/FUL Policy DES5 states that planning permission will be given for development that will not have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties in relation to noise, daylight, sunlight, privacy or immediate outlook.

The non-statutory Guidance for Householders states that roof terraces will not be granted where there is significant overlooking into neighbouring properties due to positioning and height or if the terrace results in a loss of privacy to neighbouring property.

The proposals will result in overlooking of the gardens to the adjoining properties. However, as the application property forms the upper flat in a tenement building where there is existing levels of overlooking between the upper floor windows and the rear garden areas, the additional level of overlooking would not be materially different from existing levels.

The terrace will result in activity on the roof, which would not normally take place. This change to the use of the roof will result in noise and activity, encroaching on the residential amenity of neighbouring residents. As this is an open space, noise will be easily carried into the surrounding area and properties.

There will be no impact in relation to daylight, sunlight or immediate outlook.

There will be an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity in regards to increased noise levels. c) OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

The agent has cited many examples of roof terraces which have been granted planning permission around the city, however, there are many applications which have also been refused including an application at 74 Spottiswoode Street. Each application is assessed on its own merits and against the surrounding area, not citywide. d) PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were eight representations in objection and four representations in support of the application. Issues raised in the objections are detailed below.

MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

•The proposals will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. •The proposals will have an adverse impact on the largely unaltered traditional roofscape. •The proposals will result in amenity issues for neighbouring properties. •The proposals will result in privacy issues. •The proposal will result in visual amenity issues. The glass balustrade will result in reflection and glare.

Development Management report of handling – Page 4 of 9 18/10286/FUL NON-MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

•A lot of student residences not making landlords aware of development, so less representations that what should be. •The proposal will set a precedent. •Health & Safety issues/no fire escape. •Joint responsibility of roof upkeep. •No control over future tenants. •Supporting cases dissimilar and within different areas.

Material issues have been addressed in section 3.3(a,b). e) EQUALITIES & HUMAN RIGHTS

There will be no impact on equalities and human rights.

CONCLUSION

The proposals are contrary to policies ENV6 and DES5 of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan, the non-statutory guidance for listed buildings and conservation areas and the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal. There are no material considerations in which to grant planning permission and therefore refusal is recommended.

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

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Reasons:-

3. The proposal is contrary to the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Character Appraisal as the proposals will not preserve the uniformity in the height, massing and materials of the existing roofscapes, which contribute to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

4. The proposals are contrary to non-statutory guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas as they fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area.

Development Management report of handling – Page 5 of 9 18/10286/FUL Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

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

5.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

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

Consultation and engagement

6.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

6.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

Eight material representations in objection have been received from neighbouring properties.

Four material representations of support were received.

These will be assessed in section 3.3(a,b) Background reading / external references

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

Development Management report of handling – Page 6 of 9 18/10286/FUL ort of handling

Statutory Development Plan Provision The application property is in the Urban Area designated in the Edinburgh Local Development Plan and is located within the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area.

Date registered 7 December 2018

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01-03

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Chief Planning Officer PLACE The City of Edinburgh Council

Contact: Sheila Bernard, Assistant Planner E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 4905

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Local Development Plan.

LDP Policy Des 5 (Development Design - Amenity) sets criteria for assessing amenity.

LDP Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas - Development) sets out criteria for assessing development in a conservation area.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

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

The Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the well proportioned Victorian tenemental perimeter blocks with Baronial

Development Management report of handling – Page 7 of 9 18/10286/FUL detailing and the substantial area of the open parkland formed by the Meadows and Bruntsfield Links.

Development Management report of handling – Page 8 of 9 18/10286/FUL Appendix 1

Consultations

No consultations undertaken.

END

Development Management report of handling – Page 9 of 9 18/10286/FUL Comments for Planning Application 18/10286/FUL

Application Summary Application Number: 18/10286/FUL Address: 3F1 80 Spottiswoode Street Edinburgh EH9 1DJ Proposal: Internal alterations to top floor flat to form external roof terrace. Case Officer: Sheila Bernard

Customer Details Name: Mr James Carrier Address: 92/4 Spottiswoode Street Edinburgh

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:7 January, 2019

Dear Committee,

I am writing concerning application for planning permission 18/10286/FUL, for 3F1 80 Spottiswoode Street.

This proposal is for changes not materially different from those proposed in 17/05633/FUL, which was withdrawn in March of 2018. The reasons which, I argued previously, indicated that the old proposal should be rejected apply to the new proposal as well. As well, new supporting arguments for the application seem insubstantial and misdirected.

1. The proposed alteration to the building entails a roof terrace, and the associated drawings indicate that there would be a screen erected on the street side of the proposed terrace, which would be visible from the street, as would the activities of people using the proposed terrace. The revised proposal says that the screen would be of glass and set back, and argues that the visual intrusion would thus be minimised.

At present, the tenements on that part of Spottiswoode Street are free from such intrusion and form a clean roof line. Approving the application would lead to breaking up that roof line, a characteristic Marchmont roof line sufficiently impressive that one is used as an illustration on page 13 of the Council's own 'Marchmont Meadows Conservation Area Character Appraisal'. Further, approving the application would, doubtless, be taken as a precedent for later applications by others leading to a further deterioration of the character of the street and the area.

The supporting statement prepared by JM Planning Services says that the visual intrusion would be minimal because the proposed change would be at the top of the building and states (without offering supporting evidence) that 'It is not natural to look upwards when walking' (Sect. 4.6, p. 8). This ignores the fact that Spottiswoode Street slopes markedly, so that the modification would be relatively visible. Also, the assertion that it is not natural to look upward denies the significance of the characteristic Marchmont roof line, mentioned already, that the Council values. By extension, of course, it denies the legitimacy of any effort to regulate the appearance of buildings above the second or third floor, which seems silly.

2. The supporting documents identify four instances where roof terraces have been approved in conservation areas, as precedent for approval in this case. (a) Of the four cases, none appears to have the strikingly uniform roof line found on Spottiswoode Street, and in most of those four the planning approval was for a further disruption of the roof line, rather than an initial disruption. (b) None of these cases are in Marchmont. (c) The supporting documents do not indicate cases where approval for such modification has been denied or where application was withdrawn because of objections, which appears to be the case with the earlier version of this application. Such cases may be far more numerous and it is not obvious that they should be ignored as precedents.

3. The supporting statement from JM Planning Services also states that there 'were only 5 objections to the previous application' (Sect. 3.3, p. 7). As the Council knows, Spottiswoode Street has a high number of rental properties, many to students with no long-term interest in the place where they happen to be living and who may not have bothered to bring the application notification to their landlords' attention. In the circumstances, it is not clear how many of the owners of property were aware of the previous application. For instance, I checked with the four owners of rental flats in my own stairwell, all apparently let to students, and all said that they did not know of the notification of either the initial application at the start of 2018 or of the present application.

The high level of student lets in the area raises a question which, I realise, may not be in the Committee's purview relating to residential amenity. It is reasonable to suppose that at some point the flat at issue will be sold, and it is also reasonable to suppose that it likely will be used by the purchaser as an HMO rental property. If this does turn out to be the case, it is likely that the proposed roof terrace would be the location of parties, noise and perhaps barbecues, which are common in good weather in the communal garden attached to my own tenement. This would affect not simply adjacent flats but the area more generally.

Also, of course, to the extent that the current owners or subsequent occupants use the proposed roof terrace, they would overlook dwellings and activities nearby. Residents in the area may find this unsettlingly intrusive.

4. To repeat a point made in my objection to the earlier proposal, a report to the Planing Committee dated 3 November 2005 (Report no PC/057/05-06/CD, Sect. 3.2) says that designation of an area as a Conservation Area, of which Marchmont is one, entails 'a commitment to positive action for the preservation or enhancement of character or appearance' of the area. It is difficult to see how breaking up the roof line on Spottiswoode Street preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the street, particularly for something so divorced from the common good as a private roof terrace, especially when the tenement's communal garden is available.

Yours,

James Carrier

Comments for Planning Application 18/10286/FUL

Customer Details Name: Mr Graham Leake Address: 80/6, Spottiswoode Street Edinburgh

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour-Residential Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I have seen the proposal my neighbour Dr. Theilen has prepared for creating a roof terrace over his family's flat. I have no objection to the scheme, and have heard no adverse comments from other residents of the house. I believe the visual aspect on the neighbourhood would be minimal. Comments for Planning Application 18/10286/FUL

Customer Details Name: Mr Les Rutherford Address: 32 Spottiswoode Road Edinburgh

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour-Residential Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:The proposal is most inappropriate for a tenement in a conservation area and entirely out of character with it's surroundings.

The skyline would interfere with the general ambiance and with natural sunlight and light, that benefits the established mature landscaped communal areas.

A development of this nature, would set a precedent that would make resisting further similar developments impossible which would completely destroy the character of the conservation area. Comments for Planning Application 18/10286/FUL

Customer Details Name: Mr Scott Fraser Address: 30 Spottiswoode Road Edinburgh

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour-Residential Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Please, please, please don't allow neighbours to alter and heighten the building skyline. We rely on every centimetre of the sun in our back garden (we don't get much as it sets down where the proposed balcony goes) and it would be tragic if apartments blocks were to be full of glass balcony's heightening the skyline of the buildings and giving us less sun light in our back gardens. if one is allowed I am pretty sure the whole ofMarchmont will start doing this to increase the value of their properties. It is a great back garden for children to play in and for all to enjoy. No need for rooftop balconies in Marchmont. I hope there are protected rules against this. Comments for Planning Application 18/10286/FUL

Customer Details Name: Mr Robert Macintyre Address: 34/6 Spottiswoode Road Edinburgh

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour-Residential Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I believe that granting permission for this roof terrace will be detrimental to the character of this conservation area and spoil local amenity due to issues with noise pollution from use of the terrace as well as potential issues with outdoor furniture which would be visible. There could also be danger due to strong winds often experienced as a result of the location of the building being at the top of a hill which could cause furniture to be blown off the roof.

Due to the fact that this terrace would be placed 2 floors above most top floor flats and at right angles to Spottiswoode Road this would allow uninterrupted views into these flats which previously enjoyed privacy. Also flats on Arden street to the rear and upper levels on Spottiswoode Street would be affected.

Having looked into the examples provided of roof terraces which were given planning consent, none of these are comparable to what is proposed and I believe if this were granted this would set a precedent for top floor flat owners not only in Marchmont but other conservation areas to follow suit as this would increase the commercial value of the properties. Comments for Planning Application 18/10286/FUL

Customer Details Name: Dr Augusto Azuara-Blanco Address: 40 Malone Park Belfast

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour-Residential Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:We are the owners of the 2F1 flat in the same building

We are happy to support this application

Augusto Azuara-Blanco and Noemi Lois Comments for Planning Application 18/10286/FUL

Customer Details Name: Mr Alasdair MacLennan Address: 2F1 80 Spottiswoode Street Edinburgh

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:As a downstairs neighbour of the applicants, I have spoken at length with them about this proposed modification & it strikes me as an excellent use for such a largely unused space.

I do not anticipate any disturbance or spoiling of the block's appearance as the modifications & their access points are effectively invisible from below.

Such a private spot would afford a lot of enjoyment to the occupants & their guests for much of the year, with its superb views of the old city & beyond. As it stands that opportunity is lost to everyone.

Therefore I offer my support for their application, knowing them to be responsible people who've considered possible effects on their neighbours when drafting this application. Comments for Planning Application 18/10286/FUL

Customer Details Name: Mr Philip Mackenzie Address: 3/2 68 Spottiswoode street Edinburgh

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I've lived in Spottiswoode street for c 25 years. I can see no reason for refusing this planning application. The construction will in no way interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, nor will it interfere with Comments for Planning Application 18/10286/FUL

Customer Details Name: Mr scott fraser Address: 30 Spottiswoode Road Edinburgh

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour-Residential Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Please, please, please don't allow neighbours to alter and heighten the building skyline. We rely on every centimetre of the sun in our back garden (we don't get much as it sets down where the proposed balcony goes) and it would be tragic if apartments blocks were to be full of glass balcony's heightening the skyline of the buildings and giving us less sun light in our back gardens. if one is allowed I am pretty sure the whole of Marchmont will start doing this to increase the value of their properties. It is a great back garden for children to play in and for all to enjoy. No need for rooftop balconies in Marchmont. I hope there are protected rules against this.

I am also concerned about the noise that will come from this balcony as well as the fact that we will all be able to see the glass balcony from our back gardens and looking over on the shared space (although the planning document states that Spottiswoode Road is further afield we look directly up to this from all our shared back gardens from Spottiswoode Road and Arden Street).

Comments for Planning Application 18/10286/FUL

Customer Details Name: Mrs Susan Pym Address: 86/2 Spottiswoode Street Edinburgh

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I write to object to the application for 3F1 / 80 Spottiswoode Street which proposes alterations to the attic to form an external roof terrace. I own 86/2 next door and submitted an earlier objection to application 17/05633/FUL which was withdrawn when the applicant was told by the Planning Officer Steven Sinclair that he would recommend its refusal on grounds of impact on the conservation area and neighbouring amenity. Apart from the obvious planning objections such as those, I am also concerned about this roof terrace causing a fire hazard. Being in a Conservation Area I am deeply concerned about the change to the character of the area and particularly the beautiful Marchmont roof scape. The application suggests using a glass or Perspex balustrade. I am concerned that this terrace, or the ones which will surely follow (with or without approval), will be used as terraces for barbecues, garden heaters, chimney wood burners, fireworks, strings of lights, solar lighting etc. Why wouldn't you want to use it this way? However there is no form of fire escape and I believe such developments would be a disaster in such a built up area of four storey properties. The only means of escape would be back through the flat and down the communal stair. Should the terrace be used for open air entertaining I believe it will become an anti-social nuisance. If this development is approved I believe other applications will follow and the environmental impact will be significant, changing the character and rooflines of Marchmont for ever. I strongly object. Comments for Planning Application 18/10286/FUL

Customer Details Name: Dr The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland Address: 15 Rutland Square, Edinburgh EH1 2BE

Comment Details Commenter Type: Amenity Body Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above planning application. The proposals concern works relating to a property located within the Marchmont, Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area. The Forth & Borders Cases Panel of the AHSS has considered the proposal and wishes to make the following comments.

We are concerned with the introduction of a glass balustrade rooftop terrace, as it would be detrimental to the Conservation Area and the existing roofscape of Spottiswoode Street itself. While the Supporting Statement outlines that the balustrade will not be visible from the street, the section drawing provided shows that from across the street the balustrade would be visible, and is indeed shown in the rendered visualisation 'looking in north easterly direction'. We are very concerned that this will set a precedent for the area, which consists of wholly Victorian tenements, with no roof terraces, and a clear traditional architectural language of stone facades with slate roofs.

While the applicant states that the glass balustrade is discreet, we are concerned that in winter sun, there could be reflections cast on the street or surrounding area which would result in a very visual and prominent addition to the terrace.

Accordingly, the AHSS wishes to object to the proposals, which contravene Policy ENV 6 of the Local Development Plan.

Item 6.4(b)

Business Centre G.2 Waverley Court 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG Tel: 0131 529 3550 Fax: 0131 529 6206 Email: [email protected]

Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid.

Thank you for completing this application form:

ONLINE REFERENCE 100077194-003

Applicant or Agent Details

Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application)  Applicant Agent Agent Details

Please enter Agent details

LSM Architecture Company/Organisation:

Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Scott First Name: * Building Name:

McAllister 35 Last Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Guthrie Street Telephone Number: * 01315640750 (Street): *

Extension Number: Address 2:

Edinburgh Mobile Number: Town/City: *

United Kingdom Fax Number: Country: *

EH1 1JG Postcode: *

Email Address: * [email protected]

Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? *

 Individual  Organisation/Corporate entity

Page 1 of 5 Applicant Details

Please enter Applicant details

Other Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Mr & Mrs 3F1 Other Title: Building Name:

Ulf & Sonia 80 First Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Theilen Spottiswoode Street Last Name: * (Street): *

Company/Organisation Address 2:

Edinburgh Telephone Number: * Town/City: *

UK Extension Number: Country: *

EH9 1DJ Mobile Number: Postcode: *

Fax Number:

Email Address: *

Site Address Details

Planning Authority: City of Edinburgh Council

Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available):

3F1 Address 1:

Address 2: 80 SPOTTISWOODE STREET

Address 3:

Address 4:

Address 5:

Town/City/Settlement: EDINBURGH

EH9 1DJ Post Code:

Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites

672173 325312 Northing Easting

Page 2 of 5 Description of Proposal

Internal alterations to top floor flat to form external roof terrace.

Type of Application

What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? *

What does your review relate to? *

Statement of reasons for seeking review

Please refer to the attached document entitled; 'Supporting Statement for A Notice of Review' as prepared by JM Planning Services.

Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the  Yes  No Determination on your application was made? *

- Cover Letter for Notice of Review, - Supporting Statement for A Notice of Review, - Documents included in the planning submission including; cover letter, application form, drawings (Location Plan, 1632-01 revision C and 1632-02 revision C), supporting statements (from Architect and Planning Consultant). - Report of Handling, - Decision Notice.

Application Details

Please provide details of the application and decision.

What is the application reference number? * 18/10286/FUL

What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * 07/12/2018

What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * 13/02/2019

Review Procedure

By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates

Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it will deal with? (Max 500 characters) We have submitted sufficient information with this Notice for Review. However, should members wish to visit the site to get a better understanding of the environment then they would be welcome to do so. This would be a street-level view only as it is not currently possible to access the rooftop safely.

In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion:

Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? *  Yes  No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? *  Yes  No

Page 4 of 5 Checklist – Application for Notice of Review

Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. *  Yes  No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this  Yes  No review? *

Declare – Notice of Review

I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated.

Declaration Name: Mr Scott McAllister

Declaration Date: 08/05/2019

Page 5 of 5 Business Centre G.2 Waverley Court 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG Tel: 0131 529 3550 Fax: 0131 529 6206 Email: [email protected]

Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid.

Thank you for completing this application form:

ONLINE REFERENCE 100077194-002

Description of Proposal

Please describe accurately the work proposed: * (Max 500 characters)

Internal alterations to top floor flat to form external roof terrace

Has the work already been started and/ or completed? *

 No  Yes - Started  Yes – Completed Applicant or Agent Details

Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application)  Applicant Agent

Page 1 of 5 Agent Details

Please enter Agent details

LSM Architecture Company/Organisation:

Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Scott First Name: * Building Name:

McAllister 35 Last Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Guthrie Street Telephone Number: * 01315640750 (Street): *

Extension Number: Address 2:

Edinburgh Mobile Number: Town/City: *

United Kingdom Fax Number: Country: *

EH1 1JG Postcode: *

Email Address: * [email protected]

Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? *

 Individual  Organisation/Corporate entity

Applicant Details

Please enter Applicant details

Other Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Mr & Mrs 3F1 Other Title: Building Name:

Ulf & Sonia 80 First Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Theilen Spottiswoode Street Last Name: * (Street): *

Company/Organisation Address 2:

Edinburgh Telephone Number: * Town/City: *

UK Extension Number: Country: *

EH9 1DJ Mobile Number: Postcode: *

Fax Number:

Email Address: *

Page 2 of 5 Site Address Details

Planning Authority: City of Edinburgh Council

Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available):

3F1 Address 1:

Address 2: 80 SPOTTISWOODE STREET

Address 3:

Address 4:

Address 5:

Town/City/Settlement: EDINBURGH

EH9 1DJ Post Code:

Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites

672173 325312 Northing Easting

Pre-Application Discussion

Have you discussed your proposal with the planning authority? *  Yes  No Pre-Application Discussion Details Cont.

In what format was the feedback given? *

 Meeting  Telephone  Letter  Email

Please provide a description of the feedback you were given and the name of the officer who provided this feedback. If a processing agreement [note 1] is currently in place or if you are currently discussing a processing agreement with the planning authority, please provide details of this. (This will help the authority to deal with this application more efficiently.) * (max 500 characters)

Original planning application reference 17/05633/FUL was withdrawn on 6th March 2018 following communication with the Planning Officer, Mr Steven Sinclair, who suggested he was unable to support the proposal. It is prudent to note that during discussions with Steven, where we responded to those perceived issues with the proposal, he noted that there was "a good case to present to the LRB".

Mr Title: Other title:

First Name: Steven Last Name: Sinclair

Correspondence Reference Date (dd/mm/yyyy): Number: 23/02/2018

Note 1. A Processing agreement involves setting out the key stages involved in determining a planning application, identifying what information is required and from whom and setting timescales for the delivery of various stages of the process.

Page 3 of 5 Trees

Are there any trees on or adjacent to the application site? *  Yes  No

If yes, please mark on your drawings any trees, known protected trees and their canopy spread close to the proposal site and indicate if any are to be cut back or felled.

Access and Parking

Are you proposing a new or altered vehicle access to or from a public road? *  Yes  No

If yes, please describe and show on your drawings the position of any existing, altered or new access points, highlighting the changes you proposed to make. You should also show existing footpaths and note if there will be any impact on these.

Planning Service Employee/Elected Member Interest

Is the applicant, or the applicant’s spouse/partner, either a member of staff within the planning service or an  Yes  No elected member of the planning authority? *

Certificates and Notices

CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE UNDER REGULATION 15 – TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATION 2013

One Certificate must be completed and submitted along with the application form. This is most usually Certificate A, Form 1, Certificate B, Certificate C or Certificate E.

Are you/the applicant the sole owner of ALL the land? *  Yes  No

Is any of the land part of an agricultural holding? *  Yes  No Certificate Required

The following Land Ownership Certificate is required to complete this section of the proposal:

Certificate A Land Ownership Certificate

Certificate and Notice under Regulation 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013

Certificate A

I hereby certify that –

(1) - No person other than myself/the applicant was an owner (Any person who, in respect of any part of the land, is the owner or is the lessee under a lease thereof of which not less than 7 years remain unexpired.) of any part of the land to which the application relates at the beginning of the period of 21 days ending with the date of the accompanying application.

(2) - None of the land to which the application relates constitutes or forms part of an agricultural holding

Signed: Scott McAllister

On behalf of: Mr & Mrs Ulf & Sonia Theilen

Date: 07/12/2018

 Please tick here to certify this Certificate. *

Page 4 of 5 Checklist – Application for Householder Application

Please take a few moments to complete the following checklist in order to ensure that you have provided all the necessary information in support of your application. Failure to submit sufficient information with your application may result in your application being deemed invalid. The planning authority will not start processing your application until it is valid. a) Have you provided a written description of the development to which it relates?. *  Yes  No b) Have you provided the postal address of the land to which the development relates, or if the land in question  Yes  No has no postal address, a description of the location of the land? * c) Have you provided the name and address of the applicant and, where an agent is acting on behalf of the  Yes  No applicant, the name and address of that agent.? * d) Have you provided a location plan sufficient to identify the land to which it relates showing the situation of the  Yes  No land in relation to the locality and in particular in relation to neighbouring land? *. This should have a north point and be drawn to an identified scale. e) Have you provided a certificate of ownership? *  Yes  No f) Have you provided the fee payable under the Fees Regulations? *  Yes  No g) Have you provided any other plans as necessary? *  Yes  No

Continued on the next page

A copy of the other plans and drawings or information necessary to describe the proposals (two must be selected). *

You can attach these electronic documents later in the process.

 Existing and Proposed elevations.

 Existing and proposed floor plans.

 Cross sections.

 Site layout plan/Block plans (including access).

 Roof plan.

 Photographs and/or photomontages.

Additional Surveys – for example a tree survey or habitat survey may be needed. In some instances you  Yes  No may need to submit a survey about the structural condition of the existing house or outbuilding.

A Supporting Statement – you may wish to provide additional background information or justification for your  Yes  No Proposal. This can be helpful and you should provide this in a single statement. This can be combined with a Design Statement if required. *

You must submit a fee with your application. Your application will not be able to be validated until the appropriate fee has been Received by the planning authority.

Declare – For Householder Application

I, the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for planning permission as described in this form and the accompanying Plans/drawings and additional information.

Declaration Name: Mr Scott McAllister

Declaration Date: 07/12/2018

Page 5 of 5 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR A NOTICE OF REVIEW

To The City of Edinburgh Council’s Local Review Body

Application Reference 18/10286/FUL Formation of External Roof Terrace with Glass Balustrade

At 3F1 (Flat 5) 80 Spottiswoode Street, Edinburgh

Prepared by

JM PLANNING SERVICES

On behalf of

Mr Ulf and Mrs Sonia Theilen

7th May 2019

JM Planning Services 31 Kilburn Wood Drive, Roslin Midlothian EH25 9AA List of Contents Page

1.0 Introduction 3

2.0 Planning Background 4

3.0 Purpose of the Review 5

4.0 Grounds for Review of Officer’s Decision 6

5.0 Conclusions 12

PL/UST/LSM/SSE/060/LRB Supporting Statement V2. FINAL 7th May 2019 John MacCallum BSc. (Hons), MRTPI Planning Consultant

2 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 A Notice of Review has been submitted by LSM Architecture on behalf of Mr Ulf and Mrs Sonia Theilen whose planning application (Reference 18/10286/FUL) relating to “Internal Alterations to Top Floor Flat to Form External Roof Terrace at 3F1 80 Spottiswoode Street Edinburgh EH9 1DJ was refused on 13th February 2019.

1.2 It is worth explaining to the LRB members at the outset of this review request in as simple and as succinct a way as possible that the purpose of the roof terrace is for the applicants to take advantage of the opportunity to view the spectacular Edinburgh skyline from a different perspective. The proposal will provide the upper flat in this tenement block in the Marchmont area with easier access than presently exists to enjoy the use of an external area, similar to the garden areas below for those living on the lower floors in the same block, and in order to enjoy these views.

1.3 It is worth highlighting also that the proposed roof terrace is to be formed by erecting a glass balustrade on the flat roof section of the mansard roof on top of a 4 storey tenement building (5 storey when the attic area is included, over 17 metres in height), designed in such a way as to make it not appear prominent or visually intrusive, in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area within which the property is located. In that regard, the balustrading will not be visible at all from all of the streets in the area immediately surrounding the property with the exception of a short section of Spottiswoode Road where it crosses Spottiswoode Street and even then only a very small section of glass balustrade would be able to be mildly glimpsed, if a person happened to look upwards.

1.4 In addition to the proposal not causing any visual harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the use of the roof terrace will also not impact adversely on the residential amenity of neighbouring residents in the surrounding area by virtue of noise as the use of the roof terrace is associated with a residential use, compatible with the residential environment and any noise that might happen to occur would be similar in nature to that in the gardens at ground level. Any noise would also travel upwards and not downwards, and therefore the issue has been wrongly assessed by the Planning Officer which contradicts other views on this issue by planning colleagues on other similar proposals which have been granted planning permission.

1.5 Both of these aspects will be expanded on further in this Review Statement accordingly with some additional clarification on the issue of precedents, in order to demonstrate that the proposal is in accordance with Council adopted Local Development Plan policy and which would enable the LRB to lend its support for the proposal.

2.0 PLANNING BACKGROUND

2.1 A similar proposal was the subject of a planning application in 2017 (Reference 17/05633/FUL. The Planning Officer at that time (who is understood to have subsequently left his employment with the Council) had raised a number of issues, mainly in connection with the principle of the use of the rooftop for a terrace, potential adverse visual impact based on the design and location of the balustrading and potential impact on residential amenity from noise associated with its use.

2.2 The application had attracted only 5 objections, 2 of those only were from immediate neighbours (No 86 and 92 Spottiswoode Street) with the other 3 from much further afield (Nos 32 and 36 Spottiswoode Street and 16 Warrender Park Road). While it was difficult to determine which of the objectors raised concerns regarding impact on amenity since objection letters are not able to be viewed, it would be reasonable to assume that only the 2 closest proprietors/occupiers would have reason to raise such a concern.

2.3 On advising that the application would be refused, the Planning Officer did not allow the applicant or the agent, LSM Architecture, the opportunity to meet or to discuss the merits of the proposal in order to seek to overcome any concerns that had been raised that had not otherwise been included in the application. The application was withdrawn before it was determined.

2.4 The applicant took time to consider the Officer’s comments in relation to the previous application and commissioned JM Planning Services to work with the Architects to determine if there was merit in pursuing a further application. As part of this process, a research of other roof terrace applications in the City was undertaken by interrogating the Council’s online Planning Portal.

2.5 It was determined that there were numerous examples of other roof terraces which had been approved throughout the City and based on an assessment of those, which included terraces being permitted on Listed Buildings, in Conservation Areas and in World Heritage Site locations, it was felt that the proposal merited further consideration by the Council. However, a further positive step was taken to make a material change to the previous proposal by setting back the glass balustrade by 1 metre from the west facing edge of the flat roof, responding to the concern raised by the Planning Officer to the initial application that the balustrade would be visible.

2.6 Application Reference 18/10286/FUL which is the subject of this review was submitted but it was considered in the same manner as the first by the Planning Officer, with no opportunity for further discussion to address concerns which had been raised or to clarify any misunderstanding by the Planner of her perception that the proposal would have adverse visual and residential amenity impacts. The application attracted a total of 8 letters of objection but only from 7 individuals (as 2 letters were from the same person). However, notably, there were also 4 letters submitted in support of the revised proposal.

2.7 A list of questions were presented to the Planning Officer before it was determined. Unfortunately, the requests for further evidence to support the Planning Officer’s position, for a further consideration of the amenity issues presented and for further consideration of another precedent case were all ignored and the application was refused within a relatively short time thereafter.

3.0 PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

3.1 The application was determined under delegated powers and the Planning Case Officer deemed that the application should be refused for 4 reasons as stated below:-

“1. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Plan Policy Env 6 in respect of Conservation Areas - Development, as the proposals will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the largely unaltered roofscape of the conservation area.

4. The proposals are contrary to non-statutory guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas as they fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area.”

3.2 The formal request for a review of the decision includes the Notice of Review and the accompanying documents which were submitted as part of the planning application, as required, as well as this additional supporting Review Statement.

3.3 The purpose of seeking a review of the Officer’s decision is to explain to the LRB that the proposal for a glass balustrade on the rooftop of the tenement building will bring no adverse harm to the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area by virtue that it cannot be seen, a matter which the Planning Officer has failed to understand in her assessment of the application.

3.4 Consequently, this Statement will aim to demonstrate to the LRB members that the proposed creation of the roof terrace is fully compliant with adopted LDP policy and supplementary guidance. The review submission will seek to demonstrate that there are no material considerations that would outweigh the Development Plan, allowing the LRB to over-turn the Planning Officer’s decision and approve the application in accordance with the Council’s own adopted LDP policy.

3.5 The applicant seeks a determination of the Review by written submissions only. The supporting documentation included within the Review submission papers are considered to be sufficient to assist the LRB members in their consideration of the application. However, in the event that these are not sufficient, further procedure is also requested involving a Site Inspection to enable the LRB to take into consideration the nature and character of the property and its surrounding context, in order to fully understand the justifications being presented for the proposed roof terrace.

4.0 GROUNDS FOR REVIEW OF OFFICER’S DECISION

4.1 Reasons for Refusal 1, 3 and 4 - Character and Appearance

4.1.1 The Planning Officer has failed to understand that the proposed balustrade will not be a wholly visible or prominent form on the roofscape, only a very small part. The use of glass will diminish its prominence ensuring it will not be visually intrusive. It cannot be harmful to the Conservation Area in that regard.

4.1.2 Policy ENV6 of the adopted Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP) states that development within a Conservation Area will be permitted where it preserves or enhances the special character of the conservation area and is consistent with the relevant character appraisal.

4.1.3 The Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Character Appraisal states that the “success of Marchmont is in the uniform detailing within the streets in terms of height, materials and unaltered roofscapes. The roofscape within Spottiswoode Street has remained largely unaltered since its original development and there is a great unity created by the consistent use of central cupolas on slated roofs.”

4.1.4 The applicant is wholly in agreement with adopted LDP Policy ENV6 and of the objectives in the aforementioned Character Appraisal of protecting the unity of the roofscapes in the Marchmont area. The proposal has been devised very much with this in mind with the intention of ensuring that the features of the existing roofscape are not altered.

4.1.5 There will be no impact on the central cupola feature within the roof: it is to remain and there is no proposal to remove or alter it in any way. However, it is important to emphasise that these central cupolas on the flat roof top are not visible either as they were devised as a form of providing light to the internal stairwells but in a way that they would not protrude to an extent that they would be visible from ground level.

4.1.6 The positioning of the balustrade 1 metre back from the flat roof edge on the west facing side will ensure it is not visible from Spottiswoode Street, given the angle of view upwards from ground level to the roof top level over 4/5 storeys (17 metres in height). In that regard, it is not natural for pedestrians, when taking in their surroundings, to look upwards when walking along a pavement such as on Spottiswoode Street and as such, it will not be possible to see it. It would clearly not be visible from Arden Street either due to the existence of intervening buildings.

4.1.7 It is accepted that there is likely only to be a small section of the top of the glass barrier - perhaps 20-30 cm of glass - which might be mildly glimpsed in passing over a very short distance of Spottiswoode Road where it crosses Spottiswoode Street to the south-west, if a person happened to look upwards, which is unlikely given this location is at a road junction. However, the use of a glass balustrade rather than metal railing to form the roof terrace was purposefully designed in the event that any part that might be visible would not be prominent or visually intrusive from close range views.

4.1.8 It will be completely obscured from view from further afield, such as the Meadows, due to the existence of the other tenement buildings which are positioned in between and at heights which make it impossible to see the flat roof top sections of the tenement buildings in Spottiswoode Street.

4.1.9 It is therefore difficult to understand how balustrading, which has been designed to be invisible in terms of the glass material to be used and its set back from the flat roof edge, will be detrimental to the Conservation Area when it will be impossible to readily see it. It will neither be prominent or visually intrusive from any public vantage point, as stated above.

4.1.10 The Planning Officer further states in her Report of Handling:-

“The introduction of such an alteration to the largely unaltered roofscape is likely to encourage further similar alterations and should be resisted. To introduce a roof terrace in a typical stone tenement block would be introducing an alien element to the visual appearance of the roof and will impact on its uniformity. Items placed on the roof terrace, people enjoying the use of the roof terrace and lighting in the evening will make it highly visible and will have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the street and of the conservation area.”

4.1.11 It is worth re-stating that people tend not to look up at the rooftops of buildings. Even residents in tenement blocks, particularly those at the lower to middle floor levels in a tenement building, are unlikely to spend time looking out of windows upwards at the rooftops of buildings opposite or to the side. The buildings across Spottiswoode Street in are approximately 29 m apart but the closest part of the roof terrace would be between 33 metres and 34 metres to the face of the buildings on the opposite side. The distance between properties across the backyard area towards Arden Street and Spottiswoode Road is even greater at 37 metres between buildings and 40 metres from the closest part of the proposed roof terrace to the face of the buildings opposite. In the case of Spottiswoode Road which runs perpendicular to Spottiswoode Street, the back roof terrace when viewed from the north facing windows in the particular properties of Nos 30, 32 and 34 (only 3 of whose residents in this block objected to the application) will be obscured by the roof sections above 84 to 88 Spottiswoode Street which sits approximately 1 metre higher. The views from these windows will also be from a lower level and at such an angle that the roof terrace area will not be visible at all and only a relatively small part of balustrading is likely to be visible.

4.1.12 The use of a glass balustrade on the flat roof top is unlikely to draw attention from these properties as it will not appear prominent or visually intrusive. The uniformity of the existing roofscape will not be compromised in that regard either given the transparency of the glass material to be used and that it being set back from the edge will reduce further its prominence.

4.1.13 It is also worth stating that large amounts of items would NOT be placed on the roof terrace as suggested by the Planner – it would not be practical to lift items out on to the rooftop every time it was to be used. Items would not be left out on the roof either as this would create a hazard as they could be blown away. It would not be feasible in terms of cost or the practical means either to pin such items down to the roof floor. From the applicant’s point of view, this would be a considerable amount of work for the sake of having the opportunity, occasionally and weather dependent, to access an external area close to their flat in order to sit out on the rooftop either in the evening or during the day at a weekend, to view the Edinburgh skyline from a different perspective.

4.1.14 With regard to the roof top being of a size to “hold parties and social gatherings”, completely misunderstands the purpose of the use of the roof terrace and the practicalities of its use other than for the applicants’ personal enjoyment. It would not be practical to hold such gatherings due to the constraints of the internal accessing arrangement, despite the slight modification required to make it compliant with Building Standards. Additionally, it is difficult to see how the use of this small outdoor

7 area on the roof can cause a relevant reduction in amenity for the surrounding area considering that, based on the applicants’ experience of living in their property, much larger groups of residents regularly use the backdoor garden areas, arguably creating a far more considerable level of noise which is rightly accepted as part of living in the communal tenement area.

4.1.15 Lastly, there was no ability to discuss the merits of the case with the Planning Officer. The following request was submitted (amongst others as referred to earlier in paragraph 2.7 of this Statement):-

“1. Please can you provide details of how you think it will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area? We would appreciate some evidence of how you have reached that conclusion i.e. where do you think it will be visible from?

4.1.16 No response was provided other than that a decision had already been reached and the matter would not be given any further consideration.

Summary and Conclusion on Character and Appearance 4.1.17 The Planning Officer has not provided sufficient reasoning in the Report of Handling to support her viewpoint that the balustrading proposed to form the roof terrace will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

4.1.18 Consequently, as has been demonstrated both in the planning application submission and in this Notice of Review, the proposed roof terrace will not be a prominent feature and it will be virtually invisible. It cannot therefore, by association, have a harmful effect on the Conservation Area and cannot be deemed to be contrary to adopted LDP Policy ENV6 or to the Council’s non-statutory guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas.

4.2 Reason for Refusal 2 - Amenity

4.2.1 The Planning Officer has failed to understand that the issue of noise from a roof terrace is unlikely to have a material impact on surrounding residential properties because it itself is residential in nature. The Officer has also failed to consider information presented to demonstrate that the approval of roof terraces elsewhere in the City within residential areas would render a refusal on residential amenity grounds as untenable.

4.2.2 Policy DES5 in the adopted LDP states that planning permission will be given for development that will not have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties in relation to noise, daylight, sunlight, privacy or immediate outlook.

4.2.3 The only issue which the Officer raised concerns with was noise as the proposal was acceptable in respect of all other amenity issues mentioned in the policy criteria and in the non- statutory Guidance for Householders 2018, as confirmed in the Officer’s Report of Handling. She determined that the “noise and activity” on a private residential roof terrace would be of a nature and scale that would significantly affect neighbouring residents. Specifically, and without qualification or any supporting evidence from Environmental Health Officials regarding the effects of noise and how it might travel, she states:-

“As this is an open space, noise will be easily carried into the surrounding area and properties. ……There will be an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity in regards to increased noise levels.”

4.2.4 It is contended that it should not be necessary to counter this viewpoint since, in planning terms, noise and activity specifically associated with a residential property within a residential area is not necessarily a planning matter. The use of a roof above a residential tenement building by its owner, or person(s) with access rights to it, does not constitute a change of use that would require a planning application. It is only the erection of the balustrade structure that requires planning permission by virtue that the property is a flatted dwelling. It is a domestic space which, as with other schemes approved elsewhere in the City, have been found to be acceptable within a residential area. This issue and the examples of other cases were drawn to the Planning Officer’s attention in the Planning Statement which supported the planning application.

4.2.5 As quoted on page 7 of that Statement, in the case of 12 Abercromby Place - 16/05922/FUL, the Case Officer’s Report of Handling stated the following:-

“c) Residential Amenity The position of the balustrades on the proposed roof terrace will prevent any direct and close overlooking of neighbours' gardens. These gardens are already overlooked from the rear windows of this property.

Any noise generation at this level will not be significant and there is already capacity to create noise within any properties in the terrace.

The development will therefore have no detrimental impact on neighbouring residential amenity.”

4.2.6 Notwithstanding the above, it is still considered necessary to respond to the issue of noise from a residential space as raised by the Planning Office to support the applicant’s case as stated above and to assist in the LRB’s further understanding of this issue. Any noise at roof top level is likely to travel upwards not downwards. The roof terrace is also set back from the edge of the roofscape and noise will not be able to be directed specifically downwards in any case. Therefore, any family or group of children etc. in the backyard (or in lower flats with the windows open etc.) would be far more audible than a family on top of the building of the roof terrace. Noise at ground level will resonate around the enclosed back yard as opposed to noise at roof top level dissipating in to the open air at a high level. Equally, noise emanating from an open window in one of the flats in the tenement block could cause a disturbance. Therefore, the matter of noise from a residential source within a residential area is better addressed through Environmental legislation rather than by way of planning assessment as part of this application.

4.2.7 It is important to reiterate the point in 4.1.14 earlier in this Statement that the holding of parties and social gatherings completely misunderstands the purpose of the use of the roof terrace and the practicalities of its use other than for the applicants’ personal enjoyment.

4.2.8 In addition, it is worth highlighting that while there were 5 objections raising amenity concerns to the previous application (2 of which were from neighbours (No 86 and 92 Spottiswoode Street), the application which is the subject of this review did attract 3 more letters of objection but 2 were from the same person and so only 7 individuals objected. Notably, however, there were 4 letters submitted

in support of the revised proposal, 3 of which from residents who live in Spottiswoode Street close to the application property with 2 of them residing in the same block at No. 80.

4.2.9 An appraisal of the representations has determined that, of those who did object, 4 live either in the same block (1 at No. 80) or in neighbouring blocks (3 at Nos 86, 92 and 92/4) but with no ability to see the roof top at all as they live below the level of and in the same row of tenement buildings on the same side of the street as the proposal. The 3 other objectors live in Spottiswoode Road (Nos 30, 32 and 34/6) in a block which is perpendicular to Spottiswoode Street. While these flats might be in close proximity to the roof terrace proposal, they are all at a lower level and to the side thereby supporting the view held, as stated in paragraph 4.2.6 above, that any noise, if created at all, from the roof terrace would not able to be heard by the residents in these properties, particularly through closed windows. Even through open windows in these flats, any such noise might not be dissimilar in nature to that from the gardens areas at ground level but, as stated above, any such noise at roof top level would likely be unheard as it would dissipate in to the air at the higher level.

4.2.10 Furthermore, 3 of the letters of support came from neighbours living close to the application property (1 at No. 68 and 2 in the same block at No. 80 Spottiswoode Street) which would suggest that there are no concerns from some residents who also live in close proximity to the proposed roof terrace.

4.2.11 Lastly, and as stated earlier, there was no ability to discuss the merits of the case with the Planning Officer but before the decision was made, the following points of clarification were presented to the Planning Officer:-

“2. The use of the roof terrace requires to be considered in the context of the residential use - it can only be accessed by 1 private residential property and the use will be no different to that associated with a private garden at ground level.

3. The Council has already deemed the use of a roof terrace to be acceptable in residential amenity terms in all other cases, with the matter explicitly stated in one of the applications which was approved and which was highlighted in the supporting Planning Statement.”

4.2.12 No response was provided other than that a decision had already been reached and the matter would not be given any further consideration.

Summary and Conclusion on Amenity 4.2.13 The Planning Officer has not been able to substantiate the reason for refusal with any evidence that suspected noise emanating from the proposed roof terrace is a material planning consideration that would merit consideration as part of this application proposal.

4.2.14 Consequently, as has been demonstrated both in the planning application submission and in this Notice of Review, the proposed roof terrace will not cause amenity issues that would be alien to the residential environment to such a degree that would merit refusal of the application on grounds of noise. Accordingly, the application is in accordance with Policy Des 5 Development Design - Amenity of the adopted LDP.

4.3 Other Considerations

4.3.1 By referring to other cases in her Report of Handling under “Other Considerations”, the Planning Officer has only deemed it necessary to refer to one other case, which was found to be irrelevant, to support her viewpoint while ignoring the numerous examples of precedents provided to her of roof terraces which have been accepted elsewhere in the City. This demonstrates bias and a disregard of material considerations in reaching a decision on the application which was clearly not undertaken in a fair and balanced way.

4.3.2 A positive aspect of the roof terrace proposal is that it has been designed to be not prominent and virtually completely hidden from public view. Unlike the one example, quoted by the Planning Officer, of the proposal at 74 Spottiswoode Street (Application Reference 08/02068/FUL) which sought initially to introduce a balcony formed by metal balustrading projecting from the sloping section of mansard roof, which would have been visible and which would have altered the roofscape to the detriment of the character of the Conservation Area. It was rightly rejected but even the submission of revised plans which removed the balcony, the extent of significant alterations to the visible roofscapes on the building were deemed to disrupt the visual continuity of the roofscape, causing an imbalance to the integrity of the host building and were sufficiently detrimental for the application still to be refused.

4.3.3 Reference was made by the Planning Officer to the roof terrace application in the Marchmont area to also counter the numerous precedents of applications for roof terraces which had been approved following the research undertaken to support the planning application. It was only possible for the Planning Officer to cite one other example. However, the case was not even comparable in terms of that proposal’s potential visual impact as that application had no similarity to the roof terrace proposal which is the subject of this review, demonstrating that the Planning Officer has failed to grasp an understanding of the roof terrace proposal and the extent to which it has been designed to make it not appear prominent and visually intrusive by design.

4.3.4 With regard to the submission of information with the application detailing precedents of similar roof terraces elsewhere in Edinburgh, while each case is judged on its own merits, the information is a material consideration in the assessment of the application and it demonstrated the Council’s positive approach to assessing roof terrace proposals regardless of the area. Approval of this proposal will also not diminish in any way the Council’s ability to have control over any such similar proposals that might arise in the future and therefore this would not set an undesirable precedent as is suggested by the Planning Officer in her Report of Handling.

4.3.5 Lastly, and stated earlier, there was no ability to discuss the merits of the case with the Planning Officer but before the decision was made, a request for further consideration of another precedent case was presented to the Planning Officer:-

“4. Furthermore, we would like to submit a further example of precedent. Last weekend I noticed a roof terrace on a property on Hamilton Place which appears to relate to applications 13/02443/LBC and 12/00618/LBC. Interestingly the planning officer's notes suggest that the roof terrace would "have no effect on the character of the original building. The amendment (pulling the balustrade back from the front edge) renders it unseen from street level". We feel that this provides another strong example of precedent, where another roof terrace has been accepted in the City and on a listed building and in a Conservation Area location.”

4.3.6 No response was provided other than that a decision had already been reached and the matter would not be given any further consideration.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, states that planning applications shall be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 It has been demonstrated that the proposed roof terrace will not be a prominent feature and it will be virtually invisible. It cannot therefore, by association, have a harmful effect on the Conservation Area and cannot be deemed to be contrary to adopted LDP Policy ENV6 or to the Council’s non- statutory guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas.

5.3 It has been demonstrated that the proposed roof terrace will not cause amenity issues that would be alien to the residential environment to such a degree that would merit refusal of the application on grounds of noise. Accordingly, the application is in accordance with Policy Des 5 Development Design - Amenity of the adopted LDP.

5.4 The revised proposal has been assessed against the Council’s prevailing planning polices and it has been found to be supported by the Development Plan.

5.5 It is respectfully requested that the LRB supports the case presented within this Notice of Review and grants planning permission to Mr and Mrs Theilen for the creation of a roof terrace at 80 Spottiswoode Street, Edinburgh.

Proposal Details Proposal Name 100077194 Proposal Description Alterations to form external roof terrace. Address 3F1, 80 SPOTTISWOODE STREET, EDINBURGH, EH9 1DJ Local Authority City of Edinburgh Council Application Online Reference 100077194-003

Application Status Form complete Main Details complete Checklist complete Declaration complete Supporting Documentation complete Email Notification complete

Attachment Details Notice of Review System A4 Cover Letter Attached A4 Supporting Statement for A Notice of Attached A4 Review Planning Decision Notice Attached A4 Report of Handling Attached A4 Cover Letter to Householder Attached A4 Application Location Plan - 1632 Attached A4 1632-01 revision C - Plans Attached A1 1632-02 revision C Sections and Attached A1 Elevations LSM Architecture - Supporting Attached A4 Statement for Householder Application JM Planning Services Supporting Attached A4 Statement for Householder Application Householder Application form Attached A4 Notice_of_Review-2.pdf Attached A0 Application_Summary.pdf Attached A0 Notice of Review-003.xml Attached A0 File ref: 1632-04-03 Date: 07/12/18 City Development Planning Department Waverley Court 4 East Market Street Edinburgh, EH8 8BG

Dear Sirs,

PLANNING APPLICATION, 3F1, 80 SPOTTISWOODE STREET, EDINBURGH, EH9 1DJ PREVIOUS APPLICATION REF: 17/05633/FUL (withdrawn 6 th March 2018)

With regards to the above and further to our recent correspondence with the department, we are pleased to enclose the following;-

> LSM Architecture – 1632_Location Plan; 1632_01_C; 1632_02_C and Supporting Statement_C. > JM Planning Services - Supporting Statement. > Householder Application Form and Landownership Certificate. > We understand that as this application has been submitted within the 12 months following the date of the initial application, that there is no associated fee in this instance.

For the purposes of clarity, the initial application was withdrawn on the 6th of March 2018, before the application was determined, and on the basis that there was insufficient time provided to allow a full response to comments raised by the original Planning Officer, Mr Steven Sinclair. Our Clients were keen to provide a full and robust response to some of the points which appear to have been highlighted during the previous planning process and to try to address and alleviate those concerns raised from those few objections received.

Our Clients have therefore taken this opportunity to engage with a local Planning Consultant, JM Planning Services, to undertake a review of other precedents in Edinburgh's Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and to formulate a coherent report which both outlines other approved examples of a similar nature and addresses relevant Planning Polices, in order to provide a robust planning justification for their design. This report should be read alongside the LSM Supporting Statement and architectural information. It is noted that the LSM Supporting Statement has been adjusted to remove reference to precedents as these are now covered within the Supporting Statement as prepared by JM Planning Services.

We trust the above is in order but should you have any queries please do not hesitate to call.

Yours faithfully,

Fiona Beedie LSM Architecture File ref: 1632/04/04 Date: 08/05/2019 Local Review Body City of Edinburgh Council City Development Planning Department Waverley Court 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG

To whom it may concern,

NOTICE OF REVIEW, FLAT 3F1, 80 SPOTTISWOODE STREET, EDINBURGH EH9 1DJ

Following the 'refusal' of application reference 18/10286/FUL relating to the above noted property, please find enclosed;

> completed 'Notice of Review' application form, > 'Supporting Statement for A Notice of Review' by JM Planning Services, > copy of the Decision Notice, > copy of the 'Report of Handling'.

Please also find enclosed the following documents which were included in the planning application submission reference 18/10286/FUL;

> copy of the cover letter, > copy of the completed application form, > Location Plan, > drawing 1632-01 revision C, > drawing 1632-02 revision C, > Supporting Statement by LSM Architecture, > Supporting Statement by JM Planning Services,

I trust the above is in order but should you have any queries please do not hesitate to call.

LSM Architecture SUPPORTING STATEMENT

3F1 (Flat 5), 80 SPOTTISWOODE STREET, EH9 1DJ

Our Clients at property 3F1 (Flat 5), number 80 Spottiswoode Street, currently occupy the top floor double upper property and are keen to maximise on their outdoor space by forming an external roof terrace. It is proposed that the roof terrace would be accessed via a hinged access rooflight installed above their existing hallway and a new timber staircase erected from the existing Attic level, to form a permanent and safe route out onto the roof terrace.

The existing roof structure is formed with a 35degree pitch front and back, which levels off in the centre to a flat area with traditional bitumen felt covering. This existing form provides fantastic opportunity for the family to construct a useable outdoor living space.

The existing flat roof will form the basis for the new roof terrace. It is proposed that a glazed balustrade system will be installed, set back approximately 1m from the the line of the flat roof edge to the front, and in line with the flat roof edge to the rear elevation, to both form the required protective barrier to the roof terrace, while assisting in ensuring the terrace has as little visual impact as possible to the surrounding area. A sensitive approach, in keeping with the preservation of the Marchmont, Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area.

Due to the nature and location of the family home, it is intended that the new roof terrace would be utilised by the family on similar terms as a common garden area would be used and would provide the family with private outdoor space while maximising the 360degrees views of Edinburgh Castle to the North and Arthurs Seat to the East.

Our Clients have taken appropriate measures to ensure that they have legal rights to develop the existing roof space and have also commissioned a 'Structural Walk Over Survey' from a local Structural Engineers firm, to provide evidence to their neighbours that the roof is off structural integrity to accommodate such an alteration. They have also gone above and beyond their responsibilities and have approached each of their neighbours independently in order to make them aware of their intentions to carry out works to their roof area.

It is noted that there are a plethora of precedents of a similar nature, having been undertaken within the city centre, both within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and these examples have been described and assessed in full within the 'Supporting Statement', as produced by JM Planning Services.

To that end and with the above in mind, we would highlight that the scale; form; nature and material finish of the proposal are modest and sensitive to the existing property and area. As mentioned previously, the intention is to enhance the existing roof area by making it a useable private space for the family. An aspiration which is both sustainable in terms of design and for the future generation.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Planning Application for Formation of External Roof Terrace with Glass Balustrade

3F1 (Flat 5) 80 Spottiswoode Terrace, Edinburgh

Prepared by

JM PLANNING SERVICES

On behalf of

Mr Ulf and Mrs Sonia Theilen

December 2018

JM Planning Services 31 Kilburn Wood Drive, Roslin Midlothian EH25 9AA

List of Contents Page

1.0 Introduction 3

2.0 The Principle of a Roof Terrace Use 4

3.0 Residential Amenity 7

4.0 Planning Policy Assessment 8

5.0 Summary and Conclusions 12

PL/UST/LSM/SSE/060 Supporting Statement V1. FINAL 6th December 2018 John MacCallum Bsc (Hons), MRTPI Planning Consultant

2 1.0 Introduction

1.1 This Statement has been prepared by JM Planning Services to support the planning application submitted by LSM Architects on behalf of Mr Ulf and Mrs Sonia Theilen for the creation of a roof terrace with associated glass balustrade.

1.2 The application is a further submission of a previous application (Ref 17/05633/FUL) in 2017/18. The Planning Officer who dealt with that application had raised a number of issues, mainly in connection with the principle of the use of the rooftop for a terrace, potential adverse visual impact based on the design and location of the balustrading and potential impact on residential amenity from noise associated with its use.

1.3 None of the matters were able to be resolved despite attempts by LSM Architects to engage with the Planner to address the various issues. The applicant withdrew the application before it was determined.

1.4 The applicant has taken time to consider the Officer’s comments in relation to the last application and has investigated other roof terrace examples in the meantime. This new application now represents a re-submission of the previous proposal but with an amendment which proposes to set back the glass balustrade by 1 metre from the west facing edge of the flat roof, responding positively to the feedback obtained from the previous application.

1.5 In addition to a separate Design Statement prepared by LSM Architects, this supporting Statement seeks to provide a robust planning justification for the revised proposal when assessed against relevant planning policies in relation to design, Conservation Area and residential amenity. It provides information to demonstrate also that there is precedent for other roof terrace proposals which have been approved elsewhere in the City that would allow the application to be accepted in principle. It will further seek to demonstrate that the revision to the previous proposal, when considered in the context of its positioning on the building and when compared to other examples of roof terraces, is sufficient to address and overcome the previous concerns raised.

2.0 The principle of a Roof Terrace Use

2.1 A comprehensive and detailed research of planning applications proposing roof terrace and related developments on properties in Edinburgh City has found that there is a proliferation of approved developments throughout the city. There are varying types of roof terraces, most of which appear to be created by opening up roofscapes so that the terrace is recessed to some degree, enabling the balustrade features to be less dominant, thereby reducing their visual prominence. There are also examples of roof terraces whereby commercial premises have been allowed to extend upwards to use roof tops as a means of providing additional floor space for restaurant and associated uses. These have been found to be even in highly sensitive locations in the City Centre Conservation Area and on prominent buildings, such as 107 George Street and 11-15 St Andrews Square.

2.2 Another example of the principle of roof terraces being accepted in Edinburgh is where roof terraces are being designed as an integral element of new flatted developments in locations where space is at a premium and they can provide an alternative to private amenity space at ground level, such as along the canal side in Fountainbridge, in Quartermile and in some Leith and Granton locations. There is not the same issue of visual impact and prominence when they have been planned from the outset, although it is important to get the design right in each and every case in order that they appear as integral part of the particular building’s design.

2.3 While these examples may not be similar to the application proposal and therefore cannot be used as a direct comparison, they do, nevertheless, demonstrate a precedent for the principle of roof terraces being accepted in Edinburgh.

2.4 In the case of the application proposal, the use of a roof terrace by the owner of the top flat with the legal right to do so also represents a more practical way to access an area that can provide the private amenity space for that flat rather than having to access the space at ground floor level, which may even be shared space and not private. The use of the roof top space is therefore another way of making good use of available space for a suitable purpose in higher density areas. If the balustrade can be suitably designed so as not to have an adverse visual impact on the streetscene or the character of a Conservation Area, there should be no objection to allowing it any location, as supported by the examples of precedent referred to below.

2.5 Where examples of direct relevance have been found, the evidence does indicate that in certain locations, even highly sensitive locations and on buildings of important architectural quality, roof terraces have been accepted. The following 4 examples are referenced, each of which are situated in Conservation Areas, and sections quoted from the relevant Committee Report/Officer’s Report of Handling are provided which lend support for each proposal.

(i) 12 Abercromby Place - 16/05922/FUL and 16/05923/LBC

2.6 This property is a Listed Building, situated in the New Town Conservation Area and also in a location of Edinburgh which has Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site status. The proposed balustrading in this case was set back at the request of Historic Environment Scotland to reduce its visual impact as it was initially proposed too close to the flat roof edge. The Planning Committee Report provided the following planning justification:-

“(a) Character The roofscape character of this section of Abercromby Place is atypical of many streets within the Second New Town which have single or double pitched slate roofs. No. 12 Abercromby Place and the two adjoining buildings on either side have added floors with flat lead-covered roofs with cupolas and access hatches.

While roof terraces are not historic characteristic features of the New Town, these have become desirable features for modern urban living and have been approved in locations where they are not conspicuous from street level.

Given the historic and architectural significance of the layout of the New Town, aerial views are also important, so any alterations to form roof terraces need to respect this "fifth dimension".

In this case, the proposed alterations to form the roof terrace involve the installation of a flush rooflight of modest dimensions and minimalist glass balustrades which will not be conspicuous from street level in the proposed set back positions. No change to the lead roof covering is proposed and the added features on the roof will visually blend with the existing roof structures in this row, when viewed from above. The proposed roof terrace is therefore justified in this particular context.”

2.7 The acceptance of a roof terrace with balustrading on a listed building within a World Heritage Site is considered to be represent an example whereby the Council is willing to adopt a flexible approach to roof terraces by allowing them even in extremely sensitive locations. This demonstrates that, provided the roof terrace to be formed will not be conspicuous from street level and will be set back sufficiently to reduce its visual prominence, the principle of a roof terrace on buildings in different locations in Edinburgh is acceptable subject to satisfying design and positioning criteria in order that it is not visually prominent.

2.8 In the case of 80 Spottiswoode Street, the proposal more than meets all of the requirements for 12 Abercromby Place of being modest, minimalist and inconspicuous based on the glass balustrade being installed 1 metre back from the line of the flat roof edge which is set back, as illustrated in the supporting application drawings and confirmed in the design approach as stated in the supporting Design Statement.

(ii) 3 Inverleith Place Lane – 18/01271/FUL

2.9 The following is an extract from the Case Officer’s Report of Handling which provides the planning justification for a roof terrace proposal:-

“(a) Character The proposal would create a lightweight and elegant addition to the roof of the property. The use of glazing and the set back nature of the ballustrade and privacy screen, forming the extent of the terrace, would ensure that it would have a minimal impact on the appearance of the building, and would avoid the roof of the building becoming over-dominant or bulky. It would form a clearly modern development within the context of the building, and would avoid any visual competition with the architectural composition of the host.”

2.10 Although the property is a different type to that at 80 Spottiswoode Street in that it is lower in height, the design approach is nevertheless the same. The intention is to make the roof terrace appear as discreet as possible in terms of the use of glazing and its set back since it will be more visible from ground level. Applying the same criteria to the proposal for 80 Spottiswoode Street, the roof terrace is even more discreet as it will not be as visible from ground level and the set back of the glass balustrade by 1 metre from the flat roof edge will make it even more inconspicuous, as illustrated in the supporting application drawings and confirmed in the design approach as stated in the supporting Design Statement.

(iii) 61 Leamington Terrace – 10/02659/FUL

2.11 This proposal related to a dormer roof extension, roof top patio and new windows to ground floor on a 2 storey terraced dwelling in the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area. The extension not only creates a 2 and a half storey house by way of the dormer but also creates a roof top patio at an even higher level above.

2.12 The height of the building at only 2 storey makes the roof terrace with its exposed glass balustrade arguably more prominent and therefore it has more of an adverse visual impact on the host property as well as the streetscene.

2.13 This example is considered to represent a far worse situation by comparison with the proposals which are the subject of the application for Spottiswoode Street.

(iv) Rothesay Place – 04/03054/LBC and 04/03054/FUL (Renewed 10/01271/FUL)

2.14 This proposal relates to alterations at roof top level of a listed building in a Conservation Area and in the World Heritage Designated Site which include the formalisation of the roof terrace area with glass balustrading. Although the property already had structures at roof top level, the alterations still required to be acceptable in terms of the architectural quality of the building and the sensitive location of the property in Edinburgh.

2.15 This example illustrates that the addition of a highly visible roof terrace has been deemed to be acceptable by the Council in a sensitive location which, it is argued, sets a precedent for other roof top developments, particularly on a tenemental property, elsewhere in Edinburgh (refer to photo in the application documents). The application proposal for 80 Spottiswoode Street differs greatly, however, from the Rothesay Place example in that the glass balustrading will be less prominent from the street with the set back by 1 metre form the flat roof edge and hence the use of the flat rooftop for a roof terrace will be far more acceptable by comparison, as illustrated in the supporting application drawings and confirmed in the design approach as stated in the supporting Design Statement.

3.0 Residential Amenity

3.1 It was understood that the Planner who dealt with the previous application referred to concerns raised from neighbouring proprietors/occupiers regarding potential impact on residential amenity from the proposed roof terrace.

3.2 An approach to the Council Planning Department recently to obtain copies of these objections to assist in a better understanding of the issues raised resulted in a member of staff stating that this information could not be disclosed because the application had been withdrawn and that such objections would remain confidential on the case file. However, confirmation of the nature of the objections as provided by the previous case officer was provided which confirmed what the previous officer had advised.

3.3 It is important to highlight that there were only 5 objections to the previous application. 2 of those only were from immediate neighbours (No 86 and 92 Spottiswoode Street) with the other 3 from much further afield (Nos 32 and 36 Spottiswoode Street and 16 Warrender Park Road). While it is difficult to know which of the objectors raised concerns regarding impact on amenity, it would be reasonable to assume that only the 2 closest proprietors/occupiers would have reason to raise such a concern.

3.4 In response to the issue of any noise generated from the roof terrace and any potential impact on neighbouring residential amenity, these matters require to be considered within the context of a residential environment.

3.5 Any noise associated with the use of the roof will be comparable with noise generated from a private residential garden and in those terms, will not introduce any noise which would be considered to be incompatible with or detrimental to adjacent residential amenity.

3.6 The Council’s response to residential amenity impacts in relation to other examples where noise has been raised as a potential concern by neighbours has been to approach the matter in a similar vein. For example, in the case of 12 Abercromby Place - 16/05922/FUL, the Case Officer’s Report of Handling states the following:-

Any noise generation at this level will not be significant and there is already capacity to create noise within any properties in the terrace.

The development will therefore have no detrimental impact on neighbouring residential amenity.”

4.0 Planning Policy Assessment

4.1 The following is an assessment of the application proposals against the relevant planning policies contained in the Development Plan for the location which is the adopted Edinburgh Local Development Plan (November 2016) and the approved Strategic Development Plan, SESplan. The applications raises no issues of strategic importance and so reference will be made to the LDP only.

(i) Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas - Development)

4.2 This policy sets out criteria for assessing development within a Conservation Area or affecting its setting. It states that development will be permitted which: “a) preserves or enhances the special character or appearance of the conservation area and is consistent with the relevant conservation area character appraisal”

4.3 It further states that its purpose is “to protect and, where possible, enhance the character and appearance of Edinburgh’s many conservation areas.”

4.4 The policy is supported by the Council’s non-statutory guideline 'listed Buildings and Conservation Areas' which provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas. Its purpose is to expand on the advice in LDP policy which seeks to protect the character and setting of listed buildings, and the character and appearance of Conservation Areas. Having reviewed this document, it is noted that there is nothing of relevance which could be applied to the application proposal for a roof terrace.

4.5 It is however necessary to reference the relevant Conservation Area Character Appraisal, as advised by the LDP policy. The Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area Appraisal does not highlight Spottiswoode Street for any special consideration but it is recognised that the Appraisal does contains general descriptions on Spatial Structure, Townscape and Character to the area in which the application property is located as follows:-

MARCHMONT & MEADOWS Essential Character Spatial Structure and Townscape  The urban form largely comprises Victorian tenemental perimeter blocks.  The area is characterised by Victorian and Georgian tenemental perimeter blocks that are of uniform height, massing and use of stone and slated roofs.

ANALYSIS AND ESSENTIAL CHARACTER  Spatial Structure and Townscape o The principal features of the urban fabric are the Victorian tenemental perimeter blocks interspersed with occasional Georgian terraces along the south side of the Meadows. o The general height of the Victorian tenemental buildings is four storeys, rising to five storeys on Bruntsfield Links. Georgian buildings vary from three storeys to three and half, with basements.

4.6 Spottiswoode Street, Arden Street and Lauderdale Street are each characterised by uniform tenemental buildings of 4 storeys in height. It is not natural to look upwards when walking but even still, the roof tops of these buildings are not readily visible from ground level due to the height of the tenements and the angle of view upwards from positions on the street below. 8

4.7 The roof top of No. 80 Spottiswoode Street is not visible from any public vantage point on these streets in any direction due to the uniform grid pattern of these streets and the height of these buildings. This includes any long distance views from the Meadows or further afield as the buildings themselves become obscured by the intervening buildings and so the roof tops are not prominent features on the skyline. Any features such as a glass balustrade 1.1 metres in height would be impossible to see from long distance.

4.8 There is only one location where the roof top does become more visible and that is from Spottiswoode Road to the south-west of the property. There is a short distance of this road beyond the junction with Spottiswoode Street where it is possible to glimpse the roof top. In that regard, it has been recognised that the glass balustrade would likely be more visible when viewed from that location and hence it is now proposed to amend the original details and set the balustrade 1 metre back from the flat roof edge. In that regard, it is considered that only a proportion of the top section of the balustrade will then be visible rather than its full 1.1 metre height. However, it requires to be stated that this is one location only and that by setting the balustrade further back will not change the fact that it will not be visible at all from any other public vantage points in the surrounding area.

4.9 The uniform spatial appearance of the buildings on the streetscene has been recognised in the design approach, as illustrated in the application drawings and demonstrated in the Design Statement. Accordingly, it is considered that the scale, form, nature and material finish of the balustrade are modest, discreet and sensitive to the existing property and area and will not adversely affect this uniformity of appearance in the established streetscene. Furthermore, the balustrade will not cause any significant adverse visual impact and as a result, the proposal which is the subject of this revised application will preserve the character of this part of the Conservation Area.

4.10 In addition, it also requires to be stated that, if there was a concern that other roof terraces were proposed on the flat rooftops on properties in the surrounding area, given that they have “become desirable features for modern urban living” (as stated in the 2017 application for 12 Abercromby Place), provided they were designed in a similar modest, discreet and sensitive way, they would also have minimal visual impact. Any concern of setting an undesirable precedent could therefore be appeased as the Council would have the ability to control other proposals in the future, but with this proposal setting a suitable benchmark.

4.11 The proposal is supported by Policy Env 6.

(ii) Policy Des 1 - Design Quality and Context

4.12 This policy sets out general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated. The policy states:-

“Planning permission will be granted for development where it is demonstrated that the proposal will create or contribute towards a sense of place. Design should be based on an overall design concept that draws upon positive characteristics of the surrounding area. Planning permission will not be granted for poor quality or inappropriate design or for proposals that would be damaging to the character or appearance of the area around it, particularly where this has a special importance.”

4.13 This policy applies mostly in relation to new developments of a larger scale to that which is the subject of this application. Nevertheless, the principles of new development of any scale being of quality, appropriately designed and suitable to protect the character or appearance of the area within which it is located still apply.

4.14 The policy is supported by the Council’s non-statutory guideline “Edinburgh Design Guidance” which advocates for development of the highest design quality and that integrates well with the existing city. It sets out the Council's expectations for the design of new development, including buildings and landscape, in Edinburgh. The following text is noted within the document:-

“Areas like the Grange, Marchmont and Bruntsfield, Inverleith, Leith, Gorgie and Dalry, have different building forms, but with their height, sandstone walls, slate roofs, vertical windows and architectural motifs they feel very much part of Edinburgh. They have, at all their different scales, what we term, Edinburgh’s ‘DNA’.

4.15 The Context and Design Chapter highlights 2 important key aims for new development to:-

 “Demonstrate an understanding of the unique characteristics of the city and the context within which it is located.  Reinforce its surroundings by conserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the landscape and townscape; including protecting the city’s skyline and locally important views.”

4.16 The formation of the roof terrace by using a glass material in the balustrade has been widely accepted elsewhere in Edinburgh as shown by the evidence provided in this Statement, provided it is of suitable inconspicuous design and positioning. In some of the cases referred to they have been accepted in more highly sensitive locations (on listed buildings in Conservation Areas and in a World Heritage Site).

4.17 The revised design approach for the proposed balustrade for 80 Spottiswoode Street by setting it back 1 metre from the flat roof edge respects the above aspects of the guidelines, appreciating the character of the area and understanding that an inappropriately designed form could have an adverse impact on the special qualities of this part of Edinburgh.

4.18 That is why the use of glass is considered a suitable material on the basis that, where it may be visible, it will be translucent, thereby reducing the harsh impact of another material which might be more apparent such as steel railings or some other solid material which would be totally inappropriate.

4.19 In contrast to some of the examples quoted, it is considered that the revised proposal to set back the balustrade 1 metre back from the flat roof edge will be even less visually prominent, thereby protecting the character and appearance of the host property and the uniform spatial street appearance.

4.20 The proposal is supported by Policy Des 1.

(iii) Policy Des 5 - Development Design – Amenity

4.21 This policy states:- “planning permission will be granted for development where it is demonstrated that:

 the amenity of neighbouring developments is not adversely affected and that future occupiers have acceptable levels of amenity in relation to noise, daylight, sunlight, privacy or immediate outlook”

4.22 The detailed comments in response to the concerns raised previously in relation to potential noise from the roof terrace and potential impact on residential amenity are addressed in Section 3 above to satisfy this policy criteria.

4.23 Consequently, the proposal is in compliance with Policy Des 5 of the LDP.

5.0 Summary and Conclusions

5.2 It has been demonstrated in this Statement that the revision to the previous proposal, when considered in the context of the positioning of the glass balustrade on the building and when compared to other examples of roof terraces, is sufficient to address and overcome the previous concerns raised. The following is a summary of how this has been achieved when assessed against relevant planning policy.

5.2 It has been demonstrated by way of illustrating examples of other roof terraces, that there is a precedent for other roof terrace proposals which have been approved elsewhere in the City that would allow the application to be accepted in principle. There is also a case for the application proposal being more policy compliant than some cases.

5.3 It has been demonstrated that the revised proposal will not affect the uniform spatial appearance of the buildings on the streetscene due to the set-back positioning of the balustrade from the flat roof edge and the suitable use of glass material. It will not be visually prominent from any public vantage points in the surrounding area with the exception of one location only when it might be visible over only a relatively short distance. The revised proposal recognises this and the set-back will reduce the extent of balustrade visible to a proportion of a top section only, rather than its full 1.1 metre height. The balustrade will therefore not be a significant visual intrusion and as a result, the proposal will meet the Council’s objectives on Design criteria and of preserving the character of the Conservation Area.

5.4 The issue of residential amenity has been investigated and the information submitted to demonstrate that the roof terrace proposal will have no detrimental impact on neighbouring residential amenity is further supported by other Planning Officials in relation to other similar applications.

5.5 The revised proposal has been assessed against the prevailing planning polices and it has been found to be supported by the Development Plan.

5.6 It is respectfully requested that the City of Edinburgh Council supports the application for the reasons set out in this Statement, along with the Design Statement by LSM Architects and the application drawings in support, and grants planning permission to Mr and Mrs Theilen for the creation of a roof terrace at 80 Spottiswoode Street, Edinburgh.

SPOTTISWOODE

STREET

325300

to to 69 69

90 75

34 77 42 36 32 26 to 30 40 44 92 94

SPOTTISWOODE ROAD

LOCATION PLAN 1:1250

NORTH 0 10m 20m 40m 60m 80m 100m SCALE BAR - 1:1250

This drawing is for Planning Permission & Building Warrant purposes ONLY. Further Architectural or Engineering details may be required for construction and site works.

DO NOT SCALE FROM THESE DRAWINGS (unless for planning permission / building warrant purposes). If in doubt ASK! Refer your query back to the Architect or Roof line of adjoining property is stepped to appropriate member of the design team. accommodate the natural slope of Spottiswoode Street

These drawings are to be read strictly in accordance with Indicative boundary line of property the consulting Engineers' drawings and specifications

(where applicable).

10. 11. 11. 9. 12. BEDROOM 2 8. up 13. 7. 14.

6. 15. NORTH

light 16. 5. LIVING ROOM 17.

KITCHEN 4. roof 18.

FALL FALL light 2. Flat 5, 80 Spottiswood Street forms the roof 1. double upper property, accessed off the 3rd Floor - Property 3F1. up

STUDY BITUMEN COVERED FLAT ROOF

light roof roof HALL BEDROOM 3 BATHROOM Indicative line illustrating HALL light boundary of attic area

roof roof below.

light

FALL FALL roof roof

A BEDROOM 1 A A light A A A roof roof entrance

C'PD

light ENSUITE roof roof MASTER BEDROOM COMMUNAL STAIR

shower cubicle glazed glazed glazed cupula cupula cupula above above

SPOTTISWOODE

STREET

3rd FLOOR - AS EXISTING 1:100 ATTIC FLOOR - AS EXISTING 1:100 ROOF PLAN - AS EXISTING 1:100

73 325300 Existing glass cupula to communal stair to below. Flat 5, 80 Spottiswoode 69 90

0 1m 2m 4m 6m 8m 10m Street - Property 3F1 SCALE BAR - 1:100 75

NORTH 34 77 42 36 32 26 to 30 40 44 92 94

SPOTTISWOODE ROAD

35 37

33 to 29

41 41

to to

45 85

LOCATION PLAN 1:1250

Roof line of adjoining property is stepped to accommodate the natural slope of Spottiswoode Street

Existing bitumen felt roof to be made water Glazed balustrade system providing tight with new single ply water proof finish to protective barrier to Roof Terrace along roof flat roof area. edge of flat roof area. Timber/ composite decking to be overlaid to Balustrade to be 1.1m from finished access Indicative boundary line of property form occupiable finish to roof terrace. level. Balustrade to be stepped back approximately 1m from edge of existing flat roof.

1000

10. 11. 11. 5,450 9. 12. BEDROOM 2 8. up 13. 7. 14. 6. 15.

light 16. 5. LIVING ROOM 17.

KITCHEN 4. roof 18.

3. light 2.

No changes are proposed to 3rd roof Floor layout (entrance level to 1. ROOF TERRACE

Flat 5) - Layout provided for up 6,200

illustrative purposes only. STUDY

light roof roof New 600mm wide timber stair to be constructed from existing Attic HALL BEDROOM 3 Existing door to Bedroom 3 to be Level to provide access to roof - framed up to allow for installation New 0.8x3.0m hinged access roof light to BATHROOM Timber stud partition to be ACCESS light of stair. New opening to be be installed to existing roof to provide HALL formed to create stair void. 3,000

roof roof formed from hallway. access to new roof terrace from new timber light

up stair.

roof roof

1 13

BEDROOM 1 light A A A . A A A

2 roof light

. .

800

roof roof

......

12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 entrance 3

C'PD Indicative line illustrating boundary of attic area below.

light ENSUITE roof roof MASTER BEDROOM C 07.12.18 Alterations to proposals - FB SMcA COMMUNAL STAIR PLANNING PERMISSION

shower cubicle glazed Clarification of Address - glazed glazed cupula B 14.12.17 FB SMcA cupula cupula PLANNING PERMISSION above above A 30.11.17 Initial Issue - FB SMcA PLANNING PERMISSION

Rev. Date Details Drawn Checked

3rd FLOOR - AS PROPOSED 1:100 ATTIC FLOOR - AS PROPOSED 1:100 ROOF PLAN - AS PROPOSED 1:100

address: 35 Guthrie Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JG | oﬃce: +44 (0)131 564 0750 web: www.lsmarchitecture.co.uk | e-mail: [email protected] Issued for: PRE-CONSTRUCTION

Project/Client:

FORMATION OF ROOF TERRACE

3F1 80 SPOTTISWOODE STREET, EDINBURGH, EH9 1 DJ FOR MR THEILEN

Drawing: FLOOR PLANS - AS EXISTING & PROPOSED - - -

Dwg No: Scale: 1632 - 01 NOTED @A1 Rev: Drawn By: Date: C FB 19/04/17

© LSM Architecture is a trading name of Scott McAllister Ltd. Registered Office - 35 Guthrie Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1JG. Company No. SC376647. All dimensions and levels to be checked on site and the Architect to be informed of any discrepancies prior to the commencement of work. Unspecified dimensions are not to be scaled off this drawing. All dimensions are in milimetres unless otherwise specified. If any dimensions or details conflict please notify the Architect immediately. Glazed balustrade system providing protective barrier to Roof Terrace along roof edge of flat roof area. Balustrade to be 1.1m from finished access level. Roof line of adjoining property is stepped to Roof line of adjoining property is stepped to accommodate the natural slope of accommodate the natural slope of Spottiswoode Street Spottiswoode Street

Location of proposed roof terrace.

Indicative boundary line of property

Flat 5, 80 Spottiswood Street forms the double upper property, accessed off the 3rd Floor - Property 3F1.

VIEW FROM THE WEST SIDE OF SPOTTISWOODE STREET - LOOKING IN SOUTH EASTERLY DIRECTION

Location of proposed roof terrace.

Common access door to number 80 Spottiswood Street

FRONT ELEVATION - EXISTING 1:100 FRONT ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1:100

Glazed balustrade system providing protective barrier to Roof Terrace along roof edge of flat roof area. 0 1m 2m 4m 6m 8m 10m Balustrade to be 1.1m from finished access New 0.8x3.0m hinged access roof light to level. be installed to existing roof to provide SCALE BAR - 1:100 Balustrade to be stepped back access to new roof terrace from new timber approximately 1m from edge of existing flat stair. roof.

New 600mm wide timber stair to Existing bitumen felt roof to be made water be constructed from existing Attic 1,100 1000 tight with new single ply water proof finish to flat roof area. Level to provide access to roof 13. 12. Timber/ composite decking to be overlaid to 11. form occupiable finish to roof terrace. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

VIEW FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY

Location of proposed roof terrace.

C 07.12.18 Alterations to proposals - FB SMcA PLANNING PERMISSION

B 14.12.17 Clarification of Address - FB SMcA PLANNING PERMISSION

A 30.11.17 Initial Issue - FB SMcA PLANNING PERMISSION

Rev. Date Details Drawn Checked

VIEW FROM THE WEST SIDE OF SPOTTISWOODE STREET - LOOKING IN NORTH EASTERLY DIRECTION SECTION AA - AS EXISTING 1:100 SECTION AA - AS PROPOSED 1:100 address: 35 Guthrie Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JG | oﬃce: +44 (0)131 564 0750 web: www.lsmarchitecture.co.uk | e-mail: [email protected] Issued for:

Proposed roof terrace to the flat roof of 80 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Spottiswoode Street, accessed from Flat 5. Project/Client:

FORMATION OF ROOF TERRACE

3F1 80 SPOTTISWOODE STREET, EDINBURGH, EH9 1 DJ FOR MR THEILEN

Drawing: 80 65 SECTIONS & ELEVATIONS This drawing is for Planning Permission & Building Warrant - purposes ONLY. Further Architectural or Engineering details may be required for construction and site works. - -

DO NOT SCALE FROM THESE DRAWINGS (unless for Dwg No: Scale: planning permission / building warrant purposes). If in doubt ASK! Refer your query back to the Architect or 1632 - 02 NOTED @A1 appropriate member of the design team. Rev: Drawn By: Date: FB 19/04/17 REAR COURTYARD GARDENS garden pavement SPOTTISWOODE STREET pavement garden C These drawings are to be read strictly in accordance with the consulting Engineers' drawings and specifications © LSM Architecture is a trading name of Scott McAllister Ltd. (where applicable). Registered Office - 35 Guthrie Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1JG. Company No. SC376647. STREET SECTION 1:200 All dimensions and levels to be checked on site and the Architect to be informed of any discrepancies prior to the commencement of work. Unspecified dimensions are not to be scaled off this drawing. All dimensions are in milimetres unless otherwise specified. If any dimensions or details conflict please notify the Architect immediately. Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016 Item 7.1 Policy Des 5 Development Design – Amenity Policy Des 6 Sustainable Buildings

Planning permission will be granted for development where it is demonstrated that: Planning permission will only be granted for new development where it has been demonstrated that: a) the amenity of neighbouring developments is not adversely affected and that future occupiers have acceptable levels of amenity in relation to noise, daylight, a) the current carbon dioxide emissions reduction target has been met, with at sunlight, privacy or immediate outlook least half of this target met through the use of low and zero carbon generating technologies. b) the design will facilitate adaptability in the future to the needs of different occupiers, and in appropriate locations will promote opportunities for mixed b) other features are incorporated that will reduce or minimise environmental uses resource use and impact, for example: c) community security will be promoted by providing active frontages to more i. measures to promote water conservation important thoroughfares and designing for natural surveillance over all ii. sustainable urban drainage measures that will ensure that there will be no footpaths and open areas increase in rate of surface water run-off in peak conditions or detrimental impact on the water environment. This should include green roofs on sites d) a clear distinction is made between public and private spaces, with the latter where measures on the ground are not practical provided in enclosed or defensible forms iii. provision of facilities for the separate collection of dry recyclable waste e) refuse and recycling facilities, cycle storage, low and zero carbon technology, and food waste telecommunications equipment, plant and services have been sensitively iv. maximum use of materials from local and/or sustainable sources integrated into the design v. measures to support and encourage the use of sustainable transport, 155 This policy applies to all new development for one or more new buildings. particularly cycling, including cycle parking and other supporting facilities Buildings must meet the needs of users and occupiers, with consideration given such as showers. to impacts on neighbouring properties to ensure no unreasonable noise impact 156 This policy applies to all development involving one or more new buildings. The or loss of daylight, sunlight or privacy. Buildings should be designed to be flexible purpose of this policy is to help tackle the causes and impacts of climate change, in use and interact closely with the street, providing continuity of urban frontage reduce resource use and moderate the impact of development on the environment. and natural surveillance. Cul-de-sac and single access residential layouts and gated communities should be avoided to help the integration of new development into 157 Buildings account for a substantial proportion of total carbon emissions through the wider neighbourhood. Ancillary facilities must be sensitively integrated into the the energy they consume. Local authorities, through their planning and building design of buildings to avoid impacting upon the surrounding townscape. standards responsibilities have a key role in helping to meet the Scottish Government’s target for nearly zero carbon homes and buildings by 2016. Scottish Building Standards set carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets. At March 2013,

Part 2 Section 2 - Design Principles for New Development 95 Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016

Policy Des 11 Tall Buildings – Skyline and Key Views Policy Des 12 Alterations and Extensions

Planning permission will only be granted for development which rises above the Planning permission will be granted for alterations and extensions to existing building height prevailing generally in the surrounding area where: buildings which: a) a landmark is to be created that enhances the skyline and surrounding townscape a) in their design and form, choice of materials and positioning are compatible and is justified by the proposed use with the character of the existing building b) the scale of the building is appropriate in its context b) will not result in an unreasonable loss of privacy or natural light to neighbouring properties c) there would be no adverse impact on important views of landmark buildings, the historic skyline, landscape features in the urban area or the landscape setting c) will not be detrimental to neighbourhood amenity and character of the city, including the Firth of Forth. 168 Every change to a building, street or space has the potential to enrich or, if poorly 166 Proposals for development that would be conspicuous in iconic views of the city designed, impoverish a part of the public realm. The impact of a proposal on the will be subject to special scrutiny. This is necessary to protect some of the city’s most appearance and character of the existing building and street scene generally must striking visual characteristics, the views available from many vantage points within be satisfactory and there should be no unreasonable loss of amenity and privacy for the city and beyond, of landmark buildings, the city’s historic skyline, undeveloped immediate neighbours. hillsides within the urban area and the hills, open countryside and the Firth of Forth which create a unique landscape setting for the city. In addition, the height of new Policy Des 13 Shopfronts buildings may need to be suppressed where necessary so that the city’s topography Planning permission will be granted for alterations to shopfronts which are and valley features continue to be reflected in roofscapes. This policy will play an improvements on what already exists and relate sensitively and harmoniously to the important role in protecting the setting of the World Heritage Sites. building as a whole. Particular care will be taken over proposals for the installation of 167 A study undertaken for the Council identifies key public viewpoints and is used illuminated advertising panels and projecting signs, blinds, canopies, security grills in assessing proposals for high buildings. Further advice is provided in Council and shutters to avoid harm to the visual amenity of shopping streets or the character guidance. of historic environments.

169 Shopfront design, shop designs and shopfront advertising play an important role in the visual environment of the city. Important traditional or original features on older buildings, such as stall risers, fascias and structural framing of entrances and shop windows, should be retained and incorporated into the design. In conservation areas and on listed buildings, design and materials used will be expected to be of a high standard, and not damaging to existing fabric of buildings or wider character. Detailed advice on shopfronts is provided in Council guidance. Part 2 Section 2 - Design Principles for New Development 98 Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016

Policy Env 3 Listed Buildings - Setting Proposals for the demolition of any building within a conservation area, whether listed or not, will not normally be permitted unless a detailed planning application is Development within the curtilage or affecting the setting of a listed building will be approved for a replacement building which enhances or preserves the character of permitted only if not detrimental to the architectural character, appearance or historic the area or, if acceptable, for the landscaping of the site. interest of the building, or to its setting. Policy Env 6 Conservation Areas - Development Policy Env 4 Listed Buildings – Alterations and Extensions Development within a conservation area or affecting its setting will be permitted which: Proposals to alter or extend a listed building will be permitted where a) preserves or enhances the special character or appearance of the conservation a) those alterations or extensions are justified; area and is consistent with the relevant conservation area character appraisal b) there will be no unnecessary damage to historic structures or diminution of its b) preserves trees, hedges, boundary walls, railings, paving and other features interest; and which contribute positively to the character of the area and c) where any additions are in keeping with other parts of the building. c) demonstrates high standards of design and utilises materials appropriate to the 173 In determining applications for planning permission or listed building consent, historic environment. the Council is required to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the Planning applications should be submitted in a sufficiently detailed form for the building, its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it effect of the development proposal on the character and appearance of the area to possesses. Applications for the demolition or substantial alteration of a listed building be assessed. must be accompanied by a thorough structural condition report demonstrating that the proposals are necessary or justified. Information must be provided on the 174 The purpose of the above policies is to protect and, where possible, enhance the proposed replacement building; these should be of comparable quality in terms character and appearance of Edinburgh’s many conservation areas. By controlling of construction and design. The loss of a listed building will only be justified in the demolition of buildings and ensuring new development is of appropriate design exceptional circumstances. Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) and Council and quality, their aim is to protect the City’s heritage for future generations. guidance provide further advice for applications relating to Listed Buildings. 175 Applications for demolition will be permitted only where this does not erode the character and appearance of the conservation area. The general presumption will be Policy Env 5 Conservation Areas – Demolition of Buildings in favour of retaining buildings that make a positive contribution to the conservation Proposals for the demolition of an unlisted building within a conservation area but area, particularly where it can be demonstrated that the building is able to support a which is considered to make a positive contribution to the character of the area will new viable use, or might be capable of such in the future. Conservation Area Consent only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and after taking into account the may be subject to conditions or a legal agreement to link demolition works to the considerations set out in Policy Env 2 above.

Part 2 Section 3 - Caring for the Environment 100 Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016

provision of the proposed replacement building or, in exceptional circumstances, to Policy Env 9 Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance require temporary landscaping. Planning permission will be granted for development on sites of known or suspected 176 Design statements are required for new developments in a conservation area. This archaeological significance if it can be concluded from information derived from a statement should include reference to the relevant Conservation Area Character desk-based assessment and, if requested by the Council, a field evaluation, that either: Appraisal and Council guidance on Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings and a) no significant archaeological features are likely to be affected by the show how these have informed the proposed design. development or

Policy Env 7 Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes b) any significant archaeological features will be preserved in situ and, if necessary, in an appropriate setting with provision for public access and interpretation or Development will only be permitted where there is no detrimental impact on the c) the benefits of allowing the proposed development outweigh the importance character of a site recorded in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes, of preserving the remains in situ. The applicant will then be required to make adverse effects on its setting or upon component features which contribute to its provision for archaeological excavation, recording, and analysis, and publication value. Elsewhere, adverse effects on historic landscape features should be minimised. of the results before development starts, all to be in accordance with a Restoration of Inventory sites and other historic landscape features is encouraged. programme of works agreed with the Council. 177 This policy aims to protect sites included in the national Inventory of Gardens 178 The objective of the above policies is to protect and enhance archaeological and Designed Landscapes (shown on the Proposals Map) and other historic remains, where possible by preservation in situ in an appropriate setting. In some landscape features elsewhere across the Council area. An understanding of how cases, depending on the nature of the remains and character of the site, the Council the landscape has evolved can help inform a development proposal. A historical may require provision for public access and interpretation as part of the proposed landscape appraisal may be requested from applicants to allow full assessment of development. When preservation in situ is not possible, recording and/or excavation the implications of development and identify restoration opportunities. followed by analysis and publication of the results will be required.

Policy Env 8 Protection of Important Remains 179 Developers should seek early advice from the Council’s Archaeologist for sites where historic remains are known or thought likely to exist. Where a development Development will not be permitted which would: may affect a scheduled monument or its setting, early contact should be made with a) adversely affect a scheduled monument or other nationally important Historic Environment Scotland. archaeological remains, or the integrity of their setting b) damage or destroy non-designated archaeological remains which the Council considers should be preserved in situ.

Part 2 Section 3 - Caring for the Environment 101 Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016

used to guide development proposals in SLAs and will be a material consideration Nature Conservation in assessing planning applications. A landscape and visual impact assessment is likely to be needed in support of proposals affecting a SLA. Policy Env 13 Sites of International Importance

Policy Env 12 Trees Development likely to have a significant effect on a ‘Natura 2000 site’ will be permitted only if either: Development will not be permitted if likely to have a damaging impact on a tree a) the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the area; or protected by a Tree Preservation Order or on any other tree or woodland worthy of retention unless necessary for good arboricultural reasons. Where such permission is b) it has been demonstrated that: granted, replacement planting of appropriate species and numbers will be required c) there are no alternative solutions and to offset the loss to amenity. d) there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest for permitting the 186 This policy recognises the important contribution made by trees to character, development, including reasons of a social or economic nature. biodiversity, amenity and green networks. In assessing proposals affecting trees, the e) compensatory measures are provided to ensure that the overall coherence of Council will consider their value, taking into account current Scottish Government the Natura network is protected. guidance – presently contained in its Policy on Control of Woodland Removal and UK Forest Standard – and their status such as Tree Preservation Order, heritage tree, Ancient 188 The Plan area covers internationally important sites known as ‘Natura 2000 sites’, Woodland and Millennium Woodland, along with information from tree surveys. designated under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994. These are the Firth of Forth, Forth Islands (part), and Imperial Dock Lock Special Protection 187 Where necessary to protect trees, the Council will use its powers to make and Areas. Where a proposal may affect an internationally protected site, the Council will enforce Tree Preservation Orders. carry out a Habitats Regulation Appraisal. If it considers the proposal is likely to have a significant effect, the Council must then undertake an appropriate assessment. The appropriate assessment will consider the implications of the development for the conservation interests for which the area has been designated. Applicants will be required to provide information to inform the appropriate assessment. Development which could harm any of these internationally important areas will only be approved in exceptional circumstances.

Part 2 Section 3 - Caring for the Environment 103 Guidance for Householders

March 2018 Guidance for Householders

Listed Buildings and Guidance for Businesses Introduction Conservation Areas This document sets out guidance for people Work out your space requirements considering altering or extending their house. It does not cover new houses even if built in the gardens March 2018 March 2018 of existing properties – these should meet the requirements set out in Edinburgh Design Guidance. Check if you need planning permission Guidance for Householders All house extensions and alterations – including Edinburgh Design Guidance October 2017 dormers, conservatories, decking, energy devices and replacement doors and windows - should be well designed and of high quality. In particular, they Fit the extension onto the site March 2018 must meet three key requirements. They should

• complement the existing house, leaving it as the dominant element; • maintain the quality and character of the Test its effect on the amenity of surrounding area; and neighbours and the area Guidance for Development in the Countryside and Green Belt October 2017 • respect the amenity of adjacent neighbours.

Misc: Student Housing, Radio Telecommunications, Open Space Strategy etc. The appointment of an architect is Design the detail This document and other non-statutory guidance strongly encouraged in all cases. can be viewed at: www.edinburgh.gov.uk/ This document follows the step-by-step sequence planningguidelines from your initial ideas through to obtaining consent:

Submit your planning application

Page Page

Policy context 4 Step 3: Design matters 16

Materials 16 Step 1: Do I need Planning Permission 5 Roof design and dormers 17 What needs planning permission? 5 Doors and windows 18 Permitted Development 6 Boundary walls 18 Listed buildings 8 Access and parking 19 Changes of use 8 Sustainability 20 Other Consents 9 Secured by design 20 Considerations checklist 21 Step 2: Fitting it on the site 10 Working out a plan 10 Gardens 10 Step 4: Submitting your Application 22 Principal elevations and building lines 11 Making an application Side extensions 11 where permission is required 22 Rear extensions, bungalow extensions and conservatories 11 Daylight and sunlight 12 Glossary 25 Privacy and outlook 14 Side windows 14 Decking, roof terraces and balconies 14 Trees 15 Garages and outbuildings 15

Page 3 Policy Context

The purpose of this guidance is to explain how Alterations and extensions to existing new development can conform to the policy in the buildings generally raise similar design Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP) on house issues to those of new development. Every alterations and extensions. Developments that change to a building, a street or a space has follow this guidance will normally be supported. The the potential to enrich or, if poorly designed, policy is as follows: impoverish a part of the public realm. The impact of a proposal on the appearance and character of the existing building and street Policy Des 12 Alterations and Extensions scene generally must be satisfactory and there should be no unreasonable loss of amenity and privacy for immediate neighbours. Planning permission will be granted for alterations Particular attention will be paid to ensuring and extensions to existing buildings which: that such works to listed buildings and non- • in their design and form, choice of materials and listed buildings in conservation areas do not positioning are compatible with the character of damage their special character. Policies Env 4 the existing building; and Env 6 of the LDP will apply in these cases. • will not result in an unreasonable loss of privacy or natural light to neighbouring properties; • will not be detrimental to neighbourhood amenity and character.

Page 4 Step 1: Do I need planning permission

Planning permission will always be required for Whose responsibility? Good enough in the past? extensions, dormers and conservatories to flatted It is the householder’s responsibility to make Extensions or alterations in the surrounding area properties and to any house in a conservation area. sure that all alterations and extensions they that were granted permission in the past and New dormers on principal frontages always require make have the necessary consents. Remember, which do not comply with these guidelines will planning permission, as do balconies and roof terraces. planning permission is only one consent and NOT be taken as setting any form of precedent, you may also need a building warrant or a permit and should not be used as examples to follow. Listed building consent is always required for an to lower your kerb. If not, you could be asked to extension, dormers, rooflights or conservatory to a listed alter or even demolish new work and put back building. An application for planning permission may also be needed. the original. Do I need Permission? Even if planning permission is not required, other It is also your responsibility to make sure you Not all extensions or alterations require planning consents such as a building warrant may still be have evidence that the works are Permitted permission. Many small alterations and extensions necessary. Development and did not need planning can be carried out without the need for planning permission if this applies. permission – this is known as Permitted The main provisions of the Permitted Development Development (PD) and some alterations may not rights are set out on the following pages. However, The Scottish Government circular Guidance on even be ‘development’ at all. this is just a summary and, particularly if you are Householder Permitted Development rights sets considering unusual proposals or have an awkward out what is included, with examples. However, there are some limitations, particularly for: site, you should check the Scottish Government If you want to be sure whether or not works Flats (see definition on page 8) Circular. are permitted, you can apply for a Certificate Houses in Conservation Areas of Lawfulness at www.eplanning.scot both for proposed works or those already carried out. This Listed Buildings certificate is particularly useful if you are selling There are restricted permitted development rights your house or to avoid legal disputes. Details are for flats, houses in a conservation area or to a listed given on page 23. building, which are identified in the following pages.

Page 5 Step 1: Do I need planning permission

Permitted Development: The area covered by any existing and proposed • the height of the dormer is not higher than the extension cannot be greater than the area of the existing house; the main exemptions original house footprint or 50% of the area of the rear • the dormer, or dormers, covers less than half the roof, “curtilage” (ie the part of the garden behind the front If your proposals exceed the constraints set out here, measured at eaves level; and they may still be acceptable if they accord with Council elevation of the original house). policies and do not adversely affect amenity, but they • the distance between the dormer and the edges will require permission. Extensions of more than one storey of the roof (including any common boundary with Typically, these are either 1½ storey (ie single storey with another attached property) is at least 0.3 metres. Enlargement is any development that increases converted roof space) or 2 storey extensions. the internal volume of the original house. It includes a Access ramps The extension must be at least 10 metres from any canopy or roof, with or without walls, which is attached Small ramps to any external door are permitted boundary to be permitted development. The majority to the house, but does not include a balcony. Therefore, development so long as the ramp is not higher than 0.4 of extensions will not be able to meet this criterion, a car port is an enlargement but a balcony is not. metres or longer than 5 metres; the overall length of therefore an application for planning permission would the ramp and landings cannot be more than 9 metres; be required. Houses and the combined height of the ramp and any handrail A house can be a detached, a bungalow, semi- Porches cannot exceed 1.5 metres. detached, or terraced dwelling sitting on its own Porches are permitted development on any external ground. However, if there is any other occupant or Improvements or alterations that are not door of the house providing they are not higher than use above or below, it is a flat – see definition on enlargements 3 metres, and the overall footprint of the porch is not page 8. Flats do not have as wide a range of permitted more than 3 square metres. These include: replacement windows and doors, development as houses. These guidelines apply to rooflights, satellite dishes, cladding, painting and new houses only, see the separate section on flats on page The minimum distance between the porch and any flues; and photo-voltaic or solar thermal equipment, etc. 7. boundary with a road must be more than 2 metres. This class is best visualised as a 1 metre “bubble” Single storey extensions Enlargements of the roof surrounding the walls and roof of the house. A householder can add a wide range of different types A single storey extension in the rear garden is permitted Permitted development rights allow the enlargement of of development within this “bubble” without having to development if the height of the eaves is not more a house by an addition or alteration to its roof, e.g. by a apply for planning permission. than 3 metres and the overall height is not more than dormer, subject to certain rules. 4 metres above the existing ground level measured at Balconies, roof terraces or raised platforms are However, dormers are not permitted development lowest part of the adjacent ground surface. specifically excluded from this class, and require on the principal elevation (usually the front), or on a planning permission. If any part of the extension is within a metre of a side elevation if it fronts a road. In addition, permitted boundary, and extends back from the original rear wall development might only apply when: Remember, permitted development rights on of the house more than 3 metres for a terraced house, • the distance from the face of the dormer to the this page do not apply if your house is a listed or 4 metres in other cases, planning permission is boundary is at least 10 metres; building or in a conservation area. needed. Page 6 Step 1: Do I need planning permission

Microgeneration equipment development must be less than half the curtilage for The exemption is best visualised as a 1 metre “bubble” permitted development rights to apply. surrounding the flat. A wide range of different types of Permitted development rights for wind turbines and air, development is permitted within this “bubble” without ground and water source heat pumps as well as flues for Hard surfaces having to apply for planning permission providing that: biomass heating and combined heat and power systems A new or replacement hard surface located between are covered in other classes of permitted development. • the development does not enlarge the flat; the house and a road must either be porous; or rain Ancillary buildings such as sheds, water run-off must be dealt within the curtilage of • the development does not project more than 1 metre from the walls or roof of the flat; garages, sun-houses, and greenhouses the house, e.g. with a soakaway to be permitted development. • the development is not a balcony, roof terrace or Permitted development rights allow buildings raised platform or a wind turbine. “incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house” Decking Installing a flue forming part of biomass heating system, within the rear garden. The height of the eaves (gutter) The floor level of the deck or other raised platform must a flue forming part of combined heat and power system, of any building, including sheds and greenhouses, not exceed 0.5 metres, and the combined height of the an air source heat pump or CCTV is not permitted by this cannot be higher than 3 metres and no part of the deck and any balustrade or screen attached to it must class because it is subject to restrictions identified in by building can be higher than 4 metres for permitted not exceed 2.5 metres to be permitted development. development rights to apply. other classes of permitted development. In conservation areas or the curtilage of a listed Other classes relevant to flats include:- Any part of the building within a metre of a boundary building its maximum size is 4 square metres to be cannot be higher than 2.5 metres, to be permitted permitted development. • construction of gate, fences, walls and other means of development. enclosure; The total area covered by proposed and existing Gates, fences, walls or other means of • Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV). development must be less than half the relevant enclosure curtilage. If not, planning permission is required. The overall height must not be more 2 metres; but if Further information it fronts a road or is in front of the principal or side In conservation areas or for a listed building, the This is just a brief summary of the more common elevation nearest a road, it cannot exceed 1 metre, footprint of the ancillary building cannot exceed 4 aspects of Householder Permitted Development otherwise planning permission is required. square metres, without permission. Rights. Other building, engineering, installation Flats There are no permitted development rights if or other operations See the definition of a flat on page 8. the flat is in a conservation area or if it is a listed Typical development permitted by this class within the Improvements or alterations that are not enlargements, building. rear curtilage of a house would be free standing solar such as replacement windows and doors, photovoltaic panels, flag poles, swimming pools and oil tanks. or solar panels, flues or satellite dishes, may be The resulting height cannot be more than 3 metres, allowed under Permitted Development rights. and the total area covered by proposed and existing

Page 7 Step 1: Do I need planning permission

House or Flat? Changes of Use Consulting neighbours This guidance sets out the physical considerations It seems obvious, but … A flat is not only an When a formal planning application is made, in planning your domestic extension. However, if the apartment in a traditional tenement or modern neighbours will be notified by the Council. It is alterations are to allow you to operate a business block. The official definition is a “separate and usually a good idea to tell them what you are from your home, then you should consult the self contained set of premises whether or not thinking of before you start, so that notification Council’s Guidance for Businesses to see if planning on the same floor and forming part of a building doesn’t come as a surprise – especially if you permission is required for the use. from some other part of which it is divided might need to negotiate access with them. You horizontally”. If you intend to rent out your property, you will may also need your neighbours permission if your extension will adjoin their property. So, whatever the estate agents say, “four-in- require to register as a Landlord with the Council. a-blocks” or “maisonettes” are also flats, not The Planning Authority is obliged to consider houses. So are some studios and mews. The comments and objections received from distinction is important in deciding whether neighbours. planning permission is required for extensions or If, once you have permission, you need to alterations. get onto their land to build your extension, Flatted properties in any part of the city have then planning permission does not grant any limited rights to carry out alterations. automatic rights – you will still need to agree terms with them. Listed buildings If you live in a property which is listed as being of special architectural or historical interest, then you may also require Listed Building Consent as well as planning permission. Consult the separate guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. Listed Building or Conservation Area? To check if your house is in a conservation area or is a listed building, use the Council’s Interactive map at http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/conservation

Page 8 Step 1: Do I need planning permission

Other Consents Other consents may be required before you start If there are any trees on the site or within 12 metres Other factors such as old mine workings (particularly work. These can include: of the boundary, they should be identified in the in the south-eastern suburbs), restrictions where application. Please check the Edinburgh Design water or gas mains have wayleaves across the site; Listed Building Consent if the property is listed as Guidance for more advice. Trees with a Tree or water/drainage consents from SEPA. being of special architectural or historical interest – Preservation Order or in a conservation area are also see the separate Listed Building and Conservation If you intend to rent your property you will require to protected by law, making it a criminal offence to lop, Area Guidance for more details. register as a Landlord with the Council. Depending top, cut down, uproot, wilfully damage or destroy on numbers, you may also require an HMO (Houses Conservation Area Consent if you are demolishing an a tree unless carried out with the consent of the in Multiple Occupancy) licence. unlisted building in a conservation area – see Listed Council. Building and Conservation Area Guidance for more Although not a planning issue, there may be legal Some species of animals and plants are protected details restrictions on development in your title deeds - for by law. Certain activities, such as killing, injuring example feu superiors’ consent may be required or Planning restrictions may have been imposed when or taking the species or disturbing it in its place of you may require the consent of other joint owners– the original consent was granted, e.g. prohibiting shelter, are unlawful as is damaging or disrupting and legal advice may be required. certain kinds of work or removing permitted its breeding site or resting place, even if the development rights – check the conditions on any species is not there at the time. If the presence of previous consents, including those for the original a European Protected Species (such as a bat, otter Certificate of Lawfulness estate layout if it is relatively new. There may also be or great crested newt) is suspected, a survey of the If you think that your proposals do not need consent, restrictions in your title deeds site must be undertaken. If it is identified that an or if you are not sure that previously undertaken activity is going to be carried out that would affect work has proper consent, you can apply online Converted, new or altered buildings may require protected species, a licence may be required. More at www.eplanning.scot online for a Certificate of a Building Warrant. There is more Building information on European Protected Species, survey Lawfulness to confirm the position in writing. Standards information at www.edinburgh.gov.uk/ work and relevant licenses is available on the buildingwarrants. For detailed information please go Scottish Natural Heritage website. to the Scottish Government website. In relation to bats further guidance on when a survey A Road Permit will be required if forming a new may be required, can be found on page 9 of the Bat access or driveway. Contact the Area Roads Manager Conservation Trust Guidelines in your Locality Team for more information

Page 9 Step 2: Fitting it on to the site

Before getting down to the detailed design, it is planning authority (see panel right).The Council will detached or semi-detached house built before 1914. important to check whether your site is big enough consider their comments when reaching a decision. Normally stone built, they are mainly in conservation to take the scale of extension you want to achieve. areas or on some arterial routes. A bungalow is not a Note that there is no automatic right to extend villa. and, if your site is too small or your proposal Working out a plan Special guidelines apply to extensions and doesn’t meet policy requirements, it may not be When you work up your proposals, always bear in alterations to villas: mind the impact they might have. possible to grant permission. • The character of the original villa should not be What effect will the extension have on your existing adversely changed as a result of the extension house? Is it in harmony in scale and appearance? Do Gardens • When complete, the whole building, including the doors and windows match the existing ones? If it There should be enough private garden space left the original villa and the extension should still is an attic extension, does the roof still come over as after extensions - normally at least 30 sq.metres, be in character with the scale and spacing of the the main element rather than a dormer with a small depending on the spatial pattern of neighbourhood surrounding properties and rhythm of the street amount of roof left around it? Is the new roof pitch to avoid over-development. the same as the existing? Are matching materials • The design approach – including form, scale, used throughout? How is the junction between old If the plot is small, with minimal or shared garden style, proportions including windows, storey and new being handled? space, there may not be sufficient room for your heights and materials – should relate to the extension. original building and be subservient to it What is the impact on the street and the character of the surrounding area? Is the appearance changed? The general density and scale resulting must also • Total site coverage of the new and existing Does the extended house still fit in, or will it stand be in keeping with the overall spatial pattern of building should not exceed 1.5 times the original out obtrusively? the area. Where there is a traditional development villa, subject to: pattern in the area, such as villas with single storey What is the impact on neighbours? Will the extension outbuildings, this may determine the form and size • Maximum site coverage of all buildings, garages, still preserve their light, or will it overpower their of any addition. parking and access driveways should not exceed garden and cut out their sunlight? Is the elevation 40% of the site area, and they will see well designed? Will the new extension The position and design of an extension should not • Distances from the main facades to the protect their privacy and avoid introducing new prejudice the ability of neighbours to add similar or boundaries being at least 12.5m overlooking from windows, balconies or terracing? equivalent extensions. • If the villa is listed, if there are protected trees All these things will be important to your neighbours, Extension to Villas or if it is in a corner site, you should seek pre- who have the right to make their views known to the In terms of the guidance, a ‘villa’ is a traditional large application advice. Page 10 Step 2: Fitting it on to the site

Principal elevations and Side extensions Bungalow extensions building lines In achieving an extension that will fit in with the Bungalow extensions should be designed in a way original building and respect its neighbours, the that retains the character of the original property and extension should be set behind the front line of the is subservient in appearance. What is a building line? existing dwelling to give a clear definition Extension behind Extensions must not imbalance the principal both lines It is the line formed by between the new design and the elevation of the property. the frontages of the existing building. BUILDING LINE buildings along a street. Rear extensions to bungalows should be in keeping Where a side Sometimes it is defined with the existing property roof design and its ridge extension could in the title deeds. line should be below the ridge of the existing visually Generally developments property. The hipped roof character of the host connect other than porches etc building should be respected. Gable end extensions Adequate garden separate area maintained are not acceptable in will generally not be allowed unless this fits in with front of the building houses so

BUILDING LINE the character of the area, and is of a high quality that they line as they disrupt innovative design. the character and appear like appearance of the street. a continuous terrace, planning Conservatories

permission will only Extension Consent will not normally be granted for a Extensions that project beyond the principal be permitted if that is Existing house conservatory on a principal, or other conspicuous, min 0.3m set back elevation line are not generally allowed unless this characteristic of the area. elevation. Exceptions may be justified for fits in with the local character of the street. appropriately designed conservatories where this is part of the traditional character of the area. Corner plots can present a particular problem where Rear extensions the majority of the house’s garden space is in front Rear extensions should not occupy In general, only ground floor conservatories will be of the building lines. more than one third of the permitted, except where underbuilding is required to applicant’s original rear achieve an appropriate height. Original abutting walls Where they contribute to the character of the area, garden area. should be kept and form part of the structure. Where their openness will be protected by resisting any dwarf walls are proposed, they should be constructed significant intrusion into the corner ground. For flats, with the same materials and finish as the house. including 4 in Modest porches may be acceptable where they do a block and Proposals for a new conservatory on a listed building not detract from the design of the original building or maisonettes, should ensure that the original stonework inside a the character of the street. the opportunity conservatory remains unpainted and that the colour for extending, if of the conservatory respects the character of the area. any, will be limited.

Page 11 Step 2: Fitting it on to the site

Daylight and sunlight Daylight to existing buildings Daylight and sunlight are important to health Reasonable levels of daylight to existing buildings will For rear extensions on terraced or semi-detached and well being. Lack of daylight contributes to be maintained where the measure of daylight falling houses, adequate daylight will be maintained to depression (SAD), and sunlight helps synthesise on the wall (the Vertical Sky Component - VSC), does the neighbouring property if 45 degree lines drawn Vitamin D which is important for bone health. not fall below 27%. This standard can be achieved from the plan or section of the new extension do not where new development is kept below a 25° line from enclose the centre of the neighbour’s window. Adequate daylight can also reduce the energy the mid point of an existing window. requirements of development through lessening the need for electric lighting. Daylighting to side or gable windows is not protected (see Side Windows, page 14) All extensions and alterations will be required to ensure adequate daylighting, privacy and sunlight both for themselves and to their neighbours. Calculating daylight and sunlight is complex, but o there are some simple “rules of thumb” which can 25 45° be used to check whether a proposed development is likely to conform. These are set out here. Neighbouring Property Extension sits below 25o line and All new development should ensure that: will not affect neighbour’s daylight adversely • the amenity of neighbouring development will Not acceptable because the centre of the window is within the 45o lines not be adversely affected by impact on privacy, daylight, sunlight or immediate outlook from main (i.e. front and rear) windows; and, • occupiers will have adequate daylight, sunlight, privacy and immediate outlook If the proposal does not meet these criteria, and there are good townscape reasons for looking at other solutions (for instance, the character of an historic area), then more detailed calculations will be required. Guidance can be found in the Building Research Establishment guide Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight - A Guide to Good Practice. 45°

Page 12 Step 2: Fitting it on to the site

Sunlight to existing development How the affected area of a garden is used and Where development is located in other orientations its overall size, will be taken into account when in relation to a neighbouring garden, the 45° line determining whether any loss of sunlight from a new should be set at a distance from the ground level as extension or outbuilding is acceptable. follows: Generally, half the area of garden space should be N 4m NE 3.5m capable of receiving potential sunlight during the E 2.8m SE 2.3m spring equinox for more than 3 hours. S 2m SW 2m The sunlight of spaces between gables will not be W 2.4m NW 3.3m protected unless the affected space is of particular amenity value in comparison with the remainder of In more complex cases, or where the development the garden. Such a space might be a patio which was fails this test, other methods may be required – designed as an integral part of the plan-form of the for instance, a measurable hour by hour sun path original house. analysis showing how sunlight moves through the affected space for both before and after situations. There are various methods of calculating sunlight, but a simple check is to use the 45 degree method. 45o line 45o line Where development is located to the south or south west of a garden, if it rises above a 45° line to the new neighbour’s neighbour’s garden horizontal which is set 2m from the ground level, the garden extension sunlight to the garden may be adversely affected. 4m 2m north south

45o line 45o line

new neighbour’s neighbour’s garden garden extension 2.8m 2.4m east west

Protecting sunlight to neighbour’s property

Page 13 Step 2: Fitting it on to the site

Privacy and outlook Side Windows Decking, Roof Terraces, Balconies People value privacy within their homes but they also Windows will only be protected for privacy and light and Rooflights value outlook - the ability to look outside, whether to if they themselves accord with policies in terms of Balconies, roof terraces and decking which are close gardens, streets or beyond. To achieve both, windows distance to the boundary. Windows on side walls or to boundaries and overlook neighbouring properties either have to be spaced sufficiently far apart so that gables - as often found on bungalows, for instance can be a major source of noise and privacy intrusion. it is difficult to see into a neighbouring property or - will not normally be protected as they are not set windows have to be angled away from one another. back sufficiently from the boundary to be “good Generally, decking should be at, or close to, neighbours” themselves, taking only their fair share ground level (taking account of any level changes 18m is the minimum recommended distance between of light. in the garden ground), of simple design (including windows, usually equally spread so that each barriers and steps), and should not detract from the property’s windows are 9 metres from the common Ground floor windows can sometimes be closer than appearance of the house. boundary. 9 metres to a boundary if they can be screened in some way, e.g. by a fence or hedge. Opportunities for decking may be limited on listed A frequent objection to a development is loss of a buildings, as it is rarely part of the original character. particular view from the neighbour’s house. Though private views will not be protected, immediate Permission for roof terraces and balconies will not outlook of the foreground of what can be seen from be granted where there is significant overlooking within a building may be. This means into neighbouring property due to positioning and that new development that blocks height or if the terracing results in loss of privacy to out the immediate outlook neighbouring properties. of a dwelling must be Rooflights in new extensions that are within 9 avoided. metres of the boundary may be acceptable so ground floor window long as they do not have an adverse impact on the screened by fence existing privacy of neighbouring properties. Any adverse impacts on privacy may be mitigated if the rooflight(s) is set at a high level above floor level Decking 9m min (usually above 1.8 metres). Screened (12.5m in villa areas)

side window not protected (less Street than 9m from boundary)

Page 14 Step 2: Fitting it on to the site

Trees neighbouring windows may restrain the size or position of any outbuildings; The retention of trees and landscape can soften the impact of a new building and help it to blend • buildings in front gardens will not usually be in. Mature landscape should therefore be retained acceptable, because of the damaging impact on where possible. the appearance and amenity of the street and the surrounding area; If a tree would overhang the proposed development or is closer to it than a distance equal to half the tree • there may be additional considerations for listed height, it must be shown on the application plans. buildings and conservation areas. The tree species and the position of the trunk Sheds for cycle storage are subject to the same and extent of branch spread must be accurately principles as sheds for any other purpose. The indicated. The case officer will then assess if more Council has worked with Spokes to produce a fact detailed information, such as a tree survey of the sheet on the storage of bikes for tenement and flat site, is required. dwellers, and in gardens. Garages and outbuildings Links: Buildings within the residential curtilage – such as garages, sheds or greenhouses – should be Guidance for Businesses subordinate in scale and floor area to the main Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Guidance house. In many cases, they will be “permitted development”. Spokes factsheet (Cycle storage for tenements and flats) Proposals will be assessed for their impact on the amenity of the area and on neighbouring Spokes factsheet (Cycle storage in gardens) property (eg loss of daylight) in the same way as extensions. Some points to note when planning your development: • the use must be ancillary to the “enjoyment of the dwelling house”; for instance, gardening, maintenance or hobbies, and not for a commercial business (see our Guidance for Businesses for advice in these cases); • in flatted properties, the way that the garden ground is allocated and the position of

Page 15 Step 3: Design Matters

Extensions and alterations should be architecturally Materials compatible in design, scale and materials with the original house and its surrounding area. This The materials used to construct a building are The use of sustainable long-lasting materials, locally does not preclude high quality innovative modern one of the most important elements in helping sourced wherever possible, and with the potential designs. a new extension to sit harmoniously with the for later recycling will be encouraged. original building. Material characteristic of the The use of materials that are reclaimed or recycled Extensions should not overwhelm or dominate the neighbourhood and of Edinburgh can provide a original form or appearance of the house, or detract sense of quality and identity. Cheap or inappropriate will be encouraged. from the character of the area. materials can detract from the neighbourhood and UPVC is not a traditional or sustainable material, the value of the house. A well-designed and attractive extension will and its use will not normally be acceptable In listed enhance the appearance – and value – of your The materials to be used on an extension should buildings and conservation areas. property and of the neighbourhood. normally match exactly those of the existing building. Where the existing building is constructed of stone, natural stone of the same type and colour should be used for the extension. The use of traditional materials but in a modern design can be an effective way of respecting the character the building or area whilst still encouraging new architectural ideas. Alternatively, a new extension may be designed to contrast with the existing building using a modern design and materials. In this instance the materials should be of the highest quality and relate well to the existing building. It is better to set the extension slightly back so that there is a visible break between the old and new.

Extension subservient to original home in scale and size and compatible with original house in materials and form

Page 16 Step 3: Design Matters

Roof Design In general the pitch and form of an extension roof Dormers on a listed building will also require listed All proposals should comply with both general and should match that of the existing roof. building consent. New dormers on a listed building specific guidance as set out below. are not normally acceptable on front roof pitches. New Flat roofs may be appropriate on modest, single dormers on rear roof pitches of listed buildings may General Guidance storey extensions where not visible in public views. be acceptable where compatible with the character The relationship between a dormer and its Side extension roofs should normally be pitched to of the listed building. Where acceptable on listed surroundings is particularly important. Dormers match the house. buildings, dormers should be of a historic design. should be of such a size that they do not dominate the form of the roof. Dormers should not come to the Otherwise flat and mansard roofs on extensions On unlisted houses that are not in conservation edges of the roof. There should be visible expanses will not normally be allowed unless these are areas, rear and side dormers may be “permitted of roof on all 4 sides. Where possible, the dormer complementary to the existing roof, or in the development”. Guidance on Householder Permitted should align with existing fenestration on the case of flat roofs they are part of a high quality, Development Rights can be found in the Scottish building’s elevation. contemporary design. Government Guidance (Circular 1/2012). New eaves heights should either match or be lower Specific Guidance than existing eaves, to avoid extensions being On principal elevations a single dormer should be greater in storey height than the original building. no greater in width than one third of the average Development above the existing roof ridge will not roof width. If there are two or more dormers, their be permitted. combined width should be less than 50% of the average width of the single roof plane on which they Chimneys form an important feature of many roofs, are located. often marking the subdivision of terraces or adding height to bungalows. Even if disused, they should On rear elevations which are not publicly visible or normally be retained. New false ones can act as not readily visible from public viewpoints a larger ventilation flues from kitchens or bathrooms. dormer may be acceptable where this fits in with the character of the building and surrounding area. Dormers Dormers on side elevations will be considered Dormers on principal elevations, and all dormers acceptable where it can be demonstrated that in conservation areas or on a listed building, will the proposal fits in well with the character of the require planning permission. surrounding area. Dormers in conservation areas will be acceptable All dormers should comply with the ‘Privacy and when they are compatible with the building and Outlook’ requirements as set out on page 14. the character of the surrounding area. All glazing proportions should match the main house or flat.

Page 17 Step 3: Design Matters

Doors and windows Doors and windows should be sensitively replaced, areas may require planning permission. in keeping with the character of the original building, Permission will not required in the following cases: the quality of its design and in an environmental sustainable way. The character of the area should be • The replacement of doors and windows on a like- protected and enhanced. for-like basis. Replacement windows, and new windows on an • In properties which are not in a conservation area. extension, should be of the same size and style as the If you want formal confirmation that your existing ones, keeping the same proportions. replacement doors and windows are lawful , you Repairs to match the original do not require planning can apply for a Certificate of Lawfulnessat www. permission or listed building consent. However, eplanning.scot where a building is listed, consent may be required for: Boundary walls • Double glazing; Walls and fences to the street frontage should harmonise with street and the house. They should • Secondary glazing; not be so high as to be intimidating or reduce • The removal or replacement of windows and doors; security overlooking from the houses. • Alterations to windows such as the changes to Front walls and fences should not be more than astragals, and alterations to doors. 1 metre in height unless there is a prevailing size already established in the neighbourhood. They will Window and door alterations to listed buildings may not be acceptable in estates designed as open-plan require planning permission as well as listed building front gardens, if this forms part of the character of a consent, if they are considered to be ‘development’, conservation area. eg if the new window or door is materially different and changes the character of the building. Please refer to our Guidance for Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings. Window replacement on unlisted buildings in conservation areas may also require planning permission, as may alterations such as converting a window to doors. Door alterations to unlisted buildings in conservation

Page 18 Step 3: Design Matters

Access and parking Smaller scale on-plot car parking options for residential developments: Forming an access for a parking space or garage will Only one access will be permitted per Source: Space to Park website require planning permission where it is taken from a property. classified road or trunk road. In all cases, a road permit A parking space will normally be allowed if will be required for works required to drop a kerb. the front garden is at least 6 metres deep, In flats within conservation areas and within the with a maximum area of 21 square metres curtilage of a listed building, permission is also or 25% of the front garden, whichever is the required to form a hard surface - a driveway or a parking greater. The design should be such as to space. For other properties, see the section on forming prevent additional parking on the remainder a hard-paved area in Permitted Development Rights. of the garden area, eg by using kerbs, planting boxes or changes of level. The Demolition or alteration of walls will need consent in access should not be wider than 3 metres. conservation areas or for listed buildings. A building Attached Garage: Cut out or drive through: warrant is also needed where the hard paved area is Materials must be of high quality and more than 200 square metres. appropriate for the house and the area. The paving must be porous or combined with a Parking in front gardens will not normally be allowed soakaway within the site; the first 2 metres • within traditional tenements; from the road should be paved to avoid loose chippings spilling out. Gates should • in conservation areas or listed buildings, where be of appropriate design and open inwards, loss of original walls or railings and the creation to avoid obstructing the pavement. of a hard surface would have an adverse effect on the character and setting of the area, or a listed Garages or car-ports must have at least a 6 building and its special architectural or historic metre driveway in front to allow vehicles to Hardstanding: Detached Garage: interest; draw in completely off-street. • where the parking space would be formed in front Where the provision of parking was of the windows of a habitable room owned by a part of the original grant of consent, different occupier. the number of parking spaces should be maintained. Loss of a parking space For road safety reasons, an access must not be formed (eg by the conversion of a garage) may, • within 15 metres of a junction; in a controlled parking area, affect the householder’s right to obtain a parking • where visibility would be obstructed; and permit. • where it would interfere with pedestrian crossings, Parking solutions for bicycles are set out bus stops, street lighting or existing street furniture. on page 15. Integral Garage: Car Port: Page 19 Step 3: Design Matters

Sustainability Wood-burning stoves Satellite Dish Aerials The Council encourages energy conservation, Wood burning stoves and biomass boilers are Where they fall within planning control, e.g. in including microgeneration where appropriate. similar appliances, both burn organic materials to conservation areas and on listed buildings, dishes However, some devices are not always suitable on create space heating. In addition, larger biomass will not normally be acceptable on the front or street older listed properties or in conservation areas. central heating systems are available which can also elevation of any building. heat water. The main difference between the two However, the re-use and adaptation of old buildings, However, they may be acceptable in the following appliance types is that wood burning stoves burn which have long paid back their carbon footprint, is situations: wood, or wood pellets; and biomass stoves burn a in itself sustainable. variety of energy crops, including wood. • on the ground to the rear of the building; Adaptable buildings, which allow for change or Provided that the wood burning stove or biomass • on a modern extension to the rear of the building rearrangement in the future, are also sustainable, boiler is located inside the dwelling house, providing that no part of the dish is higher than as they have a longer lifespan than those designed the stoves themselves do not require planning the main building; so tightly that they cannot be altered to meet future permission. However, permission may be required needs. • in the internal valley of roof provided that no part for the flue and any storage facility required for the of the dish projects above the ridge; or Other ways to make your extension more sustainable fuel. Where the building is listed, listed building are to use environmentally-friendly and re-cycled consent may also be required if the storage is • behind a parapet provided that no part of the dish materials. attached to the listed building. A building warrant projects above it. will be required to cover installation, the flue and Extensions must comply with Building Standards, fuel storage. Secured by design which place a strong emphasis on energy- conservation measures such as insulation and This advice covers domestic stoves and boilers up The design and layout of your extension should appropriate materials. This passive energy approach to 45kW (heat) output. The Council’s Environmental not affect the security of your home or those of is often more cost and energy-efficient than Health team can advise on acceptable types of your neighbours. Blank walls, hidden corners and renewable technology. stoves to achieve the required air quality standards. secluded passageways provide cover for intruders to work at gaining access. Solar Panels Other services on buildings Many break-ins take place at the rear of the house, The provision of solar panels can contribute to Some new buildings, whether extensions or new- taking advantage of the privacy of the rear garden. sustainability. However, on listed buildings and/ build houses or flats, spoil their exterior finishes Ways of making your property more secure include: or within conservation areas, solar panels will not with construction joints, outlets for flues and fans, normally be permitted on any conspicuous elevations. weep holes, grilles, etc that were not taken into • Making access to the rear difficult, using alarms account at the time of design. These should be and sensors; In other cases, where solar panels would be considered and planned in to minimise their impact. visible from public streets and areas, they should • ensuring flat roofs do not provide access to upper be designed and laid out as part of an overall windows; architectural treatment.

Page 20 Step 3: Design Matters

• deterrent prickly planting under windows; and • strong locks and fastenings. You can get advice from the Architectural Liaison Officer at your local police station. It is much easier and cheaper to build in security features while you are constructing your extension, than trying to add them afterwards. Considerations Checklist Please consider which of the following permissions you will need, this might include: • Planning Permission • Listed Building Consent • Conservation Area Consent • Building Warrant • Road Permit • Licensing (landlord/HMO etc.) • Legal rights to build (see page 9 for details of these and other consents)

Page 21 Step 4: Submitting your Application

Making an application where permission is required How to apply for planning permission Preparing and Submitting your Planning You can view our validation of applications guide online. Pre-application advice Application Other plans and drawings will depend on the scale, Paper Forms Advice is generally only given on larger, more nature and location of the proposal. For minor complex, unusual or contentious cases. We do not Two sets of the planning application form are householder applications, such as a garden fence or usually give pre-application advice on householder required. The same number of land ownership a satellite dish, brochure details may be acceptable, development. certificates must also be submitted. Guidance on but their precise location should be shown on a their completion is provided with the forms. scaled drawing. Apply online The Council will notify all those with an interest All new work should be coloured and the plans Applications can be submitted online at in neighbouring land within 20 metres of the should be annotated dimensions and the proposed www.eplanning.scot application site that you have submitted a valid materials, and details such as the design and Once registered you can log in and begin making planning application. They have 21 days from location of bin stores and recycling facilities. your application. A guide to submitting an the date of the Council’s notice to make formal application online is available to help you go representations. Note that anyone can send in For listed building consent, where new openings/ through the process. comments, not just the notified neighbours. changes are proposed, details of internal elevations and sections are required. With larger applications, Apply by post Application Fee a photographic survey will need to be submitted. If you prefer paper forms then these can be Fees can be calculated at www.eplanning.scot The minimum detailed information on the plans downloaded from www.eplanning.scot Cheques should be made payable to the City of must be as follows: Edinburgh Council, but online or phone payments Data protection are available. Location plan When you submit a planning application, the Requirement for Plans and Drawings This must identify the land to which the proposal information will appear on the Planning Register and relates and its situation in relation to the locality - will also be published on our weekly list of planning All applications should be accompanied by a in particular in relation to neighbouring land (land applications. This is all done in accordance with data location plan, to scale and showing the application within 20 metres of the boundary of the land to be protection law. site in red and any other land owned by the developed) for notification. Location plans should applicant in blue. Almost all will also require a site be a scale of at least 1:2500 and should indicate a plan. north point.

Page 22 Step 4: Submitting your Application

Site Plan is in fact the case); neighbouring development; This should be of a scale of at least 1:500 and should e. where a proposed elevation adjoins another d. show existing site levels and finished floor levels show: building or is in close proximity or is part (with levels related to a fixed datum point off site), of a larger building (eg flats), the drawings and also show the proposals in relation to adjoining a. the direction of North; should clearly show the relationship between buildings (unless, in the case of development of b. any access arrangements, landscaping, car the buildings, and detail the positions of the an existing house, the levels are evident from floor parking and open areas around buildings; openings on each property. plans and elevations). c. the proposed development in relation to the site Existing and proposed floor plans Roof plans boundaries and other existing buildings on the site, with written dimensions including those to (at a scale of 1:50 or 1:100) which should: (at a scale of 1:50 or 1:100) to show the shape of the roof and specifying details such as the roofing the boundaries; a. explain the proposal in detail; material, vents and their grilles /outlets. d. where possible, all the buildings, roads and b. show where existing buildings or walls are to be footpaths on land adjoining the site including demolished; I don’t need permission but … access arrangements; c. show details of the existing building(s) as well as I want to be sure that I have correctly interpreted e. the extent and type of any hard surfacing; those for the proposed development; the permitted development rules, or that alterations carried out in the past are legitimate? f. boundary treatment including walls or fencing d. show new buildings in context with adjacent where this is proposed. buildings (including property numbers where To cover these situations, you can apply for a applicable); Certificate of Lawfulness at www.eplanning.scot Site Surveys e. show existing and proposed levels. Including existing site levels, will be required for all Apply on line new build proposals. Existing and proposed site sections and Applications for Certificates of Lawfulness can be made online at www.eplanning.scot Existing and proposed elevations finished floor and site levels(at a scale of 1:50 or 1:100) which should: A certificate has legal status, giving certainty to (at a scale of 1:50 or 1:100) which should: a. show a cross section(s) through the proposed prospective buyers, and immunity from future a. show the proposed works in relation to what is building(s); enforcement action. already there; b. where a proposal involves a change in ground Certificates of Lawfulness are particularly useful b. show all sides of the proposal; levels, show both existing and finished levels to when selling properties in the housing market, include details of foundations and eaves and how where the buyer may want proof that the works are c. indicate, where possible, the proposed building encroachment onto adjoining land is to be avoided; lawful and planning permission was not required. materials and the style, materials and finish of windows and doors; c. include full information to demonstrate how The onus is on you to provide supporting information proposed buildings relate to existing site levels and as to why you think that the works are lawful under d. include blank elevations (if only to show that this

Page 23 the Planning acts. When a certificate is being sought for building works - e.g. an extension to a house - drawings will be required to ascertain that the proposal is actually permitted development. Guidance is available on the Council’s web-site. It may become apparent during the processing of the application for the certificate of lawfulness that this is not the case and planning permission will be required. In these cases, the certificate will be refused. You have a right of appeal against this decision.

Page 24 Glossary Amenity - the pleasantness or attractiveness of a place. Balustrade - a railing supported by balusters, especially one forming an ornamental parapet to a balcony, bridge, or terrace. Buildings Lines - a limit beyond which a house must not extend into a street. Conservation Areas - areas of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. Curtilage - an area of land attached to a house and forming one enclosure with it. Dormer Windows - a window that projects vertically from a sloping roof. Elevation - drawings to show what the building will look like from each side. Gable End - the triangular upper part of a wall at the end of a ridged roof. Green Belt - an area of open land around a city, on which building is restricted. Permitted Development - certain types of work without needing to apply for planning permission. Public Realm - belongs to everyone. It comprises the streets, squares, parks, green spaces and other outdoor places. Planning Permission – a formal request to a local authority for permission to build something new or to add something to an existing building. Listed Buildings - Listed buildings are buildings of special architectural or historic interest which are protected under legislation. Local Development Plan - A Local Development Plan (LDP) sets out policies and proposals to guide development.

Page 25 You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats if you ask us. Please contact ITS on 0131 242 8181 and quote reference number 12-0931. ITS can also give information on community language translations.

March 2018 Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas

Who is this guidance for? This document is divided into two parts: Anyone considering work to a property within a Policy Context conservation area or to a listed building. Part 1. Listed Building Guidance This guidance interprets polices in the Edinburgh This guidance provides information on repairing, Local Development Plan which seek to protect the altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted character and setting of listed buildings, and the buildings in conservation areas. Part 2. Conservation Area Guidance character and appearance of conservation areas. This document and other non-statutory guidance can This guidance was initially approved in December be viewed at: 2012 and incorporates minor amendments approved www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planningguidelines in February 2016 and March 2018.

Listed Buildings and Guidance for Businesses Conservation Areas

March 2018 March 2018

Guidance for Householders Edinburgh Design Guidance October 2017

March 2018

Guidance for Development in the Countryside and Green Belt October 2017

Misc: Student Housing, Radio Telecommunications, Open Space Strategy etc. March 2018 2 Contents

Page Page

Part1: Listed Buildings 2 Part 2: Conservation Areas 23 Do I need Listed Building Consent? 4 Do I need Planning Permission 23 What Other Consents Might Be Required? 5 What Other Consents Might Be Required? 23 General Principles 5 General Principles 24 Repair 6 Repair 24 Stone Repair 6 Demolition 24 Mortar Joints and Pointing Repair 7 Extensions and Alterations 24 Traditional Harls and Renders 7 Shopfront Alterations and Signage 25 Roofs 7 Windows and Doors 25 Rainwater goods 8 Stone Cleaning Methods 26 Railings, Gates, Balconies and Handrails 8 Painting 26 External Alterations 9 Paint Removal 27 Stone Cleaning 9 Telecommunications including Satellite Dishes 27 Paint Removal from Masonry 10 Gas Pipes and Meter Boxes 28 Extensions and Additions 11 Flues 28 Shopfront Alterations and Signage 12 Air Conditioning and Refrigeration 28 Windows 12 Adaptation for Accessibility 28 Doors 14 Basements/Access Stairs 15 Services 16 apply For Planning Permission Adaptation for Accessibility 18 apply For Listed Building Consent Internal Alterations 19 New development in the grounds of listed buildings 21 apply For Certificate of Lawfulness

3 Part1: Listed Buildings

Listed buildings represent the very best examples modern requirements but ensure that work is of the built heritage. They are defined as buildings Do I need Listed Building implemented in a sensitive and informed manner. of special architectural or historic interest and are Consent? The aim is to guard against unsympathetic protected under the Planning (Listed Buildings and alterations and prevent unnecessary loss or damage Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. The lists Listed buildings are afforded statutory protection. to historic fabric. Any alterations which would of Buildings of Historic or Architectural Interest are This means that listed building consent is seriously detract from or alter the character of a compiled by Historic Scotland on behalf of Scottish required for the demolition of a listed building, listed building are unlikely to receive consent Ministers. The term building includes structures or its alteration or extension in any manner which such as walls and bridges. would affect its character as a building of special There are three categories of listed buildings: architectural or historic interest. Category A - Buildings of national or international Listing covers the interior as well as the exterior, and importance, either architectural or historic, or includes any object or structure fixed to the building, fine little-altered examples of some particular or which has been included within its curtilage since period, style or building type. 1st July, 1948. Listing, therefore, extends to historic Category B - Buildings of regional or more than fixtures or fittings (plasterwork, chimneypieces, local importance, or major examples of some panelling) and items within the curtilage such as particular period, style or building type which stables, mews, garden walls and stone setts. Any may have been altered. proposals to alter unsympathetically, relocate or remove such features are likely to detract from Category C - Buildings of local importance, lesser the quality of the setting and are unlikely to be examples of any period, style, or building approved. Listed building consent is not required for internal type, as originally constructed or moderately redecoration, renewal of bathroom and kitchen altered; and simple traditional buildings which Listed building consent must be obtained where fittings, rewiring or new plumbing, provided group well with others in categories A and B. proposals will alter the character of the listed fittings or internal decorations (such as decorative building, regardless of its category or whether the plaster, murals and paintings) which contribute to Buildings which relate together in townscape terms work is internal or external. the character of the building or structure are not or as planned layouts in urban, rural or landed estate affected. contexts, often have their group value stressed by Proposed change will be managed to protect a inclusion within ‘A’ or ‘B’ groups. building’s special interest while enabling it to remain In considering any application for listed building in active use. Each proposal will be judged on its consent, and also any application for planning To check whether your property is listed, use our own merits. Listing should not prevent adaptation to permission for development which affects a listed online map. March 2018 4 building or its setting, the Council are required to What if the work has already been If you believe your building work is ‘permitted have special regard to the desirability of preserving carried out? development’, you can apply for a Certificate of the building or its setting, or any features of special Lawfulness. This is a legal document from the architectural or historic interest which it may It is a criminal offence to demolish, alter materially Council which confirms that the development is possess. In this context, preserving, in relation or extend a listed building without listed building lawful. to a building, means retaining it either in its consent. Alterations may be subject to enforcement In addition, listed building consent may be required existing state or subject only to such alterations or action or prosecution at any time. Retrospective regardless of whether planning permission has been extensions as can be carried out without detriment applications for listed building consent will be granted. to its character. considered on their merits. The tests for demolition are detailed in the Scottish Our guidance on Selling Your House sets out the Advertisement Consent criteria which will be used to determine whether to Historic Environment Policy. No listed building Many advertisements will require advertisement take enforcement action against unauthorised works should be demolished unless it has been clearly consent, in addition to listed building consent to a listed building. This will help if you are selling a demonstrated that every effort has been made and planning permission. You can check this by listed property and provides general advice on listed to retain it. The Council will only approve such consulting or by seeking advice from the Planning building consent. applications where they are satisfied that: Helpdesk. • the building is not of special interest; or Building Warrant • the building is incapable of repair; or What Other Consents Might Converted, new or altered buildings may require • the demolition of the building is essential to Be Required? a building warrant, even if planning permission delivering significant benefits to economic growth Planning Permission or listed building consent is not required. Please or the wider community; or contact Building Standards for more information Development is defined as the carrying out of on 0131 529 7826 or email: buildingwarrant. • the repair of the building is not economically building, engineering, mining or other operations in, [email protected]. viable and that it has been marketed at a price on, over or under land, or the making of any material reflecting its location and condition to potential change in the use of any buildings or other land. restoring purchasers for a reasonable period. General Principles Planning permission is required for many alterations, Repairs which match the original materials and additions and changes of use, although some The aim of this guideline is to prevent unnecessary methods and do not affect the character of the development can be carried out without planning loss or damage to historic structures and ensure that building do not usually require listed building permission. This is ‘permitted development’. proposals will not diminish their interest. consent or planning permission. To determine whether planning permission is The fact that a building is listed does not mean that You can apply for listed building consent at required, the Town and Country Planning (General changes cannot be made. However, it does mean www.eplanning.scot. Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 or that any alterations must preserve its character. Any Government Circular on Permitted Development alterations which would seriously detract from or should be considered. alter the character of a listed building are unlikely to receive consent.

March 2018 5 It is strongly advised that specialist advice be • Type: ashlar, random rubble, coursed rubble etc. There will inevitably be a marked contrast between old sought prior to carrying out any works to a listed and new work. However, within a few years of repair • Tooling: broached, stugged, polished building. Without exception, the highest standards the effects of natural weathering will have gone a of materials and workmanship will be required for all • Joints: v-jointed, square-jointed, fine-jointed, etc. long way to remedy this situation. Cosmetic treatment works associated with listed buildings. of indented stone, either cleaning the old stone or An analysis of the stone will also be required distressing the new is not recommended. Any alterations should protect the character and to establish its chemical make-up and ensure special interest of listed buildings . compatibility with the existing stone. Partial indenting should not normally be considered. In certain circumstances, small indents may be There is a strong presumption against demolition of These details should be respected and repeated, appropriate on moulded detail, but leaving the listed buildings and proposals for demolition will be where appropriate, when stone damaged stonework may be more acceptable than assessed against the criteria set out in the Scottish replacement and pointing is carried carrying out a visually intrusive repair. Historic Environment Policy. out. Inappropriate replacements Stone indents on external original steps and entrance affect the architectural integrity of platts are normally the most appropriate method of historic buildings. Repair repair. Concrete screeds to steps and entrance platts It is also imperative to remedy the are not acceptable. cause of any decay by eliminating Planning permission and listed building consent sources of soluble salts, preventing Redressing are not normally required for repairs which match the passage of moisture and Redressing is the removal of the surface layer from the the original materials and methods and do not rectifying active structural faults. decayed stone. This may not be appropriate as it can affect the character of the building. Inappropriate cause considerable damage to the underlying stone repairs can result in enforcement action or Indenting and accelerate decay. prosecution. Indenting is the insertion of a new stone to replace Mortar one which is damaged or decayed. Repairs to listed buildings should always be carried Mortar repairs to stone should only be used as an Indenting may not always be necessary when a out with care. Matching the original materials and extension of pointing to fill in small areas of decay and stone has a defect; if the stone can reasonably be extend the life of a stone which would otherwise have method is important. The use of inappropriate expected to survive for another 30 years, it should to be replaced. materials and poor repair techniques can accelerate be left, regardless of its appearance. the decay of traditional historic buildings, shorten In some cases, it may be appropriate to use mortar their lifespan and result in longer-term problems Where indenting is on sculpted or moulded stonework. However, as which may reault in much higher repair costs. appropriate, the indent mortar is significantly different from stone, ensuring should be selected to a permanent bond between the two materials will Stone Repair closely match the original be difficult. Therefore, a mortar repair will have a stone. Artificial stone Before any repairs are undertaken, the existing considerably shorter life than indenting. should not be used on stonework details should be carefully categorised for listed buildings. Lime mortars will usually be the most appropriate mix. the: The presence of cement in the mix used for mortar repairs will accelerate decay in the neighbouring stone.

March 2018 6 Weather Proofing carefully. Hard cement mortar should never be used. In traditional construction, the free movement of Traditional Harls and Renders water vapour through the fabric of a building in both directions is essential. Hard cement mixes should not be used for harls and renders. A hard mix will trap a layer of moisture The use of silene and silicone treatments to weather between the harl and the stonework beneath, thus proof stone is not recommended because serious forcing water back into the stone and encouraging damage can occur if condensation builds up within a accelerated decay. Lime mixes are recommended. stone and the process is not reversible. Original harls can be analysed to establish their Mortar Joints and Pointing Repair composition. In order to prepare surfaces for harling and rendering, old cement render should usually be The original mortar joints and pointing should be removed. In most cases, it will be more appropriate respected, if traditional and causing no damage. The restoration of lost roof elements to match the to use a wet dash rather than a dry dash. It is Pointing can take many forms (recessed, flush, original form will be encouraged. important that each ‘layer’ of harl is allowed to dry slaistered etc.) In some instances, small pieces of fully before applying another coat. However, each It is important to use the proper repair techniques stone or slate are used in the mortar mix. In cases situation is different and specialist advice should be and materials for ridges, flashings, mortar fillets where it is unclear what existed previously, mortar sought on best practice. analysis should be carried out. Under no circumstances should joints be widened Roofs to facilitate the work. Raking out should be done carefully with hand tools; power tools should never Listed building consent will be required for be used. It is important that the correct pointing alterations to roofs. Planning permission may and tools are chosen and used for specific types of also be required, depending on the proposal. joints. Planning permission and listed building consent Mortar should be sufficiently resilient to are not normally required for repairs which match accommodate minor movements in the masonry, the original materials and methods and do not but it should never be stronger or denser than affect the character of the building. adjoining stones. This will cause the mortar to and parapet gutters. Ridges should be replaced to crack and prevent drying out through the joints, The roof, which includes parapets, skews, chimney match existing. Most ridges and flashings should be causing moisture to evaporate through the stones, heads and chimney pots, is an important feature of a replaced in lead, making sure to use the correct code accelerating decay. building. The retention of original structure, shape, pitch, cladding (particularly colour, weight, texture of lead. Lime mortar should be used in most instances. and origin of slate and ridge material) and ornament Any change to the roofing material, including However, as the technology, science and physical is important. Any later work of definite quality which alternative slate, will require listed building consent properties of pure lime mortars vary considerably makes a positive contribution to the interest of the and may require planning permission. from cement gauged mortars, they must be used building should also be kept.

March 2018 7 Most traditional roofs within Edinburgh are covered The original gradation of slates should be repeated. Rainwater goods with Scots slates, although other materials, such (guttering, downpipes etc.) as Welsh and Cumbrian slates, pantiles and thatch, Flat Roofs have also been used. In some instances, materials Lead is usually the most appropriate covering for the such as copper may have been used on the roof of a long-term maintenance of flat roofs. Alternatives to decorative turret. Traditional materials should always lead may be considered acceptable in certain cases. be respected and repeated, where appropriate. Bituminous felt is not generally appropriate for use on listed buildings. Scots slates are becoming increasingly rare and of Chimneys

Removal of all or part of a chimney will require listed building consent and may require planning permission.

Original chimneys should always be retained Replacement rainwater goods should match the and repaired as they are an essential feature of original, cast iron or zinc should be used where traditional buildings and contribute to the historic Scots slates are becoming increasingly rare and in these were the original materials. Other materials skyline. Non-original additions to chimneys should some circumstances second-hand slates are of poor such as aluminium may be acceptable, where be removed. quality and size. It is preferable in some cases that appropriate. sound old slates are laid together on visible roof Chimneys should be repaired using traditional They should be painted either black or to tone slopes, with new slates used on non-visible roof methods to reinstate as original, with particular in with the adjacent stonework and roofing slopes. Alternatives to Scots slate will be considered attention to the detail of the coping stone. Particular respectively. on their merits. care should be taken to retain chimneystacks to their original height. It is important to ensure consistency in the texture Railings, Gates, Balconies and Handrails and grading, and that the new slate matches the Detailed records of the original structure should The erection of railings, gates, balconies and colour, size, thickness and surface texture of the be made where downtaking is necessary to ensure handrails requires listed building consent and original materials as closely as possible. correct replacement. Chimney pots should always be planning permission. replaced to match the original. Concrete tiles or artificial slate should never be used Planning permission and listed building consent in conjunction with, or as a replacement for real Where the original chimneys have been demolished are not normally required for repairs. slate. The introduction of slate vents may require and replaced in brick and render, the rebuilding in listed building consent. stone will be encouraged. Balconies, gates, railings and handrails are usually Patterned slating, incorporating fish scale or formal components in the design of an elevation. diamond slates, sometimes in different colours, They should be maintained and repaired and, if should be retained and repaired with special care. March 2018 8 they have to be replaced, based on sound physical and documentary evidence cleaning, applicants will be required to ascertain should be erected on a of the previous state of the building. This is to geological characteristics through laboratory tests. ensure that work is carried out in an architecturally like for like basis. The Stone cleaning methods should be tested on an and historically correct manner. recommended paint inconspicuous trial area of two or three stones. colour is black gloss. Stone Cleaning If stone cleaning is approved, post-cleaning Usually, railings were photographic records should be submitted and made from cast iron, Listed building consent is required to stone documented for research purposes. although there may be clean listed buildings. Planning permission some examples surviving is also required for the stonecleaning of any It is expected that most necessary repairs will be of wrought iron. If the building within a conservation area. identified at the initial application stage. Therefore, railings no longer exist, it consent would be conditional upon a commitment is important to establish by applicants to undertake a minimum standard of what the original railings were like. Remaining Stone cleaning cannot be undertaken without repair subsequent to stonecleaning. sections of iron work may still exist in the cope or on damaging a building. It can also reveal the scars similar neighbouring properties or old photographs of age, such as staining, poor previous repairs and Stone Cleaning Methods surface damage. It may also remove the natural and plans can be used. In most cases, cast iron The following are the most common stone cleaning patina, the protective layer on the stone, opening railings fixed individually into the cope should be methods. Their inclusion in this guideline is for up the surface pore structure and making re-soiling used. information only and does not imply their much easier. Railings are normally fixed to stone copes. These acceptability. should be repaired according to the principles There will, therefore be a presumption against the stone cleaning of listed buildings and buildings outlined in the previous section on stone repair. 1. Mechanical - Carborundum Disc Moulded copes and other special details should within conservation areas. Stone cleaning will not be This method comprises a hand-held rotary disc always be respected and repeated. considered acceptable on any street where cleaning has not commenced. Where cleaning of a street has with a carborundum pad. commenced, the issue of reinstating architectural 2. Air and Water Abrasive External Alterations unity will be a material considerations in assessing the merits of individual applications. These methods comprise grits and other abrasive Any external alterations, however minimal, may mediums carried by jets of air and/or water. require listed building consent and possibly Specialist professional skills should be sought to planning permission. undertake analysis and, where acceptable, design a 3. Chemical Cleaning suitable cleaning method and undertake work. This section provides guidance on the most common This method comprises the application of forms of change. You are encouraged to contact Applications for stone cleaning should be chemicals and a high pressure water wash or Planning to discuss any proposed work. accompanied by a full drawing and photographic pressure steam. survey. Where it is proposed to restore lost features, it will be important to ensure that all restorative work is To assess the most appropriate method of stone

March 2018 9 The removal of paint requires chemical and/or The treatment of graffiti from listed buildings and 4. Water (High Pressure, Low Pressure, abrasive cleaning to re-expose the stone beneath. buildings within conservation areas will generally be Manual) Abrasive methods can cause severe damage to the supported provided there would be no unacceptable When water pressure is used as part of the surface and will be unlikely to remove all traces of change in the appearance of the historic surface or cleaning method, water is forced into the stone paint from coarse, porous sandstone. In certain structural integrity. However, the condition or to a depth where natural evaporation will circumstances, a minimally abrasive method may architectural detailing of the surface or the nature of not take place. The water can then percolate be appropriate to remove the outermost paint layers the graffiti may, in some circumstances, prevent any down through the fabric of the wall and cause not in contact with the stone surface. Chemical paint form of graffiti treatment from being acceptable. accelerated weathering at lower levels in the removal varies from paint stripper to a proprietary building. High pressure water can also cause poultice (a substance placed on the stone to draw damage to the stone. out the paint). Each requires extreme caution due to their potentially damaging effects and trial samples A water wash remains an alternative stone should be carried out. cleaning technique. A low pressure water wash (100-200psi) is the least aggressive method of Previous painting could have disguised the poor stone cleaning. However, it will not remove dirt condition or appearance of the surface so repair which has combined with the surface to form work may be required following paint removal. an insoluble compound. High pressure and/ Therefore, consents will be conditional upon a or excessive water can cause surface erosion, commitment by applicants to undertake a minimum pointing wash-out, staining and force water standard of repair subsequent to paint removal. into the core of the wall. Due to the dangers of Each site must be assessed on an individual basis Where paint removal is not appropriate, the property thermal expansion, water washing should be and a site specific proposal prepared. Specialist should be repainted in a matt finish stone coloured avoided in frosty conditions. professional skills should be sought to design paint to tone with the adjoining stonework. suitable treatment methods and undertake any Specialist professional skills should be sought to work. undertake analysis, design a suitable treatment Paint Removal from Masonry At sites where graffiti is a recurring issue or where method and undertake any work. historic surfaces are vulnerable to the effects Paint removal will require planning permission Graffiti Treatment of graffiti treatment, alternative strategies may and listed building consent. be required to prevent or reduces incidences of Graffiti treatment will require planning permission graffiti. Lighting, CCTV, physical barriers and the The restoration of the original surface through the and listed building consent if the proposed method repositioning of fixtures may be required. These removal of paint can improve the character and will affect the character or appearance of the may need listed building consent and/or planning appearance of a building. Where surfaces have been building. permission. previously painted, the removal of paint will be Whilst graffiti can have an adverse impact on the Temporary sacrificial coatings will also be supported in principle, provided that the proposed character and appearance of a building and general encouraged in areas of persistent graffiti attack, removal method does not adversely affect the environment, inappropriate graffiti treatment can provided there would be no adverse impact on the original surface. cause irreversible and fundamental damage to buildings. surface. March 2018 10 The permanent sealing of a surface will result in accelerated decay of the stone leading to expensive repairs and will therefore not be considered acceptable. Graffiti Removal Methods Chemical Includes solvent based paint removers, other organic solvents and alkali-based paint removers or External stonework must not be painted or rendered, caustic removers. unless the surface was originally painted or rendered. Physical Coping stones and the edge of steps should not be painted. Mainly air abrasion but can also include pressure It is usually acceptable for an addition to be washing and steam cleaning. Information on painting a shop or other commercial different and distinguishable from the existing premises is included within the Guidance for building, in terms of design. The use of high quality Heat Businesses. materials which complement the main building Includes hot pressure washing and steam cleaning, will be required . In other circumstances it may be Walls covered with smooth cement render or a harled which must be applied at an appropriate pressure appropriate to match the new work to the existing, finish should generally be painted in earth colours or for the substrate; and laser treatments which can be in which case the new materials should be carefully neutrals (grey, cream or beige). Rendered bands to labour intensive, slow and expensive. matched. windows should generally be in stone colours. Painting and Render The visual separation of extensions is encouraged. Extensions and Additions In the case of side extensions, they should be set back from the facade and be of a scale that does Paint which matches the existing in colour and Listed building consent will be required for not affect the overall architectural composition. The uses traditional materials and methods will extensions or additions to listed buildings. effect of any addition on a symmetrical composition not require listed building consent or planning Planning permission may also be required, will be particularly important. permission. depending on the proposal. Encouragement will be given to the removal of Painting or rendering of a previously untreated New extensions on a terraced block may not be inappropriate additions which are of inferior surface will require planning permission and acceptable where there are no existing extensions. quality and which detract from the listed building. listed building consent, and is unlikely to be Where the principle of extending a listed building Where there is an existing extension of historic or acceptable. is acceptable, the extension should be subservient architectural interest, such as a conservatory or to the main building and will rarely be permitted Changing the colour of a listed building will need outshot, this should be restored or repaired, rather on principal elevations. Extensions should not listed building consent. Planning permission than replaced. will also be required to change the colour of any normally exceed 50% of the width of any elevation. building located within a conservation area.

March 2018 11 Shopfront Alterations and Signage Secondary glazing is likely to require listed building consent where it will impact on architectural detail or affect the external appearance of the building. Planning permission may also be required where the replacement or alteration will not match the existing in design, material, size, opening mechanism or proportion. Replacement windows which do not result in a material change to the appearance will not normally require planning permission. The reinstatement of the original window pattern will normally be encouraged.

Specific information is included in Guidance for Repair and Maintenance Businesses. This should be considered alongside Openings this document, where relevant. There is a general presumption against the removal Window openings play an important role in of original window frames and glazing; repair establishing the character of an elevation and they Windows and refurbishment is preferred. Decay in timber should not be altered in their proportions or details. is usually caused by moisture penetration, which The removal, replacement or alteration of can be prevented by thorough painting, regular Proposals to increase the glazing area by removing windows will normally require listed building maintenance and prompt attention to necessary stone or timber mullions (vertical members between consent. repairs. windows which form the divisions between windows) will not normally be granted consent. Repairs and painting which match the existing Glazing should be fixed with putty or a glazing and use traditional materials and methods will compound rather than timber beading. Proposals to convert windows into door openings not require listed building consent or planning will not be considered acceptable on principal The thermal performance standard of existing permission. frontages or above garden level on all other windows can be improved by repair, draught- elevations. Where acceptable, the width of the Double glazing in listed buildings will require stripping and working internal shutters. existing opening should not be increased. Normally, listed building consent. only one set of French windows will be permitted. Entirely new window openings are unlikely to be Where a significant proportion of historic glass (such acceptable on principal elevations as this can create as Crown, cylinder and drawn sheet) remains on an an unbalanced composition. individual window, it should be retained or re-used.

March 2018 12 Replacing Original Windows have the meeting rails in the same position as the Additional glazing units fitted to the outside of originals; this is especially important where the existing windows are not acceptable. windows of only one property in a tenement or X terrace block are being replaced. Fanlights Whenever an original window has been lost, any modern windows which are badly proportioned, of the wrong type, or incorrectly glazed, should be reinstated to the original proportion and detail. This is especially important in the case of unified terraces. Double Glazing Slim profile double glazing with a cavity (the space between the two sheets of glass) of a maximum of 6mm can be fitted into existing windows, provided Decorative fanlights should be retained, and where early glass is not present. necessary, replaced.

Original windows are important features of any Double glazing with a cavity of more than 6mm is not Astragals acceptable. building and should not be removed or altered. The Where there is clear photographic or physical complete replacement of original windows will only Secondary Glazing evidence that astragals (the glazing bars dividing be approved where they have clearly deteriorated panes of glass) have been removed, their Secondary glazing involves an independent internal beyond practicable repair. Proposals must be replacement to the original profile and dimensions window in addition to the existing. It should, accompanied by evidence demonstrating that they will be encouraged. The glazing pattern which forms wherever possible, be fitted immediately inside are beyond repair; a professional survey may be part of a significant later re-modelling scheme should existing sashes or at a suitable position within the requested. not be changed. Astragals applied to the surface depth of the window reveal, being fixed either to the of the glass or sandwiched between the glass of In the event that replacement windows can be case or the surrounding framework of the ingoes. doubled glazed units are not considered acceptable. justified, they should be designed to replicate the Secondary glazing should not disrupt architectural original details, including materials, design and features, such as shutters. Horns opening method. Particular attention must be paid Horns are Victorian projections of the side frames of to the mouldings; standard modern sections are not The meeting rails and frames of secondary windows the sashes, devised to strengthen them, following the acceptable for reinstatement work. uPVC will not be should be as small in section as possible to allow introduction of heavy plate glass. Georgian and early acceptable. them to be disguised behind existing rails. Painting their external faces black helps to minimise visibility Victorian windows with astragals never have horns Care should be taken the ensure that replacement from the outside. Where necessary, detailing of and will therefore be strongly resisted. Edwardian windows are fitted in the same plane as the internal secondary windows must allow for the use windows sometimes had horns, and their use may, originals, are made of timber sections (the profile of the easy-clean hinges on the lower sash of the therefore, be appropriate. and dimensions of which match the originals) and original outer window. March 2018 13 Ventilators and Extractor Fans Early Modern Metal Windows Ventilators cut through the glass or visible on the Early modern metal framed windows should window frames will not be considered acceptable; normally be repaired or replaced with matching they should be located unobtrusively in the meeting windows of the same materials and design. New rail or through the box frame. units manufactured from different materials will Mechanical extractor fans should be located on rarely be capable of accurately matching and rear or side elevations and will not normally be will only be acceptable where exact replication acceptable within windows or fanlights, or on front of the original window is of less importance. In elevations. such cases, any discrepancy in form, profile, Paint section and opening method should be kept to a minimum. Originally, most windows were painted dark brown or bottle green. However, window joinery, including Casement Windows a conservation type and should be of an appropriate fanlights, should normally be painted white or off- scale and proportion. The proposed number of Original inward opening casement windows are white to maintain uniformity (brilliant white should rooflights will also be a determining factor. relatively rare and must be retained or identically be avoided). replaced. Doors Freestanding buildings may have more scope to investigate and ‘restore’ the original colours. Special Types of Glass The removal, replacement or alteration of doors There is a presumption in favour of retaining will normally require listed building consent. All areas of dormer windows, other than the window stained, decorative leaded , etched glass and frames, should be painted to tone in with the roof. historic glass. If the glass has to be removed Original doors are important features of any building and is of artistic merit, arrangements should be Special Cases and should not be removed or altered. The complete made for its recording and its careful removal. replacement of original doors will only be approved Institutional/Industrial buildings Proposals to use wired glass, obscured glass, where they have clearly deteriorated beyond Industrial and institutional buildings have a and louvered glass or extract fans in windows practicable repair. Proposals must be accompanied variety of window types, depending on their age on main elevations will not be considered by evidence demonstrating that they are beyond and function. The original window type should acceptable. repair; a professional survey may be requested. be retained wherever practicable, although flexibility on window design may be acceptable Dormer Windows and Rooflights Replacement doors which incorporate integral to allow conversion to new uses. The glazing fanlights or inappropriate glazing or panelling New dormer windows will not normally be acceptable pattern should be reproduced and the manner patterns will not be granted consent. of opening should be as close to the original unless they are part of the original or early design as possible. Standard double glazing may be of an area. Rooflights will almost always be a Entirely new door openings are unlikely to be acceptable, provided discrepancies in the form, preferable solution, but these will not generally acceptable on principal elevations as this can create profile, section, materials and opening method be permitted on roof slopes which are largely an unbalanced composition. are kept to a minimum. unaltered. Where acceptable, rooflights should be of

14 February 2016 Doors in street frontages, even though no longer used, should be retained. Door furniture and later fittings of quality should be retained. Where these have not survived, the replacement of modern fittings with items appropriate to the period of the building will be encouraged.

Door entry systems colour. Basement steps, floors and walls should not to the elevation(s) in question and this can be fully should be discreetly be painted . supported by an historic building analysis. designed and should be located on door ingoes, Proposed extensions in front basement areas or Where access stairs can be justified, they should not the main façade. under entrance platts are not normally acceptable be in-keeping with the character of the building. and owners are encouraged to remove existing The design of the stair should either be based Paint extensions. on an original design for the type of building or a lightweight modern addition with metal being the Doors should be painted The formation of lightwells in basements will only be preferred material. New doors and stairs should be in an appropriate dark and muted colour. permitted where they are part of the character of the painted appropriate colours, usually black for metal street. These should always be in matching materials work. They should not be enclosed structures. Basements to the main building and covered with a flush cast iron grille. Stairs should normally be for access only. Where Listed building consent may be required for they include platforms for incidental use, the external alterations to basements. Planning Access Stairs Council’s guidelines on privacy must be complied permission may also be required, depending on with. Stairs should be kept close to the building, but the proposal. New external access stairs will require listed should not obstruct daylight from existing windows. building consent and may also require planning When buildings are in single occupancy and there is permission. an existing door at either ground floor or basement There is a presumption against the removal of level, an access stair at upper levels will not normally original stone slabs from basement areas. They be permitted. On all other properties, access stairs should never be covered in concrete or any other There is a general presumption against the will be restricted to the floor above the lowest material such as gravel or chips. Where existing introduction of external access stairs on any habitable floor level. Bridges over rear basement stone slabs need to be renewed new stone slabs elevation. External access stairs may be acceptable areas will not be considered acceptable. should be laid. Similarly, stone steps and platts in exceptional circumstances where there is a to ground floor entrances should be repaired or pattern of original access stairs established relevant renewed in natural stone to match the original in

March 2018 15 Renewable Energy Technologies (Solar Additional pipework on important facades should be Flues Panels, Wind Turbines etc.) avoided especially if it would result in disturbance to, or the breaking through of masonry, mouldings or Listed building consent is required to install decorative features. Replacements should be in cast Listed building consent will normally be balanced flues on the front or any conspicuous iron, painted to match the colour of the walling and required for the installation of renewable energy elevation of listed buildings. In certain should match the original sections. technologies. Planning permission may also be circumstances an application for planning permission will also be required. required, depending on the proposal. Gas Pipes and Meter Boxes

Balanced flues will not normally be acceptable The installation of renewable energy technologies Listed building consent is only required where on the front or conspicuous elevations of listed should be carefully sited in order to protect the the guidelines listed below cannot be complied buildings. architectural integrity of the listed building. with. Poorly located renewable energy technologies can be The balanced flue should be painted to match the visually intrusive and will not be acceptable where A maximum of a 450mm of supply pipe can be colour of the surrounding stonework. they detract from the character of the building. They visible on the front wall of listed buildings. External Holes to accommodate the balanced flue should be should not be visible from public view. They may be pipes which are both horizontal and vertical must formed with a core cutter. acceptable in the following locations: have the horizontal section within the basement areas (where applicable) and not be visible from the • On the ground to the rear of the building. Ventilation Grilles street. • On a modern extension to the rear of the building, Listed building consent is required to install Holes in stonework must be kept to a minimum and providing that no part is higher than the main ventilation grilles on the front elevation (or any should be made through stone joints, except in the building. conspicuous elevations) of listed buildings. case of “V” jointing or rubble where holes should be Planning permission is not normally required if of • In the internal valley of a roof, provided that no in the stonework. Non-ferrous fixings must be used. a domestic scale. part projects above the ridge. Pipe runs should not interfere with cornices and In the New Town Conservation Area and World decorative plasterwork. Where pipes are chased into Ventilation grilles will not normally be acceptable on Heritage Site, aerial views will also be considered. walls, plasterwork must be reinstated to original. the front or other conspicuous elevations of listed External Plumbing All redundant surface-run pipe work must be buildings. removed and the surfaces made good and painted to If acceptable in principle, ventilation grilles should match existing materials and colour. Listed building consent may be required for generally be no bigger than the standard size, flush external plumbing. In some circumstances, Meter boxes should not be fitted to the front or any with the wall surface and coloured to match the planning permission may also be required, conspicuous elevation of buildings. background. depending on the proposal. Pipe work and meter boxes should be painted to match adjacent stone.

March 2018 16 Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Alarm Boxes Satellite Dishes

Planning permission and listed building consent Alarm boxes on listed buildings should be the Listed building consent will normally be will normally be required to install air conditioning smallest available, fitted in the least conspicuous required to install a satellite dish on a listed and refrigeration units on the exterior of buildings. location and painted to match the background building. Planning permission may also be Listed building consent may also be required to colour or stonework. required if located within a Conservation Area. install units within listed buildings where units There will be a general would disrupt architectural features and fixtures. Poorly sited satellite dishes can be visually intrusive presumption against the and will not be acceptable where they detract from location of alarm boxes the character of the building. They should not be on the front elevation of visible from public view. They may be acceptable in The preferred location for units on listed buildings listed buildings which the following locations: are: retain their original • Free standing within garden or courtyard areas, domestic character, • On the ground to the rear of the building. subject to appropriate screening and discreet irrespective of the • On a modern extension to the rear of the building, ducting. use of the premises. providing that no part of the dish is higher than Where alarm boxes have to be located on the front • Within rear basement areas. the main building. elevation, they should be restricted to the least • Inconspicuous locations on the roof (within roof visible location. On tenemental properties, alarm • In the internal valley of a roof, provided that no valleys or adjacent to existing plant). However, boxes should not normally be located above the part of the dish projects above the ridge. in the New Town Conservation Area and World ground floor. • Behind a parapet, provided no part of the dish Heritage Site, aerial views will also be considered. In basement areas, it may be possible to fit alarm projects above it. • Internally behind louvres on inconspicuous boxes in inconspicuous locations such as on in- In the New Town Conservation Area and World elevations. This should not result in the loss of facing walls, under entrance platts and stairs, and Heritage Site, aerial views will also be considered. original windows. on the sides of platt supporting arches close to the junction with the pavement. Where the location for a dish is considered to be Where it is not practicably possible to locate units in appropriate, it should be chosen to blend in with its any of the above locations, it may be acceptable to Concealed locations on side and rear elevations background. This may require the dish to be painted. fix units to the wall of an inconspicuous elevation, as should also be considered. Consideration should low down as possible; they should not be located on also be given to fitting boxes inside the building All fixings should be non-ferrous. the front elevation. behind windows and fanlights. Alarm boxes should Consent may be refused for additional dishes due not bridge mortar joints in the stone, particularly Units should be limited in number, as small as to the visual effects of a multiplicity of dishes, even where V or square joints are used. practicably possible and painted to tone with the if this precludes some residents from receiving surrounding stonework or background. Alarm boxes will normally be considered acceptable satellite television. The sharing of satellite dishes in appropriate locations and on painted shop fronts will be encouraged. Ducting must not detract from the character of the and commercial frontages where the boxes are building. painted to match the background colour. March 2018 17 Other Additions Adaptation for Accessibility

External fixtures will require listed building Listed building consent is required to install consent when they affect the character of the ramps, handrails, indicators and lifts and for listed building. These include floodlighting, alterations to doors. Planning permission may security cameras, window boxes, key boxes, bird also be required. control installations and eyebolts (unless on While the Equality Act 2010 requires service window reveals). Planning permission may also providers to take “reasonable” steps to make their be required, depending on the proposal. buildings and services accessible, there is also a statutory duty to protect the character of the historic Only undamaging and visually unobtrusive positions environment. The provision of access for the less Where appropriate, consideration should be given for such fixtures will be considered acceptable. able to historic buildings will, therefore, require to regrading the ground at the entrance in order to Fixtures should not lie across, cut into or through careful consideration and design. overcome the need for larger ramps and minimise any architectural feature or disturb the balance of a Full access for everyone via the principal entrance the visual impact on the building. If this will cause symmetrical façade. Fixings into stonework should be may not be appropriate. Alternative access a footway hazard, a ramp inside the building may kept to a minimum and should be non-ferrous. arrangements which preserve the character of the be appropriate; the removal of steps and the The size and number of additions will also be an listed building may be required. lengthening of doors can sometimes accommodate important consideration and, where appropriate, this. Listed building consent will be required for any applicants may be asked to erect fixtures on a Ramps on the public footway will not generally be internal alterations which will alter the character temporary basis in order that their impact can be supported. Where acceptable, ramps must leave of the listed building. accurately assessed. sufficient clear footway for pedestrians. This will Proposals to erect any fixtures which fail to respect the Planning permission is not required for internal vary according to the volume of pedestrian traffic. form and detailing of the building and detract from its alterations. In general, this is 2 metres for residential areas, appearance are not likely to be acceptable. 3 metres for main roads and 5-6 metres for busy Solutions should be tailored to the particular shopping streets. The position and colour of cabling for lighting, building through the use of innovative design and television and other services should be Where a ramp is acceptable, high quality materials, high quality materials. inconspicuous. Cabling may often be accommodated such as stone to match the existing building, behind or next to downpipes or on top of projecting Ramps will be encouraged. In some circumstances, high string courses and cornices. Black or grey cabling is quality design in modern materials may be more The placing of a ramp on a building should have normally the most appropriate colour. appropriate. minimal impact on the historic fabric. The symmetry of existing elevations and the rhythm Handrails of the street as a whole should be respected, and Where required, handrails should be carefully where relevant, care should be taken to protect designed and sensitively located to avoid being the relationship between railings, property and visually intrusive. basement. March 2018 18 Appropriate contrast with the background material Garden ground should not be formally divided up can be achieved with high quality traditional or Internal Alterations by the use of fences and other unsuitable boundary contemporary materials. markers to delineate ownership. Particular care Listed building consent will be required for any should be taken to conceal the clutter of intensified Tactile Indicators internal alterations which will alter the character domestic use, e.g. garages and bin stores. Historic flooring materials should not be replaced of the listed building. with standard tactile paving. A tactile grid can be Planning permission is not required for internal Internal Walls and Partitions achieved by using materials that match those of the alterations. surrounding area, and which have been textured Internal walls in listed buildings should always be with ridges or dimples. More information is available investigated with care in advance of alterations as in the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Subdivision historic or interesting features may be concealed by plaster or behind panelling. In some cases, the Visual indicators The original plan form of a building should always be partitions themselves may be of historic interest. respected. Brightly coloured high-visibility strips should be In general, consent will not be granted for the avoided, unless their use helps to avoid other more All major works of alteration should be limited removal of original internal walls or partitions visually intrusive works. to areas of secondary importance. There will between front and rear principal rooms at ground Doors be a particular requirement not to sub-divide, and first floor level. either vertically or horizontally, principal rooms There may be cases (particularly in the case of and entrance/stair halls. Where the interior is of In cases where it is considered acceptable for an historic buildings) where it is less damaging to seek particular architectural or historical importance, existing wall or partition to be removed, it will be alternative access routes than to widen or alter a necessary to leave nibs and a downstand of at doorway. Historic doors are often an integral part of subdivision will not be permitted. least 300mm with any original cornice left intact. the design of the building, and should be retained The degree of change to the plan form which may be wherever possible. Work should not cut through mouldings or enriched acceptable will normally be dependent on previous plaster decoration but be shaped around them to Where historic doors are heavy or difficult to operate, alterations and use. allow for reinstatement at a later date. In most cases it is normally possible to adapt them by re-hanging There will be a presumption against the sub-division it will be desirable to replicate the original cornice and/or introducing opening mechanisms or visual of complete houses and flats currently in residential detail at the head of new partitions as well as indicators to make the handles more prominent. use. A greater degree of flexibility will be exercised dadoes and skirtings. Lifts where the current use is non-residential and a return New partitions which affect the proportions of External chair and platform lifts can have a to residential is proposed. principal rooms will not be considered acceptable. significant impact on the architectural character of a Where acceptable, subdivision should not normally building, but may be more appropriate than a ramp Internal Doors result in the formation of more than one flat per floor in certain circumstances. The resting position of any in town houses. Doors that form part of the architectural composition external lift should be as low as possible, and the of a room or plan form should be retained. Where design of the platform and restraints should be as Rear stairs should not be attached as part of a sub- they are redundant in terms of circulation, they transparent as possible. Metal cages are unlikely division proposal. Access to rear gardens should be should be locked shut and left in position, rather to be acceptable as they are disruptive to the retained through a basement room, where possible. streetscape and can seem intimidating to the user. than being removed.

March 2018 19 If traditional panelled doors require to be upgraded to elaborate wall and ceiling decoration should Staircases for fire resistance, fire resistant paper applied to be preserved. Suspended ceilings should never the panelling or intumescent paint and edge strips be formed in principal rooms or entrance halls should be used. Door closers should be hidden. which have decorative plasterwork. They may be acceptable in minor rooms provided they are above In general, consent will not be granted for new doors window height. connecting front and rear principal rooms at ground and first floor level. Jib (secret) doors may only be Chimneypieces allowed in certain cases. Chimneypieces, along with fireplaces containing Where new door openings are considered original features are part of the decorative history of acceptable, they should be correctly detailed with a building and are often central to the design of a matching doors and architraves. They should not room. Even later chimneypieces of interest can make incorporate features such as glazed panels. Where a significant contribution to the character of a room. doors are to be added, but are not in traditional Original or later chimneypieces or fireplaces of positions it is often acceptable to design a jib interest should not be removed, even if the chimney door or modern opening, so as not to confuse the is redundant. In cases where there is no alternative building’s history. to the removal of a chimneypiece, it should be The removal or alteration of any historic staircase, re-used in an appropriate location within the Buffet recesses are an important feature in the including handrails and balusters, is not normally building. The removal of a chimneybreast is almost dining rooms of listed buildings, particularly in acceptable. The stair is often the most significant never acceptable, particularly as this may affect the the New Town, and should be retained. New door piece of design within a building and can be structural stability and ventilation of the building. openings will not be granted within a buffet recess. important dating evidence. Where subdividing The restoration of missing chimneypieces will be ground and basement floors, the basement stair Plasterwork supported. must be retained. In retail premises, the removal of the lowest flight of stairs, which provides access to and use of upper floors, will not be allowed. Lifts and Stair Lifts Wherever possible, lifts should be installed in an existing opening in order to minimise physical and visual disruption to the built fabric. Stair lifts and chair lifts may not be acceptable in sensitive interiors. It may be better to use a secondary stair if possible, or to rationalise the service provision within the building so that access to all floors is not required. An independent device such as a stair climber could also be considered. Care should always be taken with works to old plaster to avoid destroying early decoration. All decorative features from a simple cornice or cove

March 2018 20 Floors and Ceilings En-suite bathrooms, where acceptable within rooms, will normally be height, appearing as a ‘piece of New development in the Floors which are original to the building and/or of furniture’ within the room. interest because of their materials, form or surface grounds of listed buildings treatment should be respected, and repaired and Sprinkler Systems retained in situ. Care must be taken when such Development within the curtilage of a listed The introduction of sprinkler systems into important floors require to be lifted in order to install or repair building which is not physically attached to and/or vulnerable interiors will normally be services. In some instances, features of interest are listed structures does not require listed building acceptable. Whilst exposed pipework systems concealed behind suspended or false ceilings. This consent, but may require planning permission. should always be the subject of investigation prior to minimise the degree of disturbance to the structure, Buildings and structures erected before 1 July any works being carried out. care must be exercised in the design of exposed pipework to ensure its appearance is appropriate to 1948 within the curtilage of a listed building are Kitchens and Bathrooms the historic interior to be protected. Pipework should treated as part of the listing building, even if they not be cut into decorative plasterwork. are not included within the description. Listed New kitchens and bathrooms should be located at building consent will, therefore, be required the rear of a building to prevent fittings being built The location of sprinkler heads, either ceiling or for works which affect their character. Planning across windows to the front of a property and to wall mounted, must be carefully integrated into permission may also be required. avoid cluttering a front elevation with downpipes interiors in order to reduce their visual impact. In and ventilators. particular, ornate interior locations, will not normally be considered acceptable. On highly decorative New kitchens will generally not be acceptable The curtilage of a listed building is the area of land ceilings, sprinkler heads are best concealed within in principal rooms and must not obscure any originally attached to, and containing the structure of the raised modelling of the ceiling. architectural detailing. the main house and its ancillary buildings, and which was used for the comfortable enjoyment of the house. The presence of sprinkler protection does not Podded kitchens and bathrooms will rarely be The extent of the curtilage in individual cases will eliminate the need for preventative measures to permitted in principal rooms but may be permitted be based on an assessment of the physical layout, reduce the risk of a fire occurring or spreading. elsewhere provided they are of a limited area, are pattern of ownership, and the past or present use freestanding and do not have a detrimental effect on Other Services and function of the building. Thus, buildings such as any fixtures of architectural interest. coach-houses, doocots, mews/stable courts, walled The installation of services, such as computer gardens, lodges, boundary walls, garden ornaments En-suite bathrooms will not be acceptable in trunking, fibre optics and central heating pipes, and gates would all be considered to be part of the principal rooms. They should ideally be located should be reversible and should not result in curtilage of the listed building and are treated as part within existing boxrooms or cupboards. Where this damage to architectural features. Surface mounting of the listed building, even if they are not individually is not possible, it may be acceptable to locate them such services may be preferable. in larger, secondary rooms although this will be listed. dependent on their form and how they affect room The setting of a listed building is the environment of proportions. which the building was designed to be a principal focus, and which it was designed to overlook. The ‘setting’ of a listed building takes into account a much broader assessment of the siting and situation March 2018 21 of the building. The curtilage of a house will normally New Development Landscape form part of the setting, but it is also important to Where new development within the grounds of a The landscape setting of the building should be consider land immediately adjacent to, or visible listed building is acceptable, the siting, design, analysed as the loss of garden ground can seriously from, the listed building. scale, form, density and materials should be affect the setting of a listed building. Development within the setting of a listed building sympathetic to the listed building, including Planting which forms part of the original landscape will only be acceptable if it can be demonstrated ancillary buildings. should be retained and, where appropriate, the that the proposal would not be detrimental to the The feeling of spaciousness of the grounds in original landscape restored. New landscaping architectural or historic character of the listed relation to the main building should be protected should be used imaginatively to screen and enhance building. for the amenity of the property. The scale of new new development and to retain the landscape The sympathetic conversion and re-use of existing development should be controlled so as not to setting of the building. Immediate surroundings buildings on the site, particularly stable blocks, crowd or obscure the house. No building of similar should be maintained communally, avoiding mews, service courts and steadings, should be or greater bulk should be erected close to the main individually defined gardens. considered prior to developing proposals for new listed building. Conservation areas are areas of special architectural build; care should be taken to incorporate surviving The relationship that exists between the main house or historic interest which have a character and original features in these buildings where possible. and its ancillary uses should not be disrupted by the appearance which is desirable to preserve or However, any proposals to alter unsympathetically, new build. enhance. relocate or remove items within the curtilage, such To check whether your property is located within a as stables, mews, garden walls, stone steps , stone Views conservation area, the Council’s online map can be paving and cobbled or setted areas are likely to New development should always be set back from used. detract from the quality of the building’s setting and the original building line of the main house to avoid are unlikely to be approved. interfering with oblique views of the listed building and disrupting formal approaches. Development The condition of the main item of listing is critical to the front of a listed building which breaks its and, where it has gone out of use, it is important relationship to the street is not acceptable. This that the restoration of the listed building is sought is particularly destructive of character, not only to as a priority. It should be a condition that work on the building, but to the area, especially where the the listed building should be completed, or that an building is part of a unified group. The principal appropriate contract has been let for its restoration, elevations should remain visible in their entirety prior to the commencement of new development. from all principal viewpoints. New development should not restrict or obstruct views of, or from, the listed building or rise above and behind the building so that its silhouette can no longer be seen against the sky from the more familiar viewpoints. Distant views of features and landmarks which may gave been exploited in the design of the building should not be obstructed by the development. March 2018 22 Part 2: Conservation Areas

Conservation Area Character Appraisals 5. Trees within conservation areas are covered by If you believe your building work is ‘permitted the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act development’ and doesn’t need planning Conservation Area Character Appraisals identify the 1997. The Act applies to the uprooting, felling permission, you can apply for a Certificate of essential character of conservation areas. They guide or lopping of trees having a diameter exceeding Lawfulness. This is a legal document from the the local planning authority in making planning 75mm at a point 1.5m above ground level, Council which confirms that the development is decisions and, where opportunities arise, preparing and concerns the lopping of trees as much as lawful. enhancement proposals. The Character Appraisals removal. The planning authority must be given are a material consideration when considering six week’s notice of the intention to uproot, applications for development within conservation fell or lop trees. Failure to give notice renders What Other Consents Might areas. the person liable to the same penalties as for Be Required? Implications of Conservation Area Status contravention of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Listed Building Consent 1. The permitted development right which allows any improvement or alteration to the external Do I Need Planning Listed building consent is required for works appearance of a flatted dwelling that is not an affecting the character of listed buildings, including enlargement is removed. Permission? the interior and any buildings within the curtilage. Planning permission may also be required in 2. Special attention must be paid to the character Planning Permission addition. If your building is listed, the Listed and appearance of the conservation area Planning permission is required for many alterations, Buildings Guidance should be used. when planning controls are being exercised. additions and changes of use. However, some work Most applications for planning permission for can be carried out without planning permission; this Advertisement Consent alterations will, therefore, be advertised for is referred to as ‘permitted development’. Advertisements are defined as any word, letter, public comment and any views expressed must model, sign, placard, board, notice, awning, blind, be taken into account when making a decision Within conservation areas, fewer alterations are device or representation, whether illuminated or not, on the application. permitted development and most changes to the outside of a building, including changing the colour, and employed wholly or partly for the purposes of 3. Within conservation areas the demolition of require planning permission. advertisement, announcement or direction. unlisted buildings requires conservation area consent. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted While many advertisements require permission, Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended) certain types do not need permission as they have 4. Alterations to windows are controlled in terms of sets out the requirements for planning permissions. “deemed consent”. You can check this by consulting the Council’s policy. The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984.

March 2018 23 Building Warrant Trees with a Tree Preservation Order or in a conservation area are also protected by law, making Repair Converted, new or altered buildings may require it a criminal offence to lop, top, cut down, uproot, Planning permission is not normally required for a Building Warrant, even if Planning Permission is wilfully damage or destroy a tree unless carried out repairs which match the original materials and not required. Please contact Building Standards with the consent of the Council. You can read more methods and do not affect the character of the for more information on 0131 529 7826 or email: about this on our website at www.edinburgh.gov/ building. [email protected]. privatetrees Road Permit Demolition A Road Permit will be required if forming a new General Principles access or driveway. Please contact the Area Roads Conservation area consent is required for the Designation of a conservation area does not mean Manager in your Neighbourhood Team for more complete demolition of unlisted buildings within development is prohibited. information. conservation areas. However, when considering development within a Biodiversity conservation area, special attention must be paid to Demolition will only be acceptable if the new Some species of animals and plants are protected its character and appearance. Proposals which fail to development preserves or enhances the area. by law. Certain activities, such as killing, injuring preserve or enhance the character or appearance of or taking the species or disturbing it in its place of the area will normally be refused. Guidance on what shelter, are unlawful. contributes to character is given in the conservation Extensions and Alterations area character appraisals. If the presence of a European Protected Species Information on extensions and alterations to (such as a bat, otter or great crested newt) is The aim should be to preserve the spatial and residential properties is included within ‘Guidance suspected, a survey of the site must be undertaken. structural patterns of the historic fabric and the for Householders’. If it is identified that an activity is going to be architectural features that make it significant. carried out that would be unlawful, a licence may be Proposals must preserve or enhance the character or Preservation and re-use should always be required. appearance of the conservation area. considered as the first option. More information on European Protected Species, The use of traditional materials will be encouraged. Interventions need to be compatible with the historic survey work and relevant licenses is available in the UPVC will not be acceptable. context, not overwhelming or imposing. Edinburgh Planning Guidance on Biodiversity and the Scottish Natural Heritage website. Without exception, the highest standards of materials and workmanship will be required for all Trees works in conservation areas. If there are any trees on the site or within 12 metres of the boundary, they should be identified in the application. Please refer to Edinburgh Design Guidance for advice.

March 2018 24 doors within the building and in its immediate Where cleaning of a street has commenced, the issue Shopfront Alterations and surroundings will be taken into consideration. of reinstating architectural unity will be a material Signage considerations in assessing the merits of individual Replacement windows and doors in less traditional applications. Specific information is included in Guidance for developments within conservation areas should Businesses. This should be considered alongside maintain the uniformity of original design and Specialist professional skills should be sought to this document, where relevant. materials and should open in a manner that does undertake analysis and, where acceptable, design a not disrupt the elevation. However, the exact suitable cleaning method and undertake work. replication of the original windows or doors may, in 1. Fabric Survey Windows and Doors some cases, be of lesser importance. A full drawing and photographic survey should be The replacement, repair and painting of Doors should be painted in an appropriate dark and submitted. This should identify the types of stone on windows and doors which match the design, muted colour. Windows should normally be painted the building and the extent and nature of any current materials and methods utilised in the existing white or off-white. defects, including previous mortar or plastic repairs build will not require planning permission. and the condition of pointing. The photographic Planning permission will not be required where Planning permission is required for the survey should illustrate the frontage in relation replacement or altered windows and doors meet stonecleaning of any building within a to neighbouring properties and streetscape. This the following requirements. conservation area. will allow an assessment of the impact of a ‘clean’ building within its wider environmental context. For Replacement windows and doors on all elevations comparative purposes, the fabric survey should also of unlisted properties Stone Cleaning include a record of ‘colour value’ measured either by of a traditional design chromatic or Kodak colour strip. within conservation areas Stone cleaning cannot be undertaken without 2. Laboratory Analysis must match the original damaging a building. It can also reveal the scars of proportions, appearance, age, such as staining, poor previous repairs and To assess the most appropriate method of stone materials, and opening surface damage. It may also remove the natural cleaning, applicants will be required to ascertain method. Appropriate patina, the protective layer on the stone, opening up geological characteristics through laboratory tests. timber sealed unit double the surface pore structure and making re-soiling These tests should be carried out on uncleaned and glazing will normally be much easier. trial area cleaned samples. The tests should include: considered acceptable. Rooflights on unlisted There will therefore be a (i) depth profiling properties of a traditional presumption against the (ii) petrological analysis design should be of a stone cleaning of buildings 'conservation style'. Alternative materials such as within conservation areas. (iii) stone permeability uPVC will not be acceptable. Stone cleaning will not be These may reveal the presence of potentially considered acceptable on A departure from these guidelines must be fully damaging salts, the types of density of mineral any street where cleaning justified. The form of the existing windows & grains and the stone’s resistance to surface water has not commenced. penetration. March 2018 25 Applicants will also be asked to provide photographs 1. Mechanical - Carborundum Disc weathering at lower levels in the building. High to allow assessment of surface texture and pressure water can also cause damage to the This method comprises a hand-held rotary disc roughness, both before and after trial cleaning. stone. with a carborundum pad. The surface layer The extent of laboratory analysis required may vary, of stone is removed along with the dirt, often A water wash, pressurised or not, remains an subject to the architectural and historic importance creating contours as the disc hits hard and soft alternative stone cleaning technique. It is likely of the building. areas. This produces an uneven surface and that a low pressure water wash remains the least causes the loss of fine detail. aggressive method of stone cleaning. However, 3. Trial Cleaning Samples it will not remove dirt which has combined with Paint removal methods should be tested on an 2. Air and Water Abrasive the surface to form an insoluble compound. inconspicuous trial area of two or three stones. These methods comprise grits carried by jets of air High pressure and/or excessive water can cause A photographic survey should be carried out of and/or water. The impact of the particles on the surface erosion, pointing wash-out, staining and the pre and post cleaning samples and the visual surface of the stone removes both dirt and stone force water into the core of the wall. Due to the and chemical effects recorded. This enables an and relies upon the skill of the operative to ensure dangers of thermal expansion, water washing assessment of the technique’s effectiveness. that not too much stone is lost. The results of this should be avoided in frosty conditions. Applicants may be asked for further samples. method vary, but the pitting of the surface of the stone and the loss of fine detail are common. Dry The number of samples should reflect the nature of grit blasting is usually more aggressive than wet Painting the specific building being tested; all varieties of grit washing. stone should be tested. Planning permission will be required to paint or 3. Chemical Cleaning render a previously untreated surface or change 4. Post-Cleaning This method comprises the application of the colour of a building. If acceptable, post-cleaning photographic records chemicals and a high pressure water wash. The Paint which matches the existing in colour and should be submitted and should be documented for balance of chemicals varies with the type of stone uses traditional materials and methods will not research purposes. and surface deposit to be removed. Poultices can require planning permission. also be used; these are more gentle but damage It is expected that most necessary repairs will be still occurs. identified at the initial application stage. Therefore, External stonework must not be painted or rendered, consent would be conditional upon a commitment After chemical cleaning, most stones retain the unless the surface was originally painted or by applicants to undertake a minimum standard of chemicals, even after pressure washing. This then rendered. repair subsequent to stonecleaning. increases decay. In basements, painting the underside of the Stone Cleaning Methods 4. Water entrance platt will be considered exceptions. Coping When water pressure is used as part of the stones and the edge of steps should not be painted. The following are the most common stone cleaning method, water is forced into the stone to cleaning methods. Their inclusion in this Walls covered with smooth cement render or a a depth where natural evaporation will not take guideline is for information only and does not harled finish should generally be painted in earth place. The water can then percolate down through imply their acceptability. colours or neutrals (grey, cream or beige). Rendered the fabric of the wall and cause accelerated bands to windows should generally be in stone colours. March 2018 26 Information on painting a shop or other commercial out the paint). Each requires extreme caution due to and chemical effects recorded. This enables an premises is included within the Guidance for their potentially damaging effects and trial samples assessment of the technique’s effectiveness. Businesses. should be carried out. Applicants may be asked for further samples. Doors should be painted in an appropriate dark and Previous painting could have disguised the poor The number of samples should reflect the nature of muted colour. Windows should normally be painted condition or appearance of the surface so repair the specific building being tested; all varieties of white or off-white. All areas of dormer windows, work may be required following paint removal. stone should be tested. other than the window frames, should be painted to Therefore, consents will be conditional upon a tone in with the roof. commitment by applicants to undertake a minimum Railings, balconies, other ornamental ironwork standard of repair subsequent to paint removal. Telecommunications and downpipes should be painted black gloss, Where paint removal is not appropriate, the property including Satellite Dishes although other very dark colours may be appropriate should be repainted in a matt finish stone coloured for railings, such as dark green for railings around paint to tone with the adjoining stonework. Planning permission will be required for a gardens. Specialist professional skills should be sought to satellite dish on a building within a conservation undertake analysis, design a suitable treatment area. Paint Removal method and undertake any work. The installation of cable television equipment in Paint removal will require planning permission. 1. Fabric Survey conservation areas requires planning permission. A full drawing and photographic survey should Equipment should be sensitively sited to minimise The restoration of the original surface through the be submitted. This should identify the types of the affect on the special character and appearance removal of paint can improve the character and stone on the building and the extent and nature of of the conservation area. appearance of a building. Where surfaces have been any current defects, including previous mortar or Satellite dishes in conservation areas should not be previously painted, the removal of paint will be plastic repairs and the condition of pointing. The easily visible from public view. supported in principle, provided that the proposed photographic survey should illustrate the frontage in removal method does not adversely affect the relation to neighbouring properties and streetscape. They should be located in inconspicuous locations, original surface. This will allow an assessment of the impact of paint such as behind a parapet wall, within a roof valley or concealed behind by a chimney. They may also The removal of paint requires chemical and/or removal within its wider environmental context. For comparative purposes, the fabric survey should also be acceptable on modern extensions to the rear, abrasive cleaning to re-expose the stone beneath. providing no part is higher than the main building. Abrasive methods can cause severe damage to the include a record of ‘colour value’ measured either by surface and will be unlikely to remove all traces of chromatic or Kodak colour strip. To prevent a multiplicity of satellite dishes, the paint from coarse, porous sandstone. In certain 2. Trial Paint Removal Samples Council may refuse consent for additional dishes, circumstances, a minimally abrasive method may even if this may prevent some properties from be appropriate to remove the outermost paint layers Paint removal methods should be tested on an receiving satellite television. The sharing of dishes not in contact with the stone surface. Chemical paint inconspicuous trial area of two or three stones. on buildings will be encouraged. removal varies from paint stripper to a proprietary A photographic survey should be carried out of poultice (a substance placed on the stone to draw the pre and post painting samples and the visual

March 2018 27 Where acceptable, satellite dishes should blend fix units to the wall of an inconspicuous elevation, as in with the background; this may require it to be Flues low down as possible; they should not be located on painted. All fixings should be non-ferrous. Balanced flues will only be permitted where it is the front elevation. not possible to line an existing chimney to form an Units should be limited in number, as small as internal flue. Gas Pipes and Meter Boxes practicably possible and painted to tone with the Balanced flues will not normally be acceptable surrounding stonework or background. on the front or conspicuous elevations of listed Ducting must not detract from the character and Planning permission is only required where the buildings. guidelines below cannot be complied with. appearance of the building and area. Air Conditioning and A maximum of a 450mm of supply pipe should Adaptation for Accessibility be visible on the front wall. External pipes which Refrigeration are both horizontal and vertical must have the Planning permission may be required to install horizontal section within the basement areas (where Planning permission will normally be required to ramps, handrails, indicators and lifts and for applicable) and not be visible from the street. install air conditioning and refrigeration units on alterations to doors. Holes in stonework must be kept to a minimum and the exterior of buildings. should be made through stone joints, except in the While the Equality Act 2010 requires service case of “V” jointing or rubble where holes should be The preferred location for units within conservation providers to take “reasonable” steps to make their in the stonework. Non-ferrous fixings must be used. areas is: buildings and services accessible, there is also a All redundant surface-run pipe work must be statutory duty to protect the character of the historic • Free standing within garden or courtyard areas, removed and the surfaces made good and painted to environment. The provision of access for the less subject to appropriate screening and discreet match existing materials and colour. able to historic buildings will therefore require ducting. careful consideration and design. Meter boxes should not be fitted to the front or any • Within rear basement areas. conspicuous elevation of buildings. Full access for everyone visa the principal entrance • Inconspicuous locations on the roof (within roof may not be appropriate. Alternative access Pipe work and meter boxes should be painted to valleys or adjacent to existing plant). However, arrangements which preserve the character of the match adjacent stone. aerial views will also be considered. listed building may be required. • Internally behind louvres on inconspicuous Solutions should be tailored to the particular elevations. This should not result in the loss of building through the use of innovative design and original windows. high quality materials. Where it is not practicably possible to locate units in Apply for planning permission or a certificate of any of the above locations, it may be acceptable to lawfulness at www.eplanning.scot. apply

March 2018 28 Ramps Appropriate contrast with the background material external lift should be as low as possible, and the can be achieved with high quality traditional or design of the platform and restraints should be as The placing of a ramp on a building should have contemporary materials. transparent as possible. Metal cages are unlikely minimal impact on the historic fabric. to be acceptable as they are disruptive to the The symmetry of existing elevations and the rhythm Tactile Indicators streetscape and can seem intimidating to the user. of the street as a whole should be respected, and Historic flooring materials should not be replaced where relevant, care should be taken to protect with standard tactile paving. A tactile grid can be the relationship between railings, property and achieved by using materials that match those of the basement. surrounding area, and which have been textured Where appropriate, consideration should be given with ridges or dimples. More information is available to regrading the ground at the entrance in order to in the Edinburgh Design Guidance. overcome the need for larger ramps and minimise the visual impact on the building. If this will cause Visual indicators a footway hazard, a ramp inside the building may Brightly coloured high-visibility strips should be be appropriate; the removal of steps and the avoided, unless their use helps to avoid other more lengthening of doors can sometimes accommodate visually intrusive works. this. Doors Ramps on the public footway will not generally be There may be cases (particularly in the case of supported. Where acceptable, ramps must leave historic buildings) where it is less damaging to seek sufficient clear footway for pedestrians. This will alternative access routes than to widen or alter a vary according to the volume of pedestrian traffic. doorway. Historic doors are often an integral part of In general, this is 2metres for residential areas, the design of the building, and should be retained 3metres for main roads and 5-6metres for busy wherever possible. shopping streets. Where historic doors are heavy or difficult to operate, Where a ramp is acceptable, high quality materials, it is normally possible to adapt them by re-hanging such as stone to match the existing building, and/or introducing opening mechanisms or visual will be encouraged. In some circumstances, high indicators to make the handles more prominent. quality design in modern materials may be more appropriate. Lifts Handrails External chair and platform lifts can have a significant impact on the architectural character of Where required, handrails should be carefully a building, and should only be proposed where no designed and sensitively located to avoid being other option is suitable. The resting position of any visually intrusive.

March 2018 29 You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats if you ask us. Please contact ITS on 0131 242 8181 and quote reference number 12-0932. ITS can also give information on community language translations.

The City of Edinburgh Council. Planning & Transport, PLACE. Published March 2018

March 2018 30 MARCHMONT MEADOWS & BRUNTSFIELD CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTER APPRAISAL Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal was approved by the Planning Committee on 18th May 2006

ISBN 1 85191 082 4 Some of the maps in the document have been reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office

© Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. OS License No. LA09027L. Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

Contents

INTRODUCTION 2 Conservation Area 2 Character Appraisals 2 Conservation Area Details 3 Townscape Analysis 4

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT 6 Origins and Development 6

ANALYSIS AND ESSENTIAL CHARACTER 12 Spatial Structure and Townscape 12 Architectural Character 18 Activities and Uses 28 Natural Heritage 30

OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENHANCEMENT 35

GENERAL INFORMATION 36 Statutory Policies 36 Supplementary Guidelines 36 Implications of Conservation Area Status 37

REFERENCES 39

Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

INTRODUCTION

Conservation Areas

Section 61 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, describes conservation areas as “...areas of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance”. The Act makes provision for the designation of conservation areas as distinct from individual buildings, and planning authorities are required to determine which parts of their areas merit conservation area status.

There are currently 39 conservation areas in Edinburgh, including city centre areas, Victorian suburbs and former villages. Each conservation area has its own unique character and appearance.

Character Appraisals

The protection of an area does not end with conservation area designation; rather designation demonstrates a commitment to positive action for the safeguarding and enhancement of character and appearance. The planning authority and the Scottish Government are obliged to protect conservation areas from development that would adversely affect their special character. It is, therefore, important that both the authorities and other groups who have an interest in conservation areas and residents are aware of those elements that must be preserved or enhanced.

A Character Appraisal is considered the best method of defining the key elements that contribute to the special historic and architectural character of an area.

It is intended that Character Appraisals will guide the local planning authority in making planning decisions and, where opportunities arise, preparing enhancement proposals. The character appraisal will be a material consideration when considering applications for development within the conservation area and applications for significant new developments should be accompanied by a contextual analysis that demonstrates how the proposals take account of the essential character of the area as identified in this document.

NPPG 18: Planning and the Historic Environment states that Conservation Area Character Appraisals should be prepared when reconsidering existing conservation area designations, promoting further designations or formulating enhancement schemes. The NPPG also specifies that Article 4 Direction Orders will not be confirmed unless a Character Appraisal is in place.

Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

Conservation Area Details

Designation

The Marchmont Conservation Area was originally designated on 9 January 1987. The boundary was amended on 29 March 1996 to include the Meadows, Bruntsfield Links and immediately surrounding streets. The name ofthe conservation area was also amended to Marchmont & Meadows. Article 4 Directions were approved in 1996.

The conservation area was amended on the 28th September 2007 to include an area west of Bruntsfield Place, extending to Gilmore Place. The name of the conservation area was amended to the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area.

Location

The Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area is situated some 1.5 kms to the south of the City centre.

Boundaries

The Conservation Area is focused on the Meadows and Bruntsfield Links and the boundaries include many of the buildings that surround and define these open spaces. These include the former Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Victorian tenemental housing fronting the Meadows at Lonsdale, Leven and Glengyle Terraces. To the south, the regular tenemental streets of Marchmont are bounded by the villa conservation areas of Grange and Merchiston & Greenhill.

MARCHMONT MEADOWS & BRUNTSFIELD CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTER APPRAISAL

TOWNSCAPE ANALYSIS g

gT g

F g F

ff g

F ff g g F F ff

T g T

F g ff g

T ff

g ff ff g ff F ff

Landmark Feature Focal Points Activity ff Panorama Terminated View g T

Framed View F g Urban Parkland Major Routes Former Hospital Victorian Perimeter Blocks

4 MARCHMONT MEADOWS & BRUNTSFIELD CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTER APPRAISAL

TOWNSCAPE ANALYSIS

g g

g g F

g g

F ff

g g

g g F F ff

T g

g T g

F g

g ff g

T ff

g ff ff

g g ff F ff

Landmark Feature Focal Points Activity ff Panorama Terminated View g T

Framed View F g Urban Parkland Major Routes Former Hospital Victorian Perimeter Blocks

5 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

Origins and Development Marchmont

Marchmont was developed by Sir George Warrender, the mid 19th century owner of Bruntsfield House and the surrounding estate, as a middle class tenement suburb from the 1870s. The first feuing plan was drawn up by the architect David Bryce in 1869. The proposed layout involved the construction mainly of terraced villas, with large detached villas on Marchmont Crescent. The terraced houses on Alvanley Terrace were the only properties built in accordance with the Bryce plan, which was superseded in 1876 by a feuing plan prepared by A Watherston & Son. This plan was more comprehensive and all the proposed buildings were four or five storey tenements.

Bryce Plan Development commenced on the basis of the Watherston plan in 1876 and was completed by around 1914. The work prior to 1900 conformed strictly to the feu charters which required the use of the Scottish Baronial style. Warrender Park

Bryce Elevations Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

Road and the streets to the north, Marchmont Crescent and Marchmont Road were built during this period. After 1900, Spottiswoode Road and Street, Arden Street and Lauderdale Street were built in a more standardised style.

Watherston Feuing Plan Westerhall and New Campbeltown were former communities, immediately to the east of the Warrender estate. Westerhall was bounded by Roseneath Terrace, Street and Place and Argyle Place, separated from the Warrender estate by a stone boundary wall, the line of which divides the north section of Marchmont Crescent and Roseneath Place. It was redeveloped at the end of the 19th century.

In the early 19th century, the area to the east of Sylvan Place consisted of four large houses. The area was redeveloped from the mid 19th century with the Royal Edinburgh Hospital for Sick Children (1895), Sciennes School (1890) and Livingstone Place and Gladstone Terrace (1865-69).

Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

The Meadows

The Meadows occupy the site of the former South or Burgh Loch. In the 16th century, the loch provided Edinburgh’s main water supply until it was acquired by the “Fellowship and Society of Brewers.” Several breweries were established beside the small group of houses at the east end of the Meadows in the district still known as Boroughloch. The brewers drew heavily on the Loch and, by the time the Society was dissolved in 1619, the loch had been significantly reduced.

Burgh Loch

In 1657, the Town Council decided to drain the Loch, and in 1658 John Straiton, a merchant burgess, was given lease of the loch. Straiton’s ultimately unsuccessful efforts to improve the half-drained loch’s surrounding amenities led to it being renamed Straiton’s Park.

In 1722, Thomas Hope of Rankeillor, leased the loch and, at his own expense, attempted to convert the marshland into an ornamental park. One improvement effected by Hope was the formation of Middle Meadow Walk. Edinburgh Town Council began the reconstruction of the Meadows in 1804. However, after many delays, it was not until the mid 19th century that the public had access to the Meadows. In 1858-59 the southern drive was constructed and named after Sir John Melville, who was then Lord Provost.

Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

As the city grew, early concerns about potential development in the meadows resulted in the Edinburgh Improvement Act of 1827. This stipulated that “it should not be competent for the Lord Provost, Magistrates and Council, or any other person, without the sanction of Parliament obtained for the express purpose, at any time thereafter to erect buildings of any kind upon any part of the grounds called the Meadows or Bruntsfield Links so far as the same belong in property to the Lord Provost, Magistrates and Council”. Further later acts reinforced this firm statement. The West Meadows were the site of the International Exhibition of Industry, Science and Art in 1886.

Bruntsfield

The name Bruntsfield traces back to the ‘lands of Boroumore’ recorded in the late 14th century as having been held by the ‘late Richard Broune’, King’s sergeant or agent. Still earlier, a William Brune del Borumore is recorded in about 1332; but even then the estate must have been in existence for two centuries or more, as it was surrounded by the Burgh Muir but was never part of it, and the inference is that it must have been created at or before the time when the Muir was granted to the burgh in 1120.

Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

The estate name Brounisfeld is first recorded in 1452, but must date from before the time that the estate passed from the Broune family to the Lauders of Hatton in the late 14th century. The second part of the name, feld, is early Scots meaning open country.

Although the name originally belonged to the land east of Whitehouse Loan, it spread to the neighbouring part of the Burgh Muir, when the name was applied to the Links and by 1810 this had led to the naming of a section of the main road as Bruntsfield Place. The new neighbourhood of Bruntsfield was soon consolidated by the construction of Bruntsfield Terrace (1858), Crescent (1871) and Gardens (1887).

Late Georgian and early Victorian maps show villas spreading along Bruntsfield Place and spreading outwards into Leamington Terrace and Viewforth. The classical Georgian detached villas at Bruntsfield Place are the only remnants of this phase of development. Other villa properties were demolished to make way for the construction of later Victorian tenements

Viewforth began as a villa, mentioned in 1780 and shown on Kirkwood’s plan of 1817. It was located immediately west of the entry to Westhall Gardens and was demolished in 1911, when the ground was cleared for the building of Boroughmuir School. Westhall Gardens was formed in 1881 in part of the gardens of Viewforth House.

Former Boroughmuir High School

10 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

Bruntsfield Links

Bruntsfield Links lies immediately to the south west of the Meadows, occupying an area of 36.2 acres (14.6 hectares) bounded by the south side of Melville Drive and extending beyond Whitehouse Loan to Bruntsfield Place, Terrace and Crescent.

Bruntsfield Links forms the last remaining fragment of the Burgh (Borough) Muir, which once stretched from the Borough Loch (South Loch) to Blackford Hill. There are records from 1599 of stone quarries on the site of the Links. However, golf has long been the main activity associated with Bruntsfield. There are claims that it was Scotland’s first golf course. In the 18th century, two clubs, the Royal Burgess Golfing Society and the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers, were established at Bruntsfield.

Edinburgh Royal Infirmary

The foundation stone of the Infirmary was laid by the Prince of Wales in 1870, and it was opened in November 1879. Designed by David Bryce, it shows the influence of the continental pavilion-plan hospitals advocated by Florence Nightingale. It was acknowledged as ‘the largest hospital in the United Kingdom, and probably the best planned.’ The hospital use has been discontinued, and the site is being redeveloped for a mix of uses.

Infirmary

11 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

ANALYSIS AND ESSENTIAL CHARACTER

Spatial Structure and Townscape

Marchmont and Meadows

The spatial structure of the area is overwhelmingly characterised by the equal division of the area into the open parkland of the Meadows and Bruntsfield Links. This urban parkland is flanked almost exclusively by Victorian tenemental properties to the south, east and west, the northern flank being closed by the former Royal Infirmary. The Links and Meadows jointly form the largest area of recreational open space in the City, amounting to 36 hectares in total, traversed with a web of tree lined walks. The Links are divided from the Meadows by Melville Drive, an important east-west transport route.

The principal features of the urban fabric are the Victorian tenemental perimeter blocks interspersed with occasional Georgian terraces along the south side of the Meadows, and Georgian villas part lining Bruntsfield Place as it approaches Tollcross. School buildings are dotted through the area, a number having being converted for residential use. The northern boundary is dominated by the former Victorian pavilioned Royal Infirmary, which is currently being converted to residential and mixed uses.

Bruntsfield Links and Tollcross are dominated by Pilkington’s Barclay Bruntsfield church, Transylvanian gothic, with a spire which forms a distinctive feature in the City’s skyline. The wide expanse of recreational open ground offers panoramic views across the city to the north and east, from the Castle across the Old Town’s roofscape to Salisbury Crags and Arthur’s Seat.

12 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

The Conservation Area is flanked to the North by the Old Town Conservation Area, with the Royal Infirmary giving way to the 17th Century Heriot’s School which is flanked by a Georgian perimeter block, both lying on Lauriston Place. The eastern boundary is shared with the South Side Conservation Area, where the standard scale of the perimeter blocks of Marchmont and Meadows gives way to a more irregular urban pattern. Finally, to the south the boundary is shared with the Grange Conservation Area, with its villa pattern of development.

The general height of the Victorian tenemental buildings is four storeys, rising to five storeys on Bruntsfield Links. Georgian buildings vary from three storeys to three and half, with basements. All buildings are constructed from stone and have slated roofs. Most tenements have small front gardens to the street. The exceptions to the latter are where parades of shops occur, with their shop fronts coming down hard on the heel of the pavement.

Many streets are setted and are tree lined, giving the effect of the Meadows penetrating into the streets to the south. The perimeter blocks in the area bounded by Warrender Park Road, Whitehouse Loan, Warrender Park Terrace and Marchmont Crescent exhibit the exuberance of Scottish Baronial architecture. The perimeter blocks to the east and south are generally stripped of Baronial detail and have plain facades to the street. Despite this change in detailing, the conservation area reads as a unified whole.

13 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

MARCHMONT & MEADOWS Essential Character Spatial Structure and Townscape

• The conservation area contains the largest urban recreational parkland in the city, which affords panoramic views to the north and east.

• The urban form largely comprises Victorian tenemental perimeter blocks.

• Barclay Bruntsfield Church dominates the western end of the conservation area.

• The area is characterised by Victorian and Georgian tenemental perimeter blocks that are of uniform height, massing and use of stone and slated roofs.

• Many streets have retained their setts and are tree lined, particularly those streets leading off the Meadows to the south.

14 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

Bruntsfield

The land form slopes to the north in an even gradient. There is a rectilinear grid structure to most of the streets with interesting variations, formed by cul-de-sacs and a square, within the structure. It is a high density area of tenements and terraces, with a tight urban structure. Bruntsfield Place, the main arterial route, with its associated tenements and villas frames the southern side of the area.

There are significant views to the north, encapsulated in the naming of the street - Viewforth. Other views north are restricted either by the street layout or by buildings. To the south-east, Bruntsfield Links provides a sweeping vista across to Marchmont and down towards Melville Drive, with the Bruntsfield Hotel and the Barclay Bruntsfield Church forming landmark features.

The sweep of 5 storey tenements along upper Bruntsfield Place dominates the area, forming an edge and framing the route to the south. They continue down into the adjacent streets of Bruntsfield Gardens, Forbes Road, Bruntsfield Terrace and Merchiston Place. Their individual variety provides character and a classic view with the Barclay Church to the right and the Castle in the centre background.

15 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

Bruntsfield Gardens derives significant character and interest from its enclosed end and an art deco block of flats. The cul-de-sacs of Hartington Place and Hartington Gardens exhibit a calm settled air with their rhythmic pattern of bay windows, front gardens, and steps as the gradient rises slightly along the terraces. Front garden parking has resulted in some disruption to the pattern of front boundary enclosures. Other terraced housing in the area builds on this solid, urban character, and forms links between the tenements

The tenements in the north part of the area have more of a rectilinear framework. Montpelier Park displays coherence, in terms of virtually full tenemental design on both sides of the street, however even with this, there are differences in colour. Bruntsfield Avenue has a similar coherence, with tenements on both sides framing the compact, yet large Victorian Primary school. The other tenements radiate out from the main arterial roads of Bruntsfield Place and Gilmore Place.

The tenements at Viewforth Square are surrounded by housing of a lower scale, and the adjacent Boroughmuir School. The curve of Gillespie Crescent draws the eye round into the landscaping of the adjacent Viewpoint Housing Association site. Westhall Gardens, Admiral Terrace and Leamington Terrace contain three storey flats which blend in well with the mix of taller tenements and terraced housing.

16 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

The main vistas are across the Links and up and down Bruntsfield Place, with the view down to Tollcross framing the Castle. The view down Viewforth also provides a fine aspect, albeit restricted. There are several smaller scale views of importance - down Gillespie Crescent, down Bruntsfield Avenue, and onto the crossroads and churches at Holy Corner.

BRUNTSFIELD Essential Character Spatial Structure and Townscape

• Bruntsfield Place and its tenements provide the main structure to one side of area.

• A rectangular grid with interesting loops and culs-de-sac.

17 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

• Solid continuity of stone walls, pitched slate roofs, stone front walls and railings.

• A palette of housing forms that blend together well and provide surprising variety.

• Key buildings providing focus and purpose.

• Consistent quality of building form and materials provide integrity and character.

• A number of interesting views.

Architectural Characater

Marchmont and Meadows

The architectural character of Marchmont is typified by well proportioned tenements planned in long blocks that take advantage of the gently sloping site. They are principally in the distinctive Scottish Baronial style, and the pre- 1900 tenements in Marchmont represent perhaps the most dramatic use of this architectural style. The success of the Marchmont development is in the diversity of detailing contained within a carefully controlled development. Many of the tenements are Statutorily Listed for their historic and architectural quality.

18 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

Many eminent architects were involved in the development of Marchmont, and the Baronial style was well suited to accommodate different designs in the incremental development of street blocks. Street compositions give the impression of unity due to the discipline of height and materials.

Baronial details – pediments, string courses, crowstepped gables, corbelling, carved panels - are used extensively to produce diversity and individuality. Particular emphasis is placed on the design of corner blocks. This is exemplified by the tenement building at the corner of Marchmont Crescent and Marchmont Road which, with its ornate gable and twin corbelled turrets topped by a lion and shield, is a landmark on a naturally commanding location overlooking the Meadows.

The area to the east of Marchmont Crescent is more diverse, with Argyle Place and Sylvan Place forming an attractive town house development of 1825. Thirlestane Lane also has a quite different character from the tenement development. It is an elegant mews lane with a narrow pavement and cobbled street. It was built to house the coaches and coachmen for the large houses of the Grange.

19 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

The Meadows was the site of an International Exhibition in 1886, and a number of artefacts remain from this time:

• The pillars at the west end of Melville Drive consist of eighteen courses of stone from different quarries as a durability test. • The octagonal sundial at the west end of the Meadows was erected to commemorate the opening of the exhibition by Prince Albert Victor and was named after him. • The whale jawbone arch at the Melville Drive entrance to Jawbone Walk. Close to the Jawbone is a small fountain dedicated to Helen Acquroff, the blind Edinburgh musician and singer.

• The two tall ornamental pillars at the eastern entrance to Melville Drive were gifted by Nelsons the Publishers in appreciation of being given temporary accommodation on the Meadows after their premises were destroyed by fire in 1876.

The Barclay-Bruntsfield Church is an important landmark, and one of the most visually exciting churches of the city. It is built on a slight incline with its rear elevation open to Bruntsfield Links. Its three stage 250-foot-high tower dominates the landscape from the Meadows and towers above the road to Bruntsfield, each side showing off new aspects of its intricate design. The detailing with its use of foliage and varied natural forms was inspired by the ideas of John Ruskin.

20 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

Bruntsfield House, which is incorporated in James Gillespie’s School, is one of the oldest mansions in the city. It dates from the late 16th century with later additions and alterations. A number of features associated with Scottish Baronial architecture - steeply pitched crowstepped gables, carved ornaments, stair towers, and pedimented and finialled dormerheads - are incorporated in its design. The house and James Gillespie’s School are surrounded by a high coped rubble boundary wall which is a significant feature at the west end of Warrender Park Road.

The redevelopment of the former Edinburgh Royal Infirmary Site involves the demolition of all unlisted buildings and accretions to listed buildings. In addition, the Florence Nightingale Nurses Home, the Simpson’s Memorial Pavilion, the Queen Mary Nursing Home and the George Watson’s wing of the Surgical Hospital are to be demolished. The demolition of unlisted accretions to the original buildings has significantly improved the spatial integrity of the site.

The masterplan for the former Infirmary site has been developed to maximise pedestrian permeability to re-integrate the site with the city. The site is laid out in a series of grids, which divides the zones and uses, creating a residential zone in the south, with the majority of the commercial uses in the north. A north- south orientation of buildings is repeated throughout, linking in with the listed buildings to be retained.

As well as the north-south opening up of the site, with pedestrian routes opened directly on to the Meadows, east-west access is also created, with a major pedestrian space to the rear of the new hotel. This leads to a focus within the site on the main pedestrian spaces in the centre of the site. In terms of

21 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

design, the new build elements are uncompromisingly modern in their treatment. Infill towers introduce spires across the site, reflecting the fact that the existing buildings are heavily spired with a strong verticality to the site.

The former Usher Institute of Public Health occupies a prominent location on the south west quadrant of the junction of Spottiswoode Street and Warrender Park Road. It dates from 1899-1902, is in a distinctive Renaissance palazzo style with Beaux Arts detailing, and is now converted to residential use.

The Royal Hospital for Sick Children was designed by George Washington Browne and dates from 1892, with the addition, in1903, of the Outpatients Department fronting Sylvan Place. The main building is in a Jacobean style in red sandstone. A front courtyard to Sciennes Road is formed by gabled wings with octagonal corner towers. The 2-storey, rectangular-plan Outpatients’ Department is in an Edwardian Renaissance style.

Warrender Baths on Thirlestane Road are in a Jacobean style and date from 1886. The former James Gillespie’s Boys’ School at the junction of Marchmont Crescent and Marchmont Road dates from 1882, and is in a Gothic style with decorated windows.

MARCHMONT & MEADOWS Essential Character Architectural Character

• Well proportioned tenements planned in long blocks that take advantage of the gently sloping site.

• The distinctive Scottish Baronial style is the principal architectural form.

22 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

Bruntsfield

The architectural character of the area is dominated by Victorian tenements. The tenements vary in scale, being 3, 4 or 5 storey, each having an integrity of purpose and definition. The 5 storey tenements are concentrated along or near the main roads. The stylishness and exuberance of the tenements varies from the corbelled wall-head chimneys of Viewforth/Viewforth Square and George Washington Browne’s blocks on Bruntsfield Place, to the plainer but still coherent 3 storey blocks.

There is a more eclectic mix of houses in the northern part of the area - in Gilmore Place and Viewforth Terrace. However, these are mainly all high quality stone buildings of significant character.

Virtually all of the area is Victorian. The main exceptions being the Georgian Villas on Bruntsfield Place; the 1930’s Art Deco flats in Bruntsfield Gardens; the Children’s Centre on Viewforth Terrace and the Viewpoint Housing Association flats in Gillespie Crescent - both post-war new build.

The substantial tenement blocks at the top of Bruntsfield Place have been described as echoing the grand mansion flats of London. Hippolyte Jean Blanc designed the blocks at 155-192 (built 1882) and George Washington Browne developed the style further for those at 131-151 (built 1887). The blocks at 198-206 Bruntsfield Place/1 & 3 Montpelier Park are in the style of George Washington Browne. There are also tenement blocks in the area by Edward Calvert, Dunn & Findlay and James Miller.

23 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

The terraced housing, whilst often not having special individuality, compensate for this with rhythm and solidity - their patina creating a permanence and sobriety which belies the small variety within the built form. The classic Victorian bay windows repeating up a street add a human scale.

The Georgian villas between 46 and 65 Bruntsfield Place are a link with the older roots of this area. The Bruntsfield Hotel provides an interesting anchor/change point where the Georgian Villas meet the tenements on Bruntsfield Place.

Glengyle Lodge, at 65 Bruntsfield Place, is an early Victorian detached house built around 1860 by W M MacGregor. Viewforth Square was designed by Edward Calvert in 1891-5, and with its corbel-topped bays and ladder-like chimneys, is very similar to the Bruntsfield Avenue tenements.

24 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

The tenements at 2-24 Viewforth were designed by R M Cameron in 1885. R M Cameron also designed the tenements in Bruntsfield Avenue which face down to Bruntsfield Primary School and continue round to Bruntsfield Place. 6-28 Montpelier Park has spired bays and was designed by Dunn & Findlay in 1893.

The Art Deco apartment block in Bruntsfield Gardens/Forbes Road built between 1936 - 39 fits well within the tenement housing. It is designed purposefully round the ‘L’ shaped site and makes a fitting statement to match the adjacent tenements.

The low rise flatted development by Viewpoint Housing Association on the Gillespie Hospital/Royal Blind Asylum workshop site provides a modern theme to this locality, and includes high quality landscaping.

The post-war Social Work Children’s Centre in Viewforth Terrace is one of the few post-war intrusions. It is archetypal with its flat roof, acres of external slabbing, large horizontal defining elements.

25 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

The consistent use of grey sandstone, slate roofs, timber sash windows, substantial front doors, and stone boundary walls unifies the varied built forms. The low stone walling to the front of buildings is an important feature of the area, particularly where enhanced by traditional railings and gates which add rhythm and character.

Churches • The Bruntsfield Evangelical Church (formerly the United Presbyterian Church) on the corner of Leamington Terrace and Westhall Gardens is described as a 'tough, early French Gothic' style by J Russell Walker in 1882-3.

• The former Episcopal Church on the corner of Montpelier and Montpelier Park provides another firm anchor to the neighbourhood, with its towering spire.

26 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

Schools

The two key educational buildings each have a setting that reinforces their presence.

• Bruntsfield Primary School was opened in 1893 and designed by the School Board Architects - Robert Wilson and his successor John A Carfrae. It stands almost hidden within the townscape, but is a hive of activity on schooldays. Its location, now confirmed with road restrictions, is a safe space, tucked away from the bustle of Bruntsfield Place and the other busy through-routes.

• Boroughmuir High School nestles to the gradient of the site, with the classic structure well framed by the playground. It is a compact tight structure, with elegant decorative flourishes.

27 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

BRUNTSFIELD Essential Character Architectural Character

• High quality local sandstone, slate roofs, timber sashes unify the different types and scales of housing. Chimney-stacks, bays, dormers and other flourishes continue this theme.

• Stone boundary walls enhace the theme of solid character and definition.

• The two schools, the church and the hotel have strong mass and character with exuberant roofline features and identity.

• A human, urban scale with integrity of purpose.

Activities and uses

Marchmont & Meadows

Marchmont is principally residential with shops and other commercial activities occupying ground floor units of tenement properties. It contains a full range of social, commercial, education and community facilities. The area performs an important shopping and service role for people working and living in the area. Bruntsfield Links is an important district shopping centre.

The Meadows and Bruntsfield Links form one of the most important areas of open space in Edinburgh. Over the centuries, the Meadows and Bruntsfield Links have provided a range of activities. From golf, football, bowling, tennis, cricket, croquet, to target practice for the Royal Company of Archers.

28 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

By its completion, the Quartermile development at the former Royal Infirmary will comprise more than 650 new houses, some 30,000 square metres of office space, retail outlets, restaurants, cafes and a hotel.

MARCHMONT & MEADOWS Essential Character Activities & Uses • The predominance of residential uses within the area.

• The importance of the recreational open space at Bruntsfield Links and the Meadows.

Bruntsfield

The area is principally residential with shops and other commercial activities occupying ground floor units of tenement properties on the principal roads. Bruntsfield Place is an important district shopping centre with an extensive range of retail facilities. The shops along Gilmore Place are more marginal. In the stretch along Gilmore Place between Viewforth and Viewforth Terrace, several shops have been converted to flats.

The two education establishments make an important contribution to the overall character of the area. They generate activity during school hours and act as a centre for community activities in the evening.

There are a few examples of other uses - Bed & Breakfast, Hostel, Nursing Home, Private Nursery - within the main residential framework. These generally retain the original domestic setting of the buildings and are not intrusive at their current scale.

There is also a small garage on Viewforth Terrace, which has been a long- standing occupant of the site.

29 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

BRUNTSFIELD Essential Character Activities and Uses

• Predominance of residential use.

• Two key local authority schools catering for the local population.

• Busy shopping environment on Bruntsfield Place.

Natural Heritage

Marchmont & Meadows

Bruntsfield Links and the Meadows dominate the character of the area. They form one of Edinburgh’s most historic, recreational and scenically important parks, extending to an area of 36.6 acres. They provide recreational opportunities for the immediate contiguous population of no less than 20,000 as well as serving a central park function for the whole city. Usage includes cricket, football, tennis, jogging, festival temporary venues and fairgrounds.

The Meadows is designated as a Millennium Park, which means that the Council will ensure that the park is protected in perpetuity as community open space. The Council will maintain them in good condition and report to the National Playing Fields Association the level of use by the general public.

30 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

Landscape Character

The Meadows and Bruntsfield Links form two interrelated but separate visual units differentiated in terms of topography; the Links have a gently rolling open terrain gradually rising westwards and split into two by Whitehouse Loan. Within the Links there are a series of depressions or natural bowls formed originally by quarrying operations and subsequently re-contoured as an integral part of the Parkland. It has mature tree belts on all perimeters. Within the flatter

Meadows, the main distinctive feature is the landscape structure, with mature tree belts defining a series of diagonal roads and footpaths. The combination of topography and planting provides the over-riding visual structure of the Meadows, and segments it into a number of distinct spaces.

Views

While the Meadows and Links landscape is the focus of views from the north- south oriented streets of the conservation area, the open space itself provides framed views of Arthur’s Seat and the Castle, particularly from Whitehouse Loan and Warrender Park Terrace.

Trees and vegetation

In the Meadows and Links as a whole, there are about 1700 trees; consisting of 28% elm, 25% sycamore, 12% cherry, 10% maple, 6% ash, 6% lime, 4% whitebeam, 3% hawthorn, and smaller numbers of other species. A phased tree

31 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

planting programme designed to ensure existing gaps are filled and produce a balance of age and species over a 5 to 10 year period is promoted.

Within Marchmont, tenemental front gardens are a key feature; most are well tended and hedged with a variety of species and styles. A few larger front garden trees contribute to this softening effect of greenery.

Access

The pedestrian system within the Meadows and Links is connected to the external footpaths system by 29 access points spread evenly around the boundaries, forming a pattern of exceptional accessibility. Many of the footpaths in the Meadows are named eg Jawbone Walk, reflecting their historic or functional context. The open space enhances the permeability of the area as a whole; linking Newington, Marchmont, Tollcross and Old Town. The only path with Right of Way status is Middle Meadow Walk, itself linking via Argyle Place to Lovers Lane, in Sciennes and Grange.

More access points will be established through the redevelopment of the former Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh site. The landscape plan for the site include proposals for the greening of the spaces between the residential blocks on the south end of the site, the creation of a visual link with the Meadows beyond and hard landscaped public spaces. It is intended to use a simple, high quality palette of materials to define the pedestrian spaces and unify the site. Indigenous species are proposed and the trees are intended to be mature nursery stock to establish an early level of maturity.

Biodiversity

The Urban Habitat Action Plan in Edinburgh’s Biodiversity Action Plan states the aim of maximising opportunities for conserving enhancing and managing for biodiversity.

32 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

MARCHMONT & Meadows

Essential Character Natural Heritage

• The mature landscape of the Meadows and Bruntsfield Links with its rich historical background forms the core of the Conservation Area.

• Framed views of Arthur’s Seat and the Castle, especially from the Links and Whitehouse Loan.

• Open space as a setting for a wide range of outdoor activity.

• Importance of private open space in providing biodiversity within the area.

• Tenemental front gardens provide setting to buildings.

• Street trees are few but valuable in providing scaled green setting to the built environment.

• Visual permeability of Meadows and Links.

Bruntsfield

There are no public open spaces within the area, though Bruntsfield Links opens out from the south-east corner. There are a number of back greens associated with the tenements, however the majority are relatively small compared to other areas of tenement housing. The biggest green is that formed by the Viewforth, Montpelier, Bruntsfield Avenue and Bruntsfield Place tenements.

33 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

The landscaping around the Viewpoint Housing Association flats on Gillespie Crescent is mature and of a high quality, and softens the fairly standard 1970’s low rise flats on the site.

The open spaces around the two schools are in tarmac, with occasional planters and trees.

In this environment, greenery associated with front gardens, corner plots and old established trees is very important, to give colour and nature to this urban landscape. Generally such greenery is long established and mature, and it is important that it is preserved, rather than lost to off-street parking or other uses.

The few front garden trees tend to be species of lesser height - rowan, hawthorn, occasional birches. In the back gardens taller species occur - ash, elm, sycamore. Hedging is locally significant, and tends to be the traditional species of privet and beech.

34 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

BRUNTSFIELD

Essential Character Natural Heritage

• Small back green areas which still provide important features.

• Back gardens provide greenery, gardening space and relaxation for the pockets of housing.

• Front garden planting is very important given the lack of other landscape features.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENHANCEMENT

• Opportunities for introducing further trees and replacing trees that are lost to age should be considered throughout the area. • The reinstatement of historically accurate railings would enhance the general streetscape. • The existing setted streets make a major contribution to the character of the conservation area and should be retained. • There are areas where the streets are cluttered with bin stores and other street furniture. The opportunity should be taken to reduce this clutter, wherever possible.

35 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

GENERAL INFORMATION

Statutory Policies

The Central Edinburgh Local Plan (1997) includes the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area within a broad ‘Housing and Compatible Uses’ policy allocation, in which the primary concern of the Plan is to safeguard existing residential character and amenities. Consequently, effect on residential amenity will be the determining consideration for all development proposals, including changes of use.

The Local Plan contains relevant policy advice on a range of matters. In relation to proposals within the conservation area, for example, development will only be allowed where all features that contribute to the special character and appearance of the area are retained. Development proposals in the conservation area are required to take into account the area’s special interest and how its character and appearance may be preserved or enhanced.

There are a significant number of listed buildings within the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area, and the Local Plan includes policies which seek to ensure that proposals affecting listed buildings are considered for their effect on their character, including their setting. An important consideration is that alterations, extensions or changes of use should not diminish the architectural integrity of the buildings.

Supplementary Guidelines

The Council also produces supplementary planning guidance on a range of development control issues. These are contained within the Development Quality Handbook.

36 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

Implications of Conservation Area Status

Designation as a conservation area has the following implications:

• Permitted development rights under the General Development Order are restricted. Planning permission is, therefore, required for stonecleaning, external painting, roof alterations and the formation of hard surfaces. The area of extensions to dwelling houses which may be erected without consent is also restricted to 16m2 and there are additional control over satellite dishes.

• Under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, the planning authority can seek approval of the Scottish Executive for Directions that restrict permitte development rights. The Directions effectively control the proliferation of relatively minor alterations to buildings in conservation areas that can cumulatively lead to erosion of character and appearance. Development is not precluded, but such alterations will require planning permission and special attention will be paid to the potential effect of proposals. The origi nal Marchmont & Meadows Conservation Area is covered by the full range of Article 4 Directions. Class 1 enlargement, improvement or other alteration to a dwelling house.

Class 3 provision or alteration of buildings or enclosures within the curtilage of a dwelling house.

Class 6 installation, alteration or replacement of a satellite dish.

Class 7 construction or alteration of gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure.

Class 38 water undertakings.

Class 39 development by public gas supplier.

Class 40 development by electricity statutory undertaker.

37 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

• 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.

• Buildings which are not statutorily listed can normally be demolished without approval under the Planning Regulations. Within conservation areas the demolition of unlisted buildings requires conservation area consent.

• Alterations to windows are controlled in terms of the Council’s policy.

• Trees within conservation areas area covered by the Town and Country (Scotland) Act 1972, as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The Act applies to the uprooting, felling or lopping of a tree 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 weeks notice of the intention to uproot, fell or lop trees. Failure to give notice render the person liable to the same penalties as for contravention of a TPO.

• Grants may be available towards the repair or restoration of historic building The Council runs a conservation grant scheme. Such grants are normally dependent on comprehensive repair and restoration of original features and priority is given to tenemental housing and prominent buildings.

38 Marchmont Meadows & Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal

REFERENCES

Edinburgh’s Green Heritage, Ian Nimmo for the Recreation Department of the City of Edinburgh Council, 1996. Marchmont in Edinburgh, Malcolm Cant, John Donald Publishers, 1984. By Three Great Roads, Drew Watson (Ed.), Aberdeen University Press, 1988. Buildings of Scotland; Edinburgh, Gifford, McWilliam, Walker; Penguin; 1991. Old Tollcross, Southside and Swanston, Cant, M., Stenlake Publishing, 2001. Historic South Edinburgh, Volume 1, Smith, C.,

39 Back to Part 1

You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats if you ask us. Please contact ITS on 0131 242 8181 and quote reference number 071107. ITS can also give information on community language translations. You can get more copies of this document by calling City Development enquiries on 0131 529 3900.

Andrew M Holmes Director of City Development The City of Edinburgh Council Waverley Court Edinburgh EH8 8BG

Produced by the City Development Department: Planning & Strategy

ISBN 1 85191 082 4